Genesis Design Method – Part II

‘A method for technology selection and process design using quality as the premise for success.’

© Clyde Lennon, United Kingdom, 2002-2005

Here is Part II of my Methodology for design (of anything). I call it Genesis as that's the point where the design should start, that is, when you first consider what you want and why you want it. Quality based definitions with constraints only being limited by the nature of the required quality, rather than specific known or predetermined “technical” solutions is the intention of following my methodology. As is usual, any questions please email me directly for a free consultation.

5. Quality Check List

Is it necessary?
Must we do this or have this to achieve our expectations and goals?
Can we do with a simpler alternative, or do we need something more robust?

Is it easy to understand?
Is the purpose and intention of the process or technology understood by all and can it be justified?

Is the result within our expectations (define expectations)?
This is the most important aspect for defining the limits of what is achieved, as well as the minimum standards required. All too often the engineering and production departments over engineer or over produce a result that is only slightly better than that which is expected, but at a much higher cost and often adding little or nothing to client satisfaction. Are our expectations of material and financial quality for competitiveness being met? Do we need to raise our expectations from time to time within the market?

Does it operate smoothly and simply?
Does the process and or technology require minimal effort and is that effort natural or ergonomic? Is there a high degree of automation? Is it adequately documented and does it all make sense?

Is it easy to integrate?
Can it work with various technologies with little or no change? Can it be database independent? Can it operate on more than one operating system? Is it client server or thin client? Is the process independent of all others? Is it Object Oriented

Is it fast enough?
Are the best techniques and methods being employed for maximum speed? Are there any obstacles by way of processes or technology?

Is it safe?
Is there data integrity and role/back role/forward control of changes? Is it easy to correct errors? Is it a stable environment?

Does it have the ‘X’ factor?
Does it present opportunities or new possibilities? Does it look good or will it make you look good – give the desired perception. Will it be perceived as ‘cool’ by the market?

6. Quality – a definition

Quality is an intangible asset transcending material, quantifiable and logical specifics. A phrase I will borrow to help get to the basis of any choice is ‘fit for purpose’. Quality is often a result of applied craftsmanship and having an ‘eye for detail’. But when we examine quality, we must also ask ourselves not just what or how, but also why. The why often explains quality objectives and that is when the genesis of the idea must be considered before making the leap to a solution. Being Machiavellian may aid implementation however it does not guarantee the best solution.

Quality is knowing what is necessary for any given thing, or circumstance, so that maximum ‘rightness’ is achieved. Rightness is not being more than necessary, or less than required and able to deliver the results within acceptable levels of investment. Choices must also be attached to the intangible benefits of satisfaction, acceptance, loyalty, appreciation and competitiveness for a total view of what constitutes quality.

Quality may vary from time to time and from place to place, simply because of the way processes or technologies are applied. Excellence is a form of quality and is attained through caring about the end result and how it works within the whole environment. Caring comes through pride, enthusiasm and commitment to learning and studying ways to improve and enhance whatever we do or create. These are states of mind and qualitative terms experienced by the individual. Generating these qualities in clients, staff and others associated with the organisation will bring great rewards.

7. Intangibles & Project Control

During the past few decades, defining intangibles has been a much maligned process, often left with bare bone statements like ‘being more competitive’, ‘being more flexible’, ‘providing a better service’, etc. Quite often, no one actually is held accountable for defining in specific terms the quality of these intangibles and that is one of the main purposes of this document. I want you to take stock of the way you go about choosing new technological solutions, by increasing your awareness and enabling you to question motives and purpose, regardless of who is involved.

‘Long after the price is paid, the quality remains’ is an old rule of commerce. We may relate to this old adage with a knowing, without asking the question, what is quality? Being pragmatic for a moment and repeating the same mantra as I have above and again later in different forms, quality is in the eye of the beholder. As with all people, not all of us select the same quality, care abut the same quality or even wish to pay for the same quality.

The most difficult thing about design when a lot of people are involved, is keeping oneness and completeness present throughout the process, so that the end result is not of a committee of disparate views, with no synergy of purpose or method. The way to avoid such outcomes is to employ a Project Director, who is primarily a systems designer and analyst, with people management skills. He must be able to deal with visionary as well as pragmatic issues. His primary goal should be, to ensure that a comprehensive set of quality objectives are defined and that the Specification of Requirements support the objectives. If the Project Director does their job well, they will ensure that there are no conflicts or duplication of functions throughout the total solution, especially if there are lower levels or component requirements. The Project Director should make sure that there is synergy and harmony within the design recommendations and specifications of requirements.

8. Confusion & Management

What can happen within any organisation, especially large ones, is that very few people actually know what matters, or understand how the place works. By this I mean that lots of stuff happens within the organisation, without knowing why it happens, or whether or not it is necessary, or unnecessary. Confusion usually reigns supreme during a study to find out how things work, as it might be difficult to know why something is in place, because there is no documentation or old staff left to explain.

You could argue that management should control each of their areas well enough, so that inefficiencies and unnecessary processes are not proliferated. However, in the ‘real’ world, departments and sections do not always take the time, or have the time, to review what each other is doing, how they do it or why they do it, in order to ask the ultimate question, whether or not they should continue to do it. Often in isolation, a process can be justified, without realising it is duplicated somewhere else. Further, no one actually sits down and asks the question - are there other ways to do this same thing? Will there be improvements or other benefits? Unless the staff and management care about what they do and how they do it, then quality will suffer sooner or later. That is why enthusiastic and loyal staff is worth considerably more than those that are not. An enthusiastic team will tackle quality issues with deft and speed. An enthusiastic and motivated staff will provide the organisation with a foundation for evolution and dynamism. Lesson here is to look at motivation of staff as well as management to care and take responsibility for their functions. Make them important, because they are.

9. Caution

As a caution, two of the worst mistakes when reviewing all practices and procedures within an organisation, are ending up with a critical process being dropped, or having the wrong people judge quality issues. It may turn out later that either the process was needed for something else, or that some of what was done during the process, was in fact needed, but should have been part of another process, but wasn’t because time and changes prevented it ever being adopted. Keep a clear eye on content and sub-processes within any given process. You may end up redesigning processes, merging or splitting actions, depending upon the preferred outcome and convenience. Do so with quality of purpose in mind at all times and with the best and most appropriate people.

(Final instalment in 2 week’s time)

NOTE: Anyone wanting a full copy (WORD) please email me and I will send it directly.