| |
| |
| |
| Overview |
|
A typical deliverable of our business process design consulting practice is a map of processes that an enterprise would endeavor to adopt, in an attempt to create better products using fewer resources, thus improving cash flow and profitability. One of the parameters of the processes that we annotate is the level that the process operates at. It just so happens that this level is typically associated with the level of the person assigned to handle process, as well as attributes such as strategic vs. tactical, direct vs. indirect, and the like. We found this correlation interesting enough that we decided to investigate whether there was natural law driving this correlation. Since we performed research to arrive at our categorization methodology, we revisited the research and found that in actuality, there was a natural law driving this correlation. That is what this article describing leadership and management will discuss in detail. |
| |
| |
| |
| Analysis |
|
One of the unexpected outcomes from the research we did for our Business Process Design Appraisal (BPDA) article was to identify the factors that separate leadership from management. The main purpose for the BPDA article was to categorize the different business design processes, to see if one would be better than another, using cause-and-effect relationships. This dependency upon the laws of physics, as well as General Systems Theory and Operations Research, was a requirement, in order to put our research above reproach from "management du jour" and business press influences. The resulting research provided knowledge beyond the ability to categorize business processes, including the material allowing us to describe leadership and management in unemotional terms. We did not set out to find out what leadership is when we initiated the BPDA research. |
| |
| |
|
The dialogue that follows relies heavily upon system theory. Some of system theory basics are covered in our Open and Closed Systems article, and in greater detail in the previously mentioned BPDA article. Machines are assembled from components into units that produce desired outputs for a given set of inputs. A group of machines can be grouped logically, and maybe even aligned physically, so that the output of one machine is fed into the next. Such a grouping would be considered a work or production center. The same applies for a service operation, where a piece of paper can be passed from one employee to the next. Such a grouping could be considered a process. The facility that houses many work centers could be a factory, or one that houses many paper pushers could be an administrative center. It should be obvious the reader that this scenario can be extrapolated for many iterations. This relationship is another example of a level of granularity (one of our favorite qualities that we like to work with). This level of granularity is what the article will be focusing upon, as it is the driver for leadership and management. |
| |
| |
|
An illustration is provided below, in case you are not familiar with the term "level of granularity". The most familiar example would be that of a time-based situation, since everyone has had an experience with time. The below figure shows how one considers different categories of data taken at different intervals of time. |
| |
| |
|
 |
| |
| |
|
Example Applying the "Levels of Granularity" |
| |
| |
|
See how we snuck in the old factory floor data pyramid model? Anyway, by looking over the figure one can see how data is processed in near real-time at the bottom, in time intervals of less than a second. As one works their way to the top of the pyramid, the information being processed is covering ever-larger time intervals, to the point where one would be printing annual accounting reports for an entire business organization. When one considers the ramifications of working with a parameter that can be worked with at different intervals (such as time), that concept is called "levels of granularity". This concept is useful when one has to consider the impact of summarizing, rolling-up, and aggregating. Just so happens the analysis for leadership and management will rely heavily upon this analysis tool. |
| |
| |
|
The BPDA article revealed that processes are measured using either primary or secondary parameters. It also pointed out that processes must satisfy multiple sets of criteria simultaneously. This article will expound upon these concepts, so one can relate control of processes to management and leadership. A business process is made up of one or more tasks, which themselves are systems. Each system consumes inputs and generates a desired outcome through a transformation. By tweaking the systems and controlling the inputs, one can modify the output, usually by meeting one or more states of constraints. For this analysis, we are focusing on those sets of constraints, and the fact that there is more than one set "watching" the system output. |
| |
| |
|
The primary parameters are those that are directly involved in the transformation, in order to create an outcome. The secondary parameters are those that fine-tune the outcome. The primary parameters will supply a system the wherewithal to realize an idea at some sort of recognizable existence. It might be that this basic outcome is not exactly what the process designer had in mind. So the system is tweaked using the secondary parameters, in order to create a desired outcome. |
