Process and Protocol

Lately, the posts have dealt with a couple of types (engineering and financial), but there was some discussion earlier of the medical types.

Much of the success to date, assuming that what we call by 'success' really is such (bunches of discussion of wholistic (intended) issues need examination [such as, one pocket being lined to the max while oodles of others starve cannot be called success except facetiously]; too, environmental degradation needs to be brought into equations that are going to spout about success), deals with finding best practices. It's the notion that process rules.

One consequence of that is that people are made into commodities (even securitized, thereby degraded). Well, from some warped views, people are only pawns anyway, so what's the issue?

Related to process will be the protocol dealing both with the formation and execution of rules and with interchange with the environment (i/o, if you would).

So, process rules in this day. The individual is shorted, except for the few who use the modern situations, opportunistically, to line their pockets to the max.

We see that now even in the medical realm, a process has taken hold.

Yet, let's divert a minute and use a baseball metaphor briefly. What chances are there that some process can take any individual, put them at the plate, let them run the protocol, and then give us someone like the Babe? Fairly close to zilch, wouldn't you say?

So, the basic question is: what predominates, the protocol or the person? Before you answer, please note that the disparities that we see economically are partly do to how this question is answered. Too, some types of deviations caused by the failures of protocol are ignored, that is, are considered non-value (oh, please, let's talk value) added.

Thankfully for many, we see that the person side is important. I wouldn't want even the best nurse practitioner following some protocol and doing surgery. Not on me, unless it's minor, and I can both observe and participate (think of those who have had the luxury of doing their own appendectomy).

Lean, if there is a failing to this (there are more, that are political and social), is protocol-oriented. That the concepts from this thing are applied (mis-applied) ought to give us some pause. The problem is that the current cultural framework hasn't allowed the proper discussion. Well, time will afford the opportunity.

Remarks:

09/04/2009 -- Markets work, since they handle undecidable issues bottom up. That approach will always outperform the top down, along almost all axes. Too, there are people who worry about how we can help the human/labor/consumer found the economy fairly.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

Modified: 08/24/2011