Overhead too high, could mean processes are too variable

Chuck Moyer

Compliance is receiving a lot of attention these days. Regulations like Sarbanes / Oxley and internal process modeling and optimization all force organizations to continually prove that rules and processes are being followed.

While automation is stepping up to handle some of these increasing monitoring and reporting challenges, many organization are adding checkers and reviewers as oversight or specific stop steps in process flows. While any complex process is subject to variables outside of the realms of reasonable control, if those influences are inside your organization, is your process really under control?

Why does a process need someone to check that the process was followed? Many companies just need to eliminate the existence of alternatives – if there is only one way something is done in the organization and only one way it can be done, what is left to monitor? Determination of wear and tear or general quality of results are appropriate monitoring points but those of traditional compliance seem inefficient for the process results and detract from and accountability.

I have seen many companies and organization generate reams of paper reports touted as the way to manage the process. These supposed indicators are so voluminous in detail and context that no one could have time to read through the entirety, aggregate an assessment, and formulate a reasonable reaction. In addition the inherent nature of the printed report belies the static nature of its information by its permanency

Eliminate the variability in the process and you can eliminate the non-value-add monitoring People do not have to check for things that are not possible and do not exist. This will allow you to put people and equipment to doing and producing, not reading and checking.