At my job we're presented with a unique opportunity. We have existing products with revenue and partnerships and work systems that are either broken or never existed. We are fixing all of these issues.
We are in the process of forming our own guidelines and question every assumption about the business. Interestingly the team is divided into two camps, one that prefers process/requirements (not me) and one that wants no process (me).
Nearly all lunches we debate the merits of both philosophies. On one hand strict process ensures repeatable actions where vision is clearly defined while lack of process allows for flexibility, adaptability and a little built in confusion.
I argue for less process. I feel that too much process hinders creativity, problem-solving and forces us to focus too much on the process itself rather than tasks at hand. Process and rules feel like a form distrust. Every thought, idea, moment of discovery get bogged down in proceeses.
The case for process is clear you get what you write down and the.comittee agrees to. Process frees everyone from responsibility. You can always say "it wasn't part of the process/requirements so we didn't do it". Appreciative if the hard work of thinking everything through, I understand the desire for process. It FEELS like the right.thing to do. It FEELS like you have.control of outcomes. But is it? Do people like working within rigid frame works? I know I don't
We admire rule breakers, outlaws and trouble makers. We hold up those who think differently and challenge but we expect people to work within a process?
Does that make sense?
Originally appeared http://laurent-courtines.com/rules-should-not-always-be-applied from http://laurent-courtines.com
