New Delhi Times

Gaurav Bhatnagar reporting from New Delhi, India

Can process and innovation thrive together?

View Comments

As we have grown, and our projects have become larger and more complex, we have started realizing a need for more formalized processes. There is a clear need to standardize on many of our practices, methodologies and tools to make project delivery more homogenous and predictable. In the world of technology startups, “Process” is a four letter word. Often also termed as bureaucracy, introduction of processes is often perceived as an attempt dehumanize an organization. That to some extent is actually true because to minimize risks and scale, organizations need to get more process driven and less people driven. At the same time, Processes often impede free thinking and innovation. Too much Process can give team members  a feeling of simply being part of the system or a cog in the wheel.

For a growing organization, its a tricky balance to achieve between introducing processes and encouraging individual creativity. After all, this freedom and flexibility is what attracts most people to work in a startup as against working in a process driven larger company. It does make me wonder if becoming slow, bureaucratic and tangled in processes is the inevitable fate of all companies as they grow in size? A friend who works in Reliance laments how all decision making and thinking happens in the HQ in Mumbai while the regional offices are left to execute upon those decisions without questioning them. Big tech. companies like Infosys and Wipro also seem to straitjacket teams in to working against a very stringent process driven approach with little scope for experimentation. While I was at Microsoft, the Windows division worked on a very loose set of processes. That, in retrospect, was very commendable considering how big that team was and how much it took to keep the machinery working. However, the lack of stringent process did create problems and I think steps were taken later to address those issues.

So, my question is how does an organization become more process driven and yet continue to remain innovative and encourage original thought? Is it even possible? Are there any examples where this has worked well?

Written by gaurav

April 9th, 2007 at 12:47 am

Posted in My Company

«
»
  • http://thoughtbubbles.wordpress.com Tushar Malhotra

    Not that I have an answer to this question but I have myself dwelled on this Process vs Innovation debate at length.
    In the process of making my decision to join Microsoft last year, I went through a lot of blogs(Including yours, I hope you remember :) ) and a lot of them were complains about growing process at MS.
    Last week (MYCD has just got over here) the STB division at Microsoft implemented a reorganiation and realignment of Address Book Titles. Some time back, all of us in the division had received a mail regarding the same and I had thought that this was a totally useless excersise which no one would care about. At least I didn’t! However during the MYCD huddle last week, I was startled to find that a lot of people actually cared! Some were happy, others were not and some like me didn’t care but one thing that struck me was this – When teams, divisions and companies become large it becomes increasingly difficult to keep things streamlined and introducing some standard process perhaps becomes inevitable to keep things in order.
    Not everyone would like process. I don’t. But it is perhaps neccesary in the greater interest.
    In that case, I am wondering if along with asking “How to sustain innovation in a process driven atmosphere” we should also ask “How to make our processes themselves innovative”.
    Again, I don’t really have very good answers yet.

  • http://thoughtbubbles.wordpress.com Tushar Malhotra

    Not that I have an answer to this question but I have myself dwelled on this Process vs Innovation debate at length.
    In the process of making my decision to join Microsoft last year, I went through a lot of blogs(Including yours, I hope you remember :) ) and a lot of them were complains about growing process at MS.
    Last week (MYCD has just got over here) the STB division at Microsoft implemented a reorganiation and realignment of Address Book Titles. Some time back, all of us in the division had received a mail regarding the same and I had thought that this was a totally useless excersise which no one would care about. At least I didn’t! However during the MYCD huddle last week, I was startled to find that a lot of people actually cared! Some were happy, others were not and some like me didn’t care but one thing that struck me was this – When teams, divisions and companies become large it becomes increasingly difficult to keep things streamlined and introducing some standard process perhaps becomes inevitable to keep things in order.
    Not everyone would like process. I don’t. But it is perhaps neccesary in the greater interest.
    In that case, I am wondering if along with asking “How to sustain innovation in a process driven atmosphere” we should also ask “How to make our processes themselves innovative”.
    Again, I don’t really have very good answers yet.

  • http://twilightfairy.rediffblogs.com Twilight Fairy

    Processes are certainly and most definitely needed especially when the public mass is getting huge and you have more number of ways in which people may end up doing something or well – just “assuming”.
    The main thing you dont want your processes to become is bureaucratic. You know what I like abt where I am right now? It’s the comfort of having processes in place. And also of the fact, that I can question them. There is the freedom to do so. Though I wouldnt say that it’s always there and with everyone, it’s still there in pockets. Of course as a company grows bigger and bigger, the freedom becomes more and more limted. But that still can not undermine the importance of having processes in place. The key to implementing processes is to have the awareness of freedom and the openness that’s anyway needed to retain a happy employee.

