What comes first the process, the procedure or the practice? Many organisations might start with the procedure, by which I means the rules, the responsibilities, the accountabilities and so forth. Then to be followed by the process, which when trained and inculcated becomes the practice.
However, in most real life situations there will usually be some form of practice already taking place, even if it isn’t captured and codified into procedures / performance standards. What happens then? Is it more practice – process – procedure?
Is their a best way? What of, process – practice – procedure, does this fit in? And does any of this matter? Isn’t the reality of most projects one of iterative muddle, circling around and between until finally reaching the destination?
Well, I think is probably does matter. At the moment I’m running a few implementation projects following plan – do – check – act. Planning is equating to defining processes by understanding and integrating both procedure and practice at the same time. Do gravitates towards the practice, through implementation of the process, at the same time as which the procedure is kept in step. Check swings back towards procedure, but processes are designed to affect the monitoring and of course this is triggered by practice on the ground. Finally, act kinda gets us back to where we started with the process.
So, there you have it, process – practice – procedure, plan – do – check – act, in 3 easy steps.
