Even as I wrote it, the first item in last week’s little list of process change patterns stood out like a sore thumb, crying out for further elaboration:

1. Replace “fire-and-forget” with something robust (e.g handover, trackers, visualisation)

Fire-and-forget refers to habits of one-way communication as a way of progressing work, for example:

• Processes that allow work to be sent to absent staff without anyone noticing (I see this a lot)
• Documented processes that end in “Send an email” (not unusual either, especially when descriptions are role-centric rather than workflow-centric)
• The tendency to consider “done” to mean things like code committed, document sent, order placed, edict announced

Here then are eight ways to address this problem:

1. Confirmation

Here the sender expects, requests, or chases for some assurance that the work product has been received, perhaps even understood.

Pro: Simplicity
Con: Places a burden on the receiving party to respond to something that might have been unsolicited. Chasing adds a cost to the sender that grows with the number of confirmations outstanding.

2. “Proper” handover

Less send & confirm, more explanation & conversation.

Pro: Appeal to professionalism
Con: “Proper” is very much in the eye of the beholder.

I can’t resist my favourite George Bernard Shaw quote here:

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.

Substitute “communication” with “handover” for additional emphasis!

3. Collaboration

Instead of handover being an activity in its own right, make the transfer of knowledge and responsibility flow naturally out of the work itself.

Pro: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts (think of your favourite creative collaboration here, not just the sharing of a task)
Con: How to scale?

Collaboration is of course a huge topic in its own right, foundational both to Agile (“Customer collaboration over contract negotiation”) and to Kanban (“Improve collaboratively, evolve experimentally”). It can take time for collaborative approaches to take hold, but don’t be afraid to try it in limited ways.

4. Self-organising cross-functional teams

This is collaboration at scale: teams assembled with the full range of capabilities required to meet the customer’s needs, empowered to adapt in accordance with the challenges they face. We seek to address fire-and-forget by eliminating the organisational boundaries that hinder the flow of work or information in the direction of the customer.

Pro: Super-effective when it works
Con: Not a quick fix. The wider organisation may not support the creation of cross-functional teams; it may even actively resist the idea. Paradoxically perhaps, self-organisation needs the right constraints (boundaries, policies etc) and leadership if it is to function effectively; these need nurturing.

5. Tracking

Together with any/all of the above, implement some basic infrastructure that ensures that work does not fall between the cracks.

Pro: Adds a measure of confidence and resilience, reduces the dependency on what’s in people’s heads
Con: The natural tendency for tracking systems to serve their administrators better than they do the team. Potentially therefore the thin end of a bureaucratic wedge.

6. Validation

This means systematically tracking work right through to its productive use/effect in the field, looking for evidence that the work has resulted in the benefits originally hoped for. Validation makes it very difficult to lose work mid-process, even when end-to-end it spans multiple teams. Sometimes it’s the customer that forgets!

Pro: Its effect on quality; gateway to Validated Learning (Lean Startup)
Con: Constrained by time-to-market, inhibitions

7. Visual management

Tracking made so visible and accessible that it is an integral part of the team’s working environment.

Pro: Tracking without the shortfalls; very low overhead if implemented well
Con: Potentially messy. What to do with sensitive information (a consideration even if non-messy electronic systems are used)?

8. Kanban systems

Visual management of work items through their various states, applying designed-in constraints on work-in-progress (WIP).

Pro: Improved flow, a readily-modified expression of process, a natural focus for self-organised improvement; gateway to Kanban (the evolutionary change method), Lean
Con: See “7. Visual Management” above

Commentary

Space does not permit me to include examples – I’d have a book chapter on my hands were I to do so! I’ve seen each of these approaches first-hand multiple times and I expect you’ve encountered most of them too.

There’s some natural ordering here but I don’t wish to give the impression that the simpler/weaker ones are never the appropriate option. Indeed, even fire-and-forget can be the right choice given the right context. That said, in my home territory of software development, the combination of validation and Kanban operated by a self-organising cross-functional team has proved very effective, bringing about change not just to the software development process but to customer behaviour too.  Powerful stuff.

If I missed anything (here or in my catalogue), do let me know.