  • http://twilightfairy.rediffblogs.com Twilight Fairy

    Processes are certainly and most definitely needed especially when the public mass is getting huge and you have more number of ways in which people may end up doing something or well – just “assuming”.
    The main thing you dont want your processes to become is bureaucratic. You know what I like abt where I am right now? It’s the comfort of having processes in place. And also of the fact, that I can question them. There is the freedom to do so. Though I wouldnt say that it’s always there and with everyone, it’s still there in pockets. Of course as a company grows bigger and bigger, the freedom becomes more and more limted. But that still can not undermine the importance of having processes in place. The key to implementing processes is to have the awareness of freedom and the openness that’s anyway needed to retain a happy employee.

  • http://www.infosysblogs.com/managing-offshore-it Mohan

    Gaurav,
    I hate to say … but the answer would be ‘it depends’ or better yet, ask back Why should “process and innovation NOT thrive together?”
    I will not defend the process driven culture in software services firms since that’s what is needed to ensure consistent delivery to end clients. Remember comparing Microsoft’s windows development to Wipro or Infosys’ software delivery is comparing apples and oranges. Microsoft develops the software to sell…whereas software service firms develop/design/deliver it ‘custom’ for clients
    Now, regarding innovation; again a different ball game. If a spec is laid out, the ‘innovation’ may be in developing/using algorithms or the ‘right’ tools; whereas in cases where a solution is being architected ground-up, innovation can follow the different aspects of life cycle.

  • http://www.infosysblogs.com/managing-offshore-it Mohan

    Gaurav,
    I hate to say … but the answer would be ‘it depends’ or better yet, ask back Why should “process and innovation NOT thrive together?”
    I will not defend the process driven culture in software services firms since that’s what is needed to ensure consistent delivery to end clients. Remember comparing Microsoft’s windows development to Wipro or Infosys’ software delivery is comparing apples and oranges. Microsoft develops the software to sell…whereas software service firms develop/design/deliver it ‘custom’ for clients
    Now, regarding innovation; again a different ball game. If a spec is laid out, the ‘innovation’ may be in developing/using algorithms or the ‘right’ tools; whereas in cases where a solution is being architected ground-up, innovation can follow the different aspects of life cycle.

  • Nitin

    I think they can surely thrive together, if the process doesn’t become bureaucratic and just a thing done to please the bosses.
    The bigger an organization gets, the more difficult it gets to organize people and their thoughts. Especially in today’s world when employees change companies till the time they are ready to add on to the value chain, processes become more important.
    If you allow people to challenge processes being followed all the time, they you would end up no where, remember like no two brains can think alike no one would agree to do a task in a specified manner if there are no standards.

  • Nitin

    I think they can surely thrive together, if the process doesn’t become bureaucratic and just a thing done to please the bosses.
    The bigger an organization gets, the more difficult it gets to organize people and their thoughts. Especially in today’s world when employees change companies till the time they are ready to add on to the value chain, processes become more important.
    If you allow people to challenge processes being followed all the time, they you would end up no where, remember like no two brains can think alike no one would agree to do a task in a specified manner if there are no standards.

  • http://www.chakpak.com Nitin

    I am not sure if there is defined boundary for how much process you need. I think the key is to iterate aggressively – whenever you feel a mistake happens, tighten the process from right then and adhere to it. And if processes are burdening too much to a team, then loosen them a bit.
    Also it is very important to follow the agreed upon processes in letter and spirit, so that one can know immediately when to change.

  • http://www.chakpak.com Nitin

    I am not sure if there is defined boundary for how much process you need. I think the key is to iterate aggressively – whenever you feel a mistake happens, tighten the process from right then and adhere to it. And if processes are burdening too much to a team, then loosen them a bit.
    Also it is very important to follow the agreed upon processes in letter and spirit, so that one can know immediately when to change.

  • http://www.silverstripesoftware.com Siddharta Govindaraj

    Absolutely. Innovation and process can certainly go together.
    Ask one question: Is the process supportive or restrictive?
    * The process should work for the people.
    * When it doesnt work, it should be changed.
    Often the people end up working for the process instead of the other way around. That should be avoided.

  • http://www.silverstripesoftware.com Siddharta Govindaraj

    Absolutely. Innovation and process can certainly go together.
    Ask one question: Is the process supportive or restrictive?
    * The process should work for the people.
    * When it doesnt work, it should be changed.
    Often the people end up working for the process instead of the other way around. That should be avoided.

