Recently, I have faced a dilemma in management: the pros and cons of "Procedures" vs. "Ownership".
In "procedures" driven approach, tasks/works/operations are based on predefined (hopefully, well-defined) procedures. The good side is a solid, reliable, people independent (not reliance on individuals) workflow in place. However, the drawback may be bureaucratic, inflexible, lack of accountability/liability (similar to a gov't operation where officials would be blamed for any fault) and etc.
One of the alternative is using "ownership" in which a particular task, project, service or area of operation will be "owned" by an assigned party (the owner). The owner will have full authority and control to manage his/her owned stuff. This can ensure full accountability and no missing gap in procedures. However, "ownership" may induce the problem of no control (workflow/process) and tasks/works may become people-dependent.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Great work.
Post a Comment