Centralized vs Decentralized work and the impact on Quality

"Centralized vs Decentralized"

These two terms explicitly describe "where" an activity takes place.

I think sometimes teams might implicitly choose to use these two terms as euphemisms for "performed in a standardized manner by experts" versus "performed with high variability by a crowd".

Such an implicit meaning is not necessarily fair because there are both pros and cons to each approach.

Expert processing is expensive with limited availability but more likely to be consistent.  

Crowd processing is harder to control (activity and outcome) but ultimately quite cost efficient if it works.

I know sometimes our team is  troubled by the “variability” in distributed activity. (e.g. Do project owners get their software listed in the software list, do change owners complete risk scores etc.)

And I know sometimes we are tempted to switch models and “centralize” to address these issues.  But time and money are short for our Quality Improvement team and centralization and the transformation to centralization is expensive.

While that may be an appropriate solution, it isn’t necessarily arrived at after a careful assessment of all of the alternatives.

For example, there are ways to leverage the “bandwidth” of the crowd without necessarily sacrificing quality of results.  i.e. While not controlling activity we may find appropriate means to positively affect outcome, whether through support or appropriate feedback loops, or gates etc.

It makes me think that I want to invest in my own learning about how to influence the outcomes, rather than necessarily taking over the work involved in the activity…

Here is an interesting excerpt on 3 kinds of “crowd wisdom” found in “disorganized decisions”

Read on... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds 

Types of crowd wisdom[edit]

Surowiecki breaks down the advantages he sees in disorganized decisions into three main types, which he classifies as

·         Cognition

Thinking and information Processing

Market judgment, which he argues can be much faster, more reliable, and less subject to political forces than the deliberations of experts or expert committees.

·         Coordination

Coordination of behavior includes optimizing the utilization of a popular bar and not colliding in moving traffic flows. The book is replete with examples from experimental economics, but this section relies more on naturally occurring experiments such as pedestrians optimizing the pavement flow or the extent of crowding in popular restaurants. He examines how common understanding within a culture allows remarkably accurate judgments about specific reactions of other members of the culture.

·         Cooperation

How groups of people can form networks of trust without a central system controlling their behavior or directly enforcing their compliance. This section is especially pro free market.

Cheers!

The Beauty of Independent Synchronization

here is something really elegant about synchronized events. Consider the trapeze artist being caught mid-air. Not falling to the ground shrieking with terror. And not dying on impact. That is impressive.  Or that happy feeling when you catch green lights all the way to work.... (OK I'm sorry this isn't a work of fiction I'll stop giving impossible examples)

So much more is possible with good timing. Ever been at a concert where someone is clapping out of rhythm?  My friend Brian has led music on his guitar for many years and he is adament in his belief that people should have to get a license to operate a tambourine. "Its amazing to watch a single person with a tambourine and poor timing
destroy the coordination of a band and the people singing along, it simply should not be allowed."

How many marvels of nature have to do with good timing, where a disruption of that timing results in mass death. From migrations to salmon runs, there is an incredible innate beauty in the purposeful synchronization of living things that random chance and long periods of time do not explain. The problem