  • http://swaroop.in Swaroop

    Any i wasthinking processes were created to create work for managers. ! (who other wise have nothing to do in this Industry ).

  • http://swaroop.in Swaroop

    Any i wasthinking processes were created to create work for managers. ! (who other wise have nothing to do in this Industry ).

  • http://mirnazim.wordpress.com Mir Nazim

    Go for a Process. It is good and very important.
    Instead of going for some kind of monolithic, 10000 ton monster like RUP, go for a simpler, light weight one like XP, SCRUM etc or a combination of these.
    Since I have worked at Tekriti, applying these methodologies should not need much change.
    Take a look at following great write ups:
    http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/newMethodology.html
    http://agilemanifesto.org/
    http://www.agilealliance.org/

  • http://mirnazim.wordpress.com Mir Nazim

    Go for a Process. It is good and very important.
    Instead of going for some kind of monolithic, 10000 ton monster like RUP, go for a simpler, light weight one like XP, SCRUM etc or a combination of these.
    Since I have worked at Tekriti, applying these methodologies should not need much change.
    Take a look at following great write ups:
    http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/newMethodology.html
    http://agilemanifesto.org/
    http://www.agilealliance.org/

  • http://simplicity-works-everytime.blogspot.com/ Arun

    1.) The best way to deliver innovation is to do everything is small high-quality teams. If you have a large project, then have a number of small high-quality teams.
    2.) Second way to have innovation is to remove post-offices in the form of useless people sitting between the developer and clients. If you have a huge project, then let your lead designer talk to the client and let all the other designers listen in.
    As many commenters have pointed out, process and innovation can co-exist. But I would qualify such a statement very carefully. Any process you bring in to manage big projects should only serve to facilitate COLLABORATION between your teams. It should NOT be a process to control the requirements, design and testing.
    The reason for this is simple. The major problems in big projects come because of assumptions made by different teams on the output that will be provided by other teams. This can be solved by getting everybody together every few days to discuss the progress and activities.
    But instead so many companies bring in humongous CMMI processes to control every aspect of software development. Requirements have to be written as per a template, design has to be done in UML etc etc. All because in a previous big project, requirements missed out some stuff and design was not good. The only problem is that these do not address the core issue – The designer and analyst suck. No amount of templates and status reports will fix that.

  • http://simplicity-works-everytime.blogspot.com/ Arun

    1.) The best way to deliver innovation is to do everything is small high-quality teams. If you have a large project, then have a number of small high-quality teams.
    2.) Second way to have innovation is to remove post-offices in the form of useless people sitting between the developer and clients. If you have a huge project, then let your lead designer talk to the client and let all the other designers listen in.
    As many commenters have pointed out, process and innovation can co-exist. But I would qualify such a statement very carefully. Any process you bring in to manage big projects should only serve to facilitate COLLABORATION between your teams. It should NOT be a process to control the requirements, design and testing.
    The reason for this is simple. The major problems in big projects come because of assumptions made by different teams on the output that will be provided by other teams. This can be solved by getting everybody together every few days to discuss the progress and activities.
    But instead so many companies bring in humongous CMMI processes to control every aspect of software development. Requirements have to be written as per a template, design has to be done in UML etc etc. All because in a previous big project, requirements missed out some stuff and design was not good. The only problem is that these do not address the core issue – The designer and analyst suck. No amount of templates and status reports will fix that.

  • http://www.blogspot.com satpal

    I read about “Spontaneous order” in a book in economnics find this concept quite interesting.They define it as emergence of order out of seeming chaos.
    As a company/project grows chaos or noise increases.Process are introduce to limit and control this chaos.Freedom,innocation, creativity will survive under processes if nature of process introduce spontaneous oder.
    Process are product of many forces including fear or need for control,introduction of desired/unnatural/ order.If a proces is introduce ‘forcefully’ against spontaneous oder it will creat fiction and loss.
    majority of people dislike process becos they are no included while process formation or are not well informed about need of a process.Top of organisation fail to communicate why they need a process,how poeple involved can help to develop the process they need,and how organisation is willing to alter or prefect a process provided people involve give supportive feedback.
    Process execution is rigid.Most of the middle managment feels that success of process execution a rule and fail to take inputs from the people involved.Process dealing with human bahviour, habbits and attitude required very open and flexible attitude.
    Apple or google to have processes but not hinder imagination, ceativity but facilitates them and to get maximum out of them.
    Someone rightly said that it not hove to have innovation with process but its how innovative your processes are.

