Standardization of HR knowledge

S

selena15

Hi all
I have a question

Now the trend is that the company and big organization tempt to standarize all its process and their employees knowledge. to be more clear, they ask their employees to document in the thin details the whole process, to describ them in workflow, diagram, procedure...etc.
and that; and this is encouraging the laziness of brain to challenge; to search to improve and go ahead ?

additional to this, they concentrate all the relevant tasks in one area or country while all the others BU worldwide are requested just to provide datas , scanned document as evidence and the whole analysis are concentrate in one area.?

The question is :
How the R&D can progress and encourage to HR to progress and improve the work??
Maybe it can be a solution to share knowledge within staff but for how much time?
More, What is the gain to make standarization of all works when it is dedicated to change and progress?
you can say that in case of progress of method of work or any progress, we can just make sure to review our standarization but is that ensure the R&D and progress in general

Selena
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
I am not sure I fully understand the question, but I will try to respond adequately.

My understanding of recording processes is to avoid relying on tribal knowledge, which can constrain performance when one of the tribe is suddenly taken out. Processes should be recorded so there is no argument or confusion of what's needed. That said, it is entirely possible to overcomplicate process documents. I would expect procedures to be complex for operating a nuclear facility, much less so for a small landscaping business.

Sometimes procedures are not enough. I will permit myself to be smug enough to claim no extent of flow charting or proceudre writing could prepare just anyone to step in and do what I do - internal auditing and managing corrective actions requires "soft skills" as well as technical training.

Organizational size matters, as well as needed skill for doing the work. Documentation is certainly good for crosstraining to ensure constant readiness, but I would expect far less success in crosstraining to be a nuclear plant engineer than a tree trimmer. I would expect a small landscaping business to be far more interested in cross training, based on somewhat lesser skill and education requirements.

Depending on the work and organizaiton's size, it may be possible for groups of people to be identified for cross training in a functional team. I would however expect the team itself to identify such members versus the HR department.

I hope this helps!
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Trusted Information Resource
If I understand your question correctly, I agree that standardization of knowledge is desired to minimize the tribal knowledge impact. Also, in most manufacturing environments, standardizing work helps eliminate safety hazards by more easily pinpointing the types of hazards or behaviours. If everyone does it the same, you can find quality "escape points" as well as hazards more easily. I also agree that the more a job is professional, or technical, the harder it is to standardize. It's just really difficult to standardize those life experiences that come to into play with say, claim resolution, than it is teach someone how to saw a piece of wood, or metal.
 
S

selena15

Hi

... I would expect procedures to be complex for operating a nuclear facility, much less so for a small landscaping business.
Sometimes procedures are not enough. I will permit myself to be smug enough to claim no extent of flow charting or proceudre writing could prepare just anyone to step in and do what I do - internal auditing and managing corrective actions requires "soft skills" as well as technical training....Depending on the work and organizaiton's size, it may be possible for groups of people to be identified for cross training in a functional team. I would however expect the team itself to identify such members versus the HR department.

Agreed. But just to focus on the reason of the question. My aim isn't to see the real usefulness of recording itself!
let's digg deep on this point: in order to avoid relying on tribal knowledge; it would try to record the knowledge. this is nice but for how much time? if there is a risk that the tribal knowledge may have a escape; wouldn't be better, yes to record process but in the same time try to find out the root cause of the need of escape from the tribal knowledge owner(s)?
In the same time; if this kind of desir to escape exist within the tribal knowledge's brain owner(s); until to make the scape effective, what would be the incidence of leak of interest on to progress and as this to improve the knowledge and have more to give and share with the others?
to record a process is good, i would never say the opposite but the tribal knowledge owner can not be replaced; at least in the same quality and competancy by the executant, and i've saw on the past several time a companies asking people just to follow the process as recorded, what about the special situation and unrecorded issue where just experience and anough training can resolve ? as you had said Jennifer, it is not sufficent for some process to get them recorded but i see it as the current trend for many multinational.

... I agree that standardization of knowledge is desired to minimize the tribal knowledge impact...
.
Yes Steelmaiden; to spare the tribal knowledge, if we are aware to keep also the tribal knowledge owners. isn't it ?


the second point that i've launched is that for some cost saving consideration, many multinationals tempt to concentrate the common process as accounting in one country as Asia as instance for their all Business Unit (BU), while all BU affiliated are required just to provide evidence and scanned coppy of invoices as instance and others stuff to be analysed in that asian one country. i can expect that you assume that since it isn't a critical or hard process as operating nuclear turbine or others stuff; it can work; but what can be the benefit if every thing is concentrated as this and in the same time; the capture of tribal knowledge is ongoing encouraging the leak of people, in the long term; does this situation can not be a reason of west of benefit and competitiveness ?

the point is that i'm seeing these 2 point as 2 variables that its correlation can have a bad incidence on the long term?
your feedback is welcomed :)
Sel
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
There are times when specialized knowledge cannot be transferred. An organization should ideally strike the balance it defines as appropriate by recording processes to the extent that doing so would be practical and cost effective.

The organization should then use those written processes to the extent that doing so would help them reach the ideal point on the efficiency and cost curve. That is, do not expend too much resources on the recording effort because it may not bring value. I would consider outsourced financial processes to be warranted for strict process definition and controls, and diligent oversight to ensure the controls are followed in a way that ensures the parent company's well being.

This may seem vague, but it is intentionally so because that desired balance is an organization's privilege to decide upon and endeavor to attain. Then the organization has a similar privilege to change its mind and increase, or decrease the detail as needed to meet objectives, respond to market pressures, accommodate personnel strengths and weaknesses, and so on. There is no single formula for all to use, no optimum rule to obey.
 
S

selena15

Hi Jennifer
thanks to take time to response.
what you are saying is understandable.
What i'm wondering about is; these whole strategy; as described is attempting to fix target, record or provide Rcs to achieve that target and that it. my wondering has started when i've start to hear " just apply the process; just do it as it is described !!!!! sometimes it is just another manner to say: keep your opinion on that and do it as it is recorded!!
in this case, where is the part of people adding value?? it is look as the message is " copy and paste"!
thanks again Jenniger :)
Selena
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
You're welcome Selena.

What you describe is common. It's also becoming common that even when making a well-thought-out plan, organizations find problems with execution and then they need to adjust. That happened when Dell outsourced its help desk operations from Texas to overseas. The technicians had educations and carefully designed customer service scripts and stepped procedures to follow, but the complaints grew so numerous - and some customers reported switching from Dell - the company decided to bring its corporate help desk functions back to the U.S. But the management had to make the decisions only after being convinced change was necessary. It is usually like that.
 
B

bpugazhendhi

Standardization is essential for uniform quality and cost efficiency. But it is not a static thing. Standardization does not preclude continuous improvement. Continuous improvement co-exists and supplements standardized operating procedures. In that case, the question of standardization stifling the mind and initiatives does not arise. If any organization feels otherwise, they will learn their lesson sooner than later.
 
C

Citizen Kane

Hi !

Our approach is to have a common share point on intranet with all the tools & knowledge gathered togehter.

A usefull sugestion is to have some Lessons Learned tool in with the people can enter their new knowledge/learned lessons from situations - by this you can avoid different approaches. You first must create a flow/procedure in whitch you mention 1st to enter the data in Lessons Learned, 2nd to be analyzed centrally, 3rd standardization, 4th assuming the new standard to all location/depts.
 
Top Bottom