3 ms·

This is not unusual. Something like ISO9001 Quality Management is literally a checklist of pleasant aspirations which leaves companies to define the details for

This is not unusual. Something like ISO9001 Quality Management is literally a checklist of pleasant aspirations which leaves companies to define the details for themselves. So as long as you define what "leadership" or "customer satisfaction" (and the rest) mean to you, and you have a vaguely plausible but not necessarily effective process that ticks each of the boxes, you have a quality management process. And you can apply for - and will probably get - formal quality management certification. In reality you can have zero actual leadership or customer satisfaction. But you have a process - so OK.

vidarh 5y ago
One of my jobs a long time ago was to update the quality management process of a relatively large company. I wasn't responsible for the actual text changes, but properly integrating them. It was the first time I'd read ISO 9001 documentation end to end, and it was eye opening. Total bullshit. It ensured there was a paper trail documenting the total bullshit, of course, but it nevertheless was total bullshit that said a lot about describing what was done, but nothing about ensuring it actually worked as it should. This same place had locked doors to the interior stairwell so consultants like me could not even get into areas we were not assigned to because of work done for clients like the police, but had confidential documents about police infrastructure sitting unprotected on the machine I was assigned. To me that was a good indication they ran everything including security how they handled quality management: it was just a box ticking exercise. Document things and track deviations rather than care about actually getting things right.
tempodox 5y ago
My shorthand for that is “Bureaucracy allows us to ignore reality”. If we ignore reality enough, bureaucracy / following a process will give us predictability and control, and will shield us from unwelcome challenges. Reality, otoh, is unpredictable and merciless in confronting us with challenges. The more mandatory we can make that process, the more “following process” becomes the sole criterion for “doing it right”, the more we'll be able to insulate ourselves from bothering with the whims of reality. It seems clear to me that this dynamic has the structure of a perverse incentive, even more so when you have considerable influence over the rules of that process. This isn't to say that we should just do away with all process. There are good, even life-saving reasons why processes exist, but a process alone is no cure-all, and an overdose will paralyze us.
- aakresearch 5y ago
  So unbelievably well said, I've got chills. Exactly the thoughts I've been harboring for the last decade or so. Just my 2c to add: - Abstractions/models tend to completely replace reality. We, software engineers, are very prone to that sort of thinking. Another prominent category are accountants: leaders drive their businesses only looking at the "map" of accounts; governments do the same with their constituents. - "Paralyze" is exactly the right term. Excessive bureaucracy actively discourages any creative action, for the sake of illusion-of-control. Cannot upvote this post high enough, you made my day. Maybe humanity is not completely hopeless yet.

vidarh 5y ago

One of my jobs a long time ago was to update the quality management process of a relatively large company. I wasn't responsible for the actual text changes, but properly integrating them. It was the first time I'd read ISO 9001 documentation end to end, and it was eye opening. Total bullshit. It ensured there was a paper trail documenting the total bullshit, of course, but it nevertheless was total bullshit that said a lot about describing what was done, but nothing about ensuring it actually worked as it should. This same place had locked doors to the interior stairwell so consultants like me could not even get into areas we were not assigned to because of work done for clients like the police, but had confidential documents about police infrastructure sitting unprotected on the machine I was assigned. To me that was a good indication they ran everything including security how they handled quality management: it was just a box ticking exercise. Document things and track deviations rather than care about actually getting things right.

tempodox 5y ago

My shorthand for that is “Bureaucracy allows us to ignore reality”. If we ignore reality enough, bureaucracy / following a process will give us predictability and control, and will shield us from unwelcome challenges. Reality, otoh, is unpredictable and merciless in confronting us with challenges. The more mandatory we can make that process, the more “following process” becomes the sole criterion for “doing it right”, the more we'll be able to insulate ourselves from bothering with the whims of reality. It seems clear to me that this dynamic has the structure of a perverse incentive, even more so when you have considerable influence over the rules of that process. This isn't to say that we should just do away with all process. There are good, even life-saving reasons why processes exist, but a process alone is no cure-all, and an overdose will paralyze us.

aakresearch 5y ago
So unbelievably well said, I've got chills. Exactly the thoughts I've been harboring for the last decade or so. Just my 2c to add: - Abstractions/models tend to completely replace reality. We, software engineers, are very prone to that sort of thinking. Another prominent category are accountants: leaders drive their businesses only looking at the "map" of accounts; governments do the same with their constituents. - "Paralyze" is exactly the right term. Excessive bureaucracy actively discourages any creative action, for the sake of illusion-of-control. Cannot upvote this post high enough, you made my day. Maybe humanity is not completely hopeless yet.