3 ms·
Fundamentally I do think "operational rigour" is separable from "being a nice place for humans to work". But I don't think any discussion on this kind of thing
by xyzzy123 4y ago
Fundamentally I do think "operational rigour" is separable from "being a nice place for humans to work".
But I don't think any discussion on this kind of thing is complete without understanding the power relationships involved.
In particular, who sets targets and what role do workers have in that process?
It's not "operational rigour" that e.g forces drivers to piss in bottles on their routes.
It's a power imbalance between the people who must meet targets and the people who set the targets.
- atoav 4y agoExactly. I have worked on highly efficient work sites where everything and everybody was working like a well oiled machine with enough brakes so everybody could do their best job and short enough hours it could be done ad infinitum. And then I have seen places where unsuprising basic human necessities like "a person has to pee" or "someone is sick" endanger the whole operation. Sorry but either you want your process to be resilient and reliable OR you want a pile of burning garbage held together by duct tape that is constantly on the edge of collapse for the price of some miniscule savings that are gone when one such collapse happens.
- drewcoo 4y agoI think maybe you're misunderstanding Deming. Consider his claim about operational rigor in the context of these guiding principles: https://www.mindtools.com/azyjjsx/demings-14-point-philosophy https://www.mindtools.com/azyjjsx/demings-14-point-philosoph...