  • http://www.blogspot.com satpal

    I read about “Spontaneous order” in a book in economnics find this concept quite interesting.They define it as emergence of order out of seeming chaos.
    As a company/project grows chaos or noise increases.Process are introduce to limit and control this chaos.Freedom,innocation, creativity will survive under processes if nature of process introduce spontaneous oder.
    Process are product of many forces including fear or need for control,introduction of desired/unnatural/ order.If a proces is introduce ‘forcefully’ against spontaneous oder it will creat fiction and loss.
    majority of people dislike process becos they are no included while process formation or are not well informed about need of a process.Top of organisation fail to communicate why they need a process,how poeple involved can help to develop the process they need,and how organisation is willing to alter or prefect a process provided people involve give supportive feedback.
    Process execution is rigid.Most of the middle managment feels that success of process execution a rule and fail to take inputs from the people involved.Process dealing with human bahviour, habbits and attitude required very open and flexible attitude.
    Apple or google to have processes but not hinder imagination, ceativity but facilitates them and to get maximum out of them.
    Someone rightly said that it not hove to have innovation with process but its how innovative your processes are.

  • http://vinu.wordpress.com vinu

    I am reading – ” surfing the edge of chaos ” seems interesting where you lay down minimal guidelines which will keep process in check while keeping things innovative and complex.
    something like bio systems => bees => worker bees etc => have set of rules that they play with

  • http://vinu.wordpress.com vinu

    I am reading – ” surfing the edge of chaos ” seems interesting where you lay down minimal guidelines which will keep process in check while keeping things innovative and complex.
    something like bio systems => bees => worker bees etc => have set of rules that they play with

  • Roderick Mac Donald

    I just want to vent my displeasure at a country that is ready to imprison someone for a kiss on a movie stage from Richard Gere… THIS in a country that when a Man and his Mother is displeased with a wife a WELL USED and NOT punished way of having her leave is to pour cooking fuel over her and burning her to death…!!!! You ALL may want to look into your own houses before talking of the wrongs of the west…..Rod Mac Donald

  • Roderick Mac Donald

    I just want to vent my displeasure at a country that is ready to imprison someone for a kiss on a movie stage from Richard Gere… THIS in a country that when a Man and his Mother is displeased with a wife a WELL USED and NOT punished way of having her leave is to pour cooking fuel over her and burning her to death…!!!! You ALL may want to look into your own houses before talking of the wrongs of the west…..Rod Mac Donald

  • http://mansingh50@hotmail.com Dr. Man Singh

    please take cognizance of survismeter.
    it is a novel instrument to measure viscosity and surface tension of liquids together.
    it saves 75% resources like water, chemicals, time, electricity, lab occupation and infrastructure etc in R & D, academics,
    how effectively it can be switched to markets for its popular uses.

  • Raúl Maciel

    After reading all your thinking about process vs innovation…
    Must never forget that people are within ourselves a complex individual process… and put togheter gives reason to have a big “master” process directing the dis accordances among everyone in an organization…
    so, the discussion about innovation on process… does not lay in the “master” process itself, but in the individual process… yes!
    this might be a little more hard as you think in the disperssions, but it surely pays.
    So I propose you consider “the inner innovation proccesses whithin the people” in an organization as the real key of introducing and maintaining innovation to all processes.
    Obviously we have a methodology to do this.
    We have designed and implemented this concept here in Mexico, with Coca Cola FEMSA, and Nestlé Mexico…
    the result is far beyond what can be discussed here about how to mangle processes and innovation.
    best regards
    Raúl Maciel
    Monterrey, Mexico

  • Raúl Maciel

    After reading all your thinking about process vs innovation…
    Must never forget that people are within ourselves a complex individual process… and put togheter gives reason to have a big “master” process directing the dis accordances among everyone in an organization…
    so, the discussion about innovation on process… does not lay in the “master” process itself, but in the individual process… yes!
    this might be a little more hard as you think in the disperssions, but it surely pays.
    So I propose you consider “the inner innovation proccesses whithin the people” in an organization as the real key of introducing and maintaining innovation to all processes.
    Obviously we have a methodology to do this.
    We have designed and implemented this concept here in Mexico, with Coca Cola FEMSA, and Nestlé Mexico…
    the result is far beyond what can be discussed here about how to mangle processes and innovation.
    best regards
    Raúl Maciel
    Monterrey, Mexico

blog comments powered by Disqus