Sabem como sou um adepto da abordagem por processos. No entanto, reconheço que existe o perigo que se descreve a seguir:
"From business processes to workgroup practices. Most large companies today formally organize around processes; ... Indeed, workers—and entire organizations—get so caught up in “doing the process right” that they lose sight of the outcomes. And processes are increasingly inadequate to drive significant performance improvement. [Moi ici: Cuidado com o contexto desta afirmação anterior. Em que sector está a sua empresa? Em que fase está?] The value of further optimizing processes to deliver products and services seems to be rapidly diminishing. What can be standardized likely will be, and those processes will likely be automated, but where will the next level of performance come from? Focusing on process efficiency and eliminating variance may not help companies gain a competitive advantage. [Moi ici: Ler esta frase e recordar o fim da Redsigma] More importantly, in this environment, most processes can’t keep up with addressing the new challenges and opportunities served up by the Big Shift world—nor can process optimization likely help companies figure out how to create more value for their customers.[Moi ici:Apesar de todo o valor que atribuo à abordagem por processos percebo que existe este perigo. Infelizmente em Portugal o risco maior é o de não haver práticas sistematizadas de raiz]
Not only can routine processes be an avenue of diminishing returns—they can actually be barriers to performance improvement. Trying to update and optimize processes to conform with the ever-changing reality, and ensure compliance to those processes, is typically time- and resource-consuming. Continuing to optimize processes can divert the organization from investing in the capabilities to make sense of the changing reality and learning how to better create and capture value for it. Machines are increasingly able to perform the tightly specified, highly standardized tasks that support scalable efficiency more predictably and reliably than humans. As a result, many companies have invested in automating processes—removing people wherever possible—rather than exploring how these tools might better reflect and amplify the business practices of the people who could be deployed to create more value for the business.
the temptation for most large organizations is to focus on controlling what they can. Consider the example of 3M, where, in the early 2000s, a new CEO decided to “optimize” R&D by systematically stripping away inefficiencies. [Moi ici: Recordar a estória da caneta] Controls were brought to bear on R&D: Processes were formalized, with forms developed to ensure engineers innovated efficiently and tighten compliance; 3M’s operating margins quickly improved and Wall Street rewarded it. But the company soon found that R&D wasn’t creating new sources of value as effectively as it once had, and not until a new CEO came in to unwind those efforts was 3M able to turn things around, in 2012.
Trecho retirado de "Beyond process How to get better, faster as “exceptions” become the rule"