Que resultados para a inovação (parte III)

Há dias reflectia neste espaço sobre a “Intuição vs Procedimentação” onde, com base nas palavras de Gary Klein:
.
“Many organizations attempt to take refuge in procedures. This happens when supervisors play it safe and reduce the task to procedures even if those procedures don’t really capture all of the nuances and tricks of the trade. Turning a job into a set of procedures makes it easier for new workers to carry out their responsibilities, and it also supports accountability by letting managers more easily verify if the procedures were followed.
.
Unfortunately, this practice can make it even harder to build up intuitions if the procedures eliminate the need for judgment calls. Clearly, we need procedures to help us react quickly to emergencies, or to orient new workers. Once a set of procedures is in place, however, supervisors may not bother teaching the skills workers need to understand or modify the procedures.This is how the expertise that makes a company great gets lost. There is a strong tendency in our culture to proceduralize almost everything, to reduce all types of work to a series of steps. But you cannot reduce intuition to a procedure.
.
Organizations may try to reduce decisions and judgments to procedures by defining metrics (i.e., measurable objectives). Metrics are often seen as a way to replace intuitions. They can be useful as a corrective to relying too heavily on impressions, but if managers try to make decisions based on numbers alone they run the risk of eroding their intuitions.”
.
Aquela última frase “but if managers try to make decisions based on numbers alone they run the risk of eroding their intuitions“ está em linha com o artigo de Julho-Agosto da Harvard Business Review “Restoring Competitiveness” de Gary Pisano e Willy Shih.
.
“Recognize the limits of financial tools.
Most companies are wedded to highly analytical methods for evaluating investment opportunities. Still, it remains enormously hard to assess long-term R&D programs with quantitative techniques—even sophisticated ones like real-options valuation and Monte Carlo simulations. Usually, the data, or even reasonable estimates, are simply not available. Nonetheless, all too often these tools become the ultimate arbiter of what gets funded and what does not. So short-term projects with more predictable outcomes beat out the long-term investments needed to replenish technical and operating capabilities. Managers would serve their companies more wisely by recognizing that informed judgment is a better guide to making such decisions than an analytical model loaded with arbitrary assumptions. There is no way to take the guesswork out of the process.”
.
Pois bem, através do blogue de Don Sull onde se pode ler isto:
.
“Rely exclusively on process to execute. Many managers equate execution with standardized processes. They re-engineer key procedures and employ process disciplines, including six sigma, or total quality management to ensure continuous improvement. These approaches work well for activities–such as processing transactions or manufacturing cars–that can be laid out in advance and repeated thousands or millions of times per year with minimal variation. Process tools work less well for activities that consume much of the typical knowledge workers time, including coordinatinating work across a matrix or generating innovative solutions to unique problems.”
.
Descobri este artigo “TQM, ISO 9000, Six Sigma: Do Process Management Programs Discourage Innovation?” onde se pode ler:
.
“Yet Wharton management professor Mary J. Benner says now may be the time to reassess the corporate utility of process management programs and apply them with more discrimination. In research done with Harvard Business School professor Michael Tushman, she has found that process management can drag organizations down and dampen innovation. "In the appropriate setting, process management activities can help companies improve efficiency, but the risk is that you misapply these programs, in particular in areas where people are supposed to be innovative," notes Benner. "Brand new technologies to produce products that don't exist are difficult to measure. This kind of innovation may be crowded out when you focus too much on processes you can measure."”
.
Antes de continuar a leitura recomendo um postal que escrevi em Junho de 2007 “Não culpem a caneta quando a culpa é de quem escreve!“ de onde retiro o seguinte trecho:
.
“Como procuro demonstrar aqui, num mercado muito competitivo, é muito difícil conciliar na mesma organização, duas posturas mentais distintas. Não se pode impunemente, à segunda, terça e quarta apostar na eficiência, para depois, à quinta, sexta e sábado apostar na "boutique" das pequenas séries, no "atelier" das novidades. O 6 Sigma é uma ferramenta talhada para apoiar os negócios na redução dos custos, eficiência, não é uma ferramenta dedicada à eficácia, à criação do UAUUUUU, associado à inovação, à diferenciação.”
.
Neste postal Como descobri que não é suficiente optimizar os processos-chave. (3/3) refiro algo a que costumo chamar a atenção nas acções de formação, os processos que constituem uma organização podem ser divididos em duas categorias: os processos contexto e os processos nucleares.
.
Aos processos contexto podemos e devemos aplicar os métodos de melhoria da eficiência.
.
Aos processos nucleares, fundamentais para a execução e diferenciação estratégica, devemos preocupar-nos acima de tudo com a eficácia. As preocupações com a eficiência nestes processos corta as pernas ao potencial de explosão estratégica.
.
"Benner & Tushman (2003) warn agains explicit focus on incremental innovation which is achieved by process management orientation which results in innovation that is closesly related to existing technological or market competencies. Organizations that must meet current customer requirements and new customer demands must deal simultaneously with the inconsistent demands of exploitation and exploration. Authors suggest that appropriate answer is an ambidextrous organization which allows for both exploratory and exploitative activities to be spurred by loose and tight organizational arrangements. Benner & Tushman (2003) suggest that within processes, the tasks, culture, individuals, and organizational arrangements are consistent, but across subunits tasks and cultures are inconsistent and loosely coupled. Tight exploitation units in technologically stable settings, will benefit by reducing variability and maximizing efficiency and control by introducing process management techniques. On the other hand, n turbulent environments, for new customer segments and for radical innovation, process management activities are less conducive to organizational effectiveness. Exploratory units will succeed by experimentation, which is encouraged by introducing variety and loose control."