3 ms·
It felt to me like the argument was that gut-feeling stuff can impede collaboration. I'd argue that, in large collaborative settings, this is precisely where pr
by rocqua 10y ago
It felt to me like the argument was that gut-feeling stuff can impede collaboration. I'd argue that, in large collaborative settings, this is precisely where process is needed.
This contrasts against safety process, where you add process to defend against mistakes as opposed to enabling collaboration.
- noobiemcfoob 10y agoYou have a point. A company's "process" to me has always represented the message passing system in a multicore processor. The process is the method by which each core is updated with pertinent information (consumables or just new rules for their task). Bad process looks like a lot of overhead where everyone spends more time "communicating" than working. Ultimately, as long as you can quickly and effectively communicate the impact of a gut feeling, there is no problem, but they would seem especially hard to translate into a more formalized process for communicating thought out decisions.