| |
| |
|
The fact that a differentiation can be made between primary and secondary parameters points out that some parameters are "more important than others". The secondary parameters will create an outcome with a wide range of output. One might recognize that the secondary parameters will be responsible for the range of quality that a system can produce. No quality will result from a system operating solely on primary parameters, and high quality will be present in a system with many secondary parameters applied. |
| |
| |
|
The primary parameters are solely consigned to bring about the outcome, the basic output of the system. There is only one set of primary parameters. Modifying a primary parameter will result in the outcome no longer being the idea of the designer, not recognizable as a desired product. On the other hand, secondary parameters can be modified at whim, with the resulting outcome still recognizable as the aspired product. It may not be exactly what was desired, but it can be categorized as the product. As such, multiple sets of secondary parameters can exist. It is these multiple sets of secondary parameters that management and leadership are controlling. |
| |
| |
|
In our process design analyses we like to assign the term "level" to a given set of criteria that the system must satisfy. A mapping operation will identify which parameters will affect which set of criteria, or level. We also make the claim that generally, one can claim that a level will then be associated with a set of secondary parameters. The multiple levels will all derive from the secondary parameters. Identifying the parameters and determining how they react with the systems and processes is what process designers do. Good practitioners can make good mapping choices. We call this a practice, as there are currently no steadfast rules one can use to perform the mapping. |
| |
| |
| Parameter Categorization |
|
Having said a lot about parameters, it is time to provide an example. Say a firm manufactures bolts. A process to manufacture bolts will require a bolt making machine, steel (assuming we are making steel bolts), power and time. This is a list of the primary parameters. Note that we already threw in a secondary parameter as a parenthesized note. In actually, that primary parameter is raw material, not steel. One can now begin to understand that categorization of parameters may not be trivial, as assumptions from everyday life will enter into the picture. |
| |
| |
|
So we stumbled on the first secondary parameter to the process of making a bolt. What kind of bolt do we need to make? The first hint was that it is steel. What about size or diameter? Is it threaded (let us not make any assumptions)? If it is threaded, what is the thread pitch? What shape is the head of the bolt? The answer to these questions will all be secondary parameters. The result for applying the primary parameters was to produce a bolt. It might not be what you want, and may not even be useful, but it was still a bolt. It is important not to take anything for granted when process design is undertaken. |
| |
| |
|
The first set of secondary parameters described above will allow one to produce a bolt that will satisfy some party, most likely the customer that wishes to purchase the bolt(s). The next set of secondary parameters could be the one that is related to how closely the bolt was manufactured to the customer's liking. Was the diameter really the desired diameter? Was it really steel? This second set of secondary parameters is related to the quality of the product being manufactured. |
| |
| |
|
Another set of parameters is related to the cost of making the bolt. Was the supplier a quality manufacturer and you do not have to do any pre-checking of the raw materials? Do you have to make your own raw material to keep costs down? Is there a concern about when the raw material will be made available for your bolt-making machine to start operating? Actually, this third set of secondary parameters is a mix of cost and supply chain concerns. |
| |
| |
|
The final set of secondary parameters that will be covered in this example is related to the desire and ability of making bolts. Why are you making bolts in the first place? Do you have the wherewithal to make bolts? Do you still want to make bolts? Can the bolts be purchased from a third party, or even the manufacturing outsourced? Maybe you would like to make brew beer instead? This fourth set of secondary parameters is related to the strategic concerns of the enterprise. |
| |
| |
|
Note that the sequence and grouping of secondary parameters is valid for this one example only. Your situation may, and probably will, vary. As was demonstrated in the third set of parameters, one can mix the secondary parameters from various topics. In addition, this list of secondary parameters is not conclusive. Here one will get into the diminishing returns quandary that a reductionist methodology as a rule brings to the table. |
| |
| |
|
One will also note that it is possible to sub-group and roll up the secondary parameters. The quality parameters could be part of the supply chain parameters. Or perhaps there were marketing related secondary parameters, so the quality parameters would be included in that group. The secondary parameters can be further rolled up to those handling production planning and scheduling. Sounds like the levels of granularity will come into play here, where one could map groups of secondary parameters to levels that will be aggregated. |
| |
| |
| The Difference |
|
So now we know that systems are driving by primary and secondary parameters, and that secondary parameters come in all sorts of topics. What was missing in this discussion of parameters, especially for the secondary parameters, was the driver of the parameter selection. Where does the criteria come from? Just so happens that this is where management finally comes into the discussion. The various sets of secondary parameters are directly related to the type of management required, and where one can differentiate management from leadership. |
| |
| |
|
Our premise is that every company, through the course of business process design, ends up developing secondary parameters, developing criteria to operate the processes against, and then maps them against each other. This process design activity is a management task. The level at which this management task is executed determines whether one is managing or leading. Recall earlier that we like to associate a level to a given set of criteria that the system must satisfy. So it will follow that the level of granularity will be associated with a set of criteria that needs to be met. The management of that process level is determined by the criteria that needs to be developed and met. |
| |
| |
|
To illustrate this concept, consider what management is required for the following levels of bolt making operation, based upon the example given earlier: |
| |
| |
|
The first set of secondary parameters called for a steel bolt to be made with a hex head. To make this happen would require a machine operator or possibly some sort of automation, or a combination of the two. |
| |
| |
|
The secondary set of secondary parameters called for the bolts to be 13 mm diameter, with a tolerance of +/- 0.01 mm. This could happen if the machine were maintained properly and that an inspector or operator verified the machine was capable of operating within such a constraint. |
| |
| |
|
The third set of secondary parameters called for the bolts to be made in lots of 10,000, or one hour, whichever came first. A production control person would calculate this detail and pass it onto the shop floor, in person, through a foreman, or through an automated production system. |
| |
| |
|
The fourth set of secondary parameters called for the bolts to be made in-house. It also called for the maintenance department to insure that the bolt making machines were operating at their expected tolerances. A plant manager would the type of person would insure the plant was running at peak efficiency, while the chief operating officer and possibly the chief financial officer would consider where the bolts were manufactured in the first place. |
| |
| |
|
The examples provided above purposefully show a steady increase in the level of process control, corresponding to an increasing set of skills in the people managing their sets of criteria. So, as the process level of granularity increases, the management regime is increasing from that of care-taking to managing to strategist to leading. The ability for a person to perform a process design task successfully, and at what level, will determine whether the person is managing or leading. |
| |
| |
|
In summary, every process is manipulated through multiple sets of secondary parameters. These secondary parameters are typically cultivated from sets of criteria that the process must comply with. These secondary parameters can be modeled on a "levels of granularity" scheme. There seems to be a correlation between these levels of granularity and the level of supervision that the process is experiencing. The correlation is that low levels of granularity are associated with care taking, and increasing granularity level requires higher management skills, with the highest level of granularity requiring leadership. |
| |
| |
| Leadership Characteristics |
|
So far this article has explained what leadership is without evoking any emotional terms. That is because there is a basis in the non-emotional General Systems Theory for it. However, it was alluded many times over in the above analysis that people are involved in process design, to develop the secondary parameters and sets of criteria that processes must satisfy. This part of the article will explain the characteristics that leaders would have, mapping them to the results of the analysis above. This should explain what a leader is and avoid the "management du jour" suspicion. This attempt will boldly be done in a "PC"-friendly manner. Since leadership is derived from system and process design technologies, it can be learned. There is nothing innate about leadership, however, every person has their own capabilities and resource pool that they are able to draw upon, which needs to be considered. |
| |
| |
|
A question asked in organizational behavior classes is, "What is a leader?". The following is a list of common replies, which are characteristics or traits that the concept of leadership typically evokes. |
| |
Legal