Before asking about system automation, let alone system development, we need to ask what kind of work needs to be systemized or replaced with automation?
Foucault once said that ‘absence of work is madness’, however, if we listen to Victor Frankle than meaningless work as well can have its toll on the human psyche, in fact in Frankliean context one can also argue for a case of meaningful idleness. Frederick Herzberg would also agree about the meaningful work, where one’s micro contribution in the macro picture has a substantive value, like that Janitor who said proudly to US President John F. Kennedy that “I am helping put a man on the moon”, or that laborer who argued that he isn’t putting bricks to make a wall, rather building a cathedral. This is how one can see the bigger picture which gives meaning to our work. Likewise, there can be meaningless work as well, where one cannot see how his or her contribution adds to the bigger picture, like doing something only because the boss wants it to be done for some reason the boss did not explain. Or running after some performance numbers which the system thinks are important, but you know it for a fact that they aren’t.
So while arguing for a case of systemizing or even automating the work, one needs to ask, whether the work which is being systemized or automated is a meaningful activity or a meaningless activity. If it's a meaningless activity, does it need to be performed in the first place, and if yes, then would it be cost-effective to deploy a standard operating procedure for it, let alone using some software to automate it. Secondly, if the work is indeed meaningful, depending on the meaningfulness of the ultimate purpose of the business, and if the employees do find it intrinsically motivating, then does the work need to be re-engineered in a way that it is no more dependent on a particular employee or a group of employees rather is systemized, or automated? One must not proceed without answering this question.
The idea of systemization is grounded in another presumption that humans, in general, cannot be trusted or are inherently incapable of consistent performance, let alone hard work, while the nature of output requires consistent performance from human employees. Also, that to produce the products or services with consistent quality, and required quantity, the process needs to be standardized. It is true that human beings do not operate as consistently as robots, but is such a consistency even required? Can the output tolerate a human level variation? Why is an artesian culture not suitable for the design of the organization? Why is a mass-production unit needed which would continuously produce large quantities of identical products? Why cannot there be some variation in output?
These questions point toward the very objective of the business, the nature of the product or service, the value proposition committed to the customer, the nature of competition in the market, and most importantly the very theory of the firm employed while establishing a business firm. Therefore there cannot be a simple yes, and no answer to the questions raised above.
On one hand, a business may look like a family, where human variability in output is not just accepted but part of the value proposition, generally the products or services referred to ‘handmade’ have such variability, and the customers or users value it even, as each product is though identical, and unique at the same time. On the extreme of the spectrum, each product can be highly customized as well.
On the other end of the spectrum, a business may look like a machine, where each variation follows a six-sigma approach, which implies that each product is perfectly identical to the other. Take iPhones as an email, or any cell phone model. However the employees in such systems are like machine components, and only there because they are cheaper than robots, or perhaps robots are not advanced enough at the moment. It is little surprise that Foxconn factories in China, where iPhones are assembled, have suicide nets across the buildings inside their facility to prevent the workers from committing suicide[1].
So shifting away from being people-centric, to system-centric is not just an economic decision, but also a moral one, with consequences on the lives of the people working in the business. However, it is also important to facilitate the employees in their repetitive or monotonous tasks through automation for example in a way that increases the empowerment, and ownership of the employee rather than making the employee irrelevant from the process.
The book called ‘E-Myth’ by David Gerber perhaps offers the simplest way to develop a system driven business in this context, however, even in this book the significance of the employee as an integral component of the system is marginalized, and rather the employee is seen as a component of the system. Nevertheless, the guideline provided in the book ‘E-Myth’ is centered around the idea of documenting the steps of the routine processes, creating checkpoints, installing fail-safe wherever necessary, and deploying measures for accountability.
Often employees are manipulated in this context with measurable KPI, however, quantification or gamification, in particular, turns their job into a number game, while destroying their intrinsic motivation, and ownership in the job. Alternatively, the Toyota Production System may be studied in this context. Jeffery K. Liker’s book The Toyota Way outlines 14 techniques employed by Toyota to run their system of production, which can be customized, and adapted anywhere. Interestingly, the Toyota Production System does that in a way that it does not kill the motivation of the employees rather makes them the central part of the entire improvement process. Since this is a complex subject, and books are available on it, therefore, only some key consideration points are highlighted here. Readers are encouraged to go through the books mentioned above to further enlighten themselves.
Foucault once said that ‘absence of work is madness’, however, if we listen to Victor Frankle than meaningless work as well can have its toll on the human psyche, in fact in Frankliean context one can also argue for a case of meaningful idleness. Frederick Herzberg would also agree about the meaningful work, where one’s micro contribution in the macro picture has a substantive value, like that Janitor who said proudly to US President John F. Kennedy that “I am helping put a man on the moon”, or that laborer who argued that he isn’t putting bricks to make a wall, rather building a cathedral. This is how one can see the bigger picture which gives meaning to our work. Likewise, there can be meaningless work as well, where one cannot see how his or her contribution adds to the bigger picture, like doing something only because the boss wants it to be done for some reason the boss did not explain. Or running after some performance numbers which the system thinks are important, but you know it for a fact that they aren’t.
So while arguing for a case of systemizing or even automating the work, one needs to ask, whether the work which is being systemized or automated is a meaningful activity or a meaningless activity. If it's a meaningless activity, does it need to be performed in the first place, and if yes, then would it be cost-effective to deploy a standard operating procedure for it, let alone using some software to automate it. Secondly, if the work is indeed meaningful, depending on the meaningfulness of the ultimate purpose of the business, and if the employees do find it intrinsically motivating, then does the work need to be re-engineered in a way that it is no more dependent on a particular employee or a group of employees rather is systemized, or automated? One must not proceed without answering this question.
The idea of systemization is grounded in another presumption that humans, in general, cannot be trusted or are inherently incapable of consistent performance, let alone hard work, while the nature of output requires consistent performance from human employees. Also, that to produce the products or services with consistent quality, and required quantity, the process needs to be standardized. It is true that human beings do not operate as consistently as robots, but is such a consistency even required? Can the output tolerate a human level variation? Why is an artesian culture not suitable for the design of the organization? Why is a mass-production unit needed which would continuously produce large quantities of identical products? Why cannot there be some variation in output?
These questions point toward the very objective of the business, the nature of the product or service, the value proposition committed to the customer, the nature of competition in the market, and most importantly the very theory of the firm employed while establishing a business firm. Therefore there cannot be a simple yes, and no answer to the questions raised above.
On one hand, a business may look like a family, where human variability in output is not just accepted but part of the value proposition, generally the products or services referred to ‘handmade’ have such variability, and the customers or users value it even, as each product is though identical, and unique at the same time. On the extreme of the spectrum, each product can be highly customized as well.
On the other end of the spectrum, a business may look like a machine, where each variation follows a six-sigma approach, which implies that each product is perfectly identical to the other. Take iPhones as an email, or any cell phone model. However the employees in such systems are like machine components, and only there because they are cheaper than robots, or perhaps robots are not advanced enough at the moment. It is little surprise that Foxconn factories in China, where iPhones are assembled, have suicide nets across the buildings inside their facility to prevent the workers from committing suicide[1].
So shifting away from being people-centric, to system-centric is not just an economic decision, but also a moral one, with consequences on the lives of the people working in the business. However, it is also important to facilitate the employees in their repetitive or monotonous tasks through automation for example in a way that increases the empowerment, and ownership of the employee rather than making the employee irrelevant from the process.
The book called ‘E-Myth’ by David Gerber perhaps offers the simplest way to develop a system driven business in this context, however, even in this book the significance of the employee as an integral component of the system is marginalized, and rather the employee is seen as a component of the system. Nevertheless, the guideline provided in the book ‘E-Myth’ is centered around the idea of documenting the steps of the routine processes, creating checkpoints, installing fail-safe wherever necessary, and deploying measures for accountability.
Often employees are manipulated in this context with measurable KPI, however, quantification or gamification, in particular, turns their job into a number game, while destroying their intrinsic motivation, and ownership in the job. Alternatively, the Toyota Production System may be studied in this context. Jeffery K. Liker’s book The Toyota Way outlines 14 techniques employed by Toyota to run their system of production, which can be customized, and adapted anywhere. Interestingly, the Toyota Production System does that in a way that it does not kill the motivation of the employees rather makes them the central part of the entire improvement process. Since this is a complex subject, and books are available on it, therefore, only some key consideration points are highlighted here. Readers are encouraged to go through the books mentioned above to further enlighten themselves.
[1] See this for details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
No comments:
Post a Comment