When it is important that something be done “right” - whether done frequently or infrequently - having a defined checklist or step by step process is a reliable way to improve repeatability and “rightness”.
Both pilots and surgical teams use checklists because lives literally depend on it. Astronauts uses established procedures to ensure the right sequence is followed for everything.
So why don’t most teams at work? It’s often because we are “too busy” or it’s “too hard” or “variable” to define these things, despite the fact that they help onboard new staff, ensure repeatability and consistency and often get better results.
Things don’t need to be overly prescriptive (identifying the “what” works if the “how” is too variable), but staff always need to know the “why”. The why allows them to develop and exercise judgement when the manual goes out the window because it does not apply to this problem.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@Copeland309 Model I used that broke org decisions into 4 related concepts: 1) “Can we” (e.g. technologically solve the problem, engineer a solution, implement the idea, etc). 2) “May we” (i.e. do we have the legal authority; policy limits can be challenged here) 1/2
@Copeland309 3) “Should we” (looks at considerations like links to outcomes, GBA+, ethics, finance, FPT/foreign relations, etc). 4) “Will we” (this is where the actual decision is made to “go”/“no go” on an option that has a “yes” to the first two criteria and weighing cat 3 considerations).
@Copeland309 3/4
…so “can’t” in my mind means there is no one smart enough to solve the technical/implementation problem. What most people mean is either “we may not” (ie, it is not permissible) or “we will not” (ie, active decision to terminate an option that is legal and doable).