As with all things, when taken to extremes first create problems and then become the problem themselves; why do you think large corporations are so often held up as examples of soulless and following the letter of the law (instead of spirit). It’s because they have allowed process to overgrow the foundational reason for the process in the first place.

Process is intended to mitigate risk. In this you are certainly correct. It is also to shore up delivery of the product or service to the customer. All of this aside, I have always believed the Agile model to help development teams cope with all of the multiple injection points solicitations will come from in today’s business environment, and the increase the speed to [accurate] delivery – or reduce exposure to a missed feature, which can be built in more quickly.

So I agree that process is not a “fix” for a problem. However, did you realize that the word problem originates from 2 words in Latin which could be translated to mean, “to throw forward”. One interpretation of this might be that we place the “problem” in front of us for all to see and observe; thus if we see the issue we can accurately identify it, or so the hope would go.

Perhaps the problem is not the application of process, or even simplification itself. Perhaps the resolution to our problem might just be perspective. After all, if in your example the company spent the time building relationship with its customers instead of trying to force some video to go viral wouldn’t that build trust for a long term community of clients? The proper perspective applied would certainly show us how our clients respond best.

Of course, as a prospective customer, I might have the perspective this company was simply out for a quick hit – and might not be around tomorrow. That does make my decision much more simple!

Warmest Regards,
Ken Stewart
ChangeForge

You make some very good points. When I was writing the post I was trying to not focus on software development which was a mistake.

In your example, you say that using a tool like Blogger makes it easier to get your message out, but competitors also have access to the same tools. Therefore, you still risk not being heard. That is closer to the point I am trying to make. A blog does not get you heard, a blog that is shared bunches of times on Facebook, Twitter and FriendFeed gets you heard. How do you simplify that process?

Coming from the business angle you present, a custom solution to this type of problem does cost money. If the costs associated with the tools is of greater risk, then you have just transferred the risk. I agree with that, and in that case you really have not solved the problem, you just made the problem someone else’s.

I may have to write another post on this that focuses on the tools that need to be created to make things simpler.

Thanks for the excellent comment!

Let me share an example. Let’s say that an organization faces the risk of its message not being heard. Now you can simplify the creation of communications by using ready-made tools such as Blogger or WordPress. Now you have simplified your tools and provided a way to get your message out…but your competitors have access to that same tool. Louis Gray just noted that there are ten million content creators on Blogger alone. So risk hasn’t been dramatically reduced by simplification – if anything, the risk that your message won’t be heard has increased.

And even if an organization simplifies via a proprietary technology that is not accessible to its competitors, such simplification comes at a cost. The people or financial resources who simplified the tool are people/resources who couldn’t work on something else, thus increasing other risks of the firm.

Risk can be redistributed, but I’m not certain that it can be dramatically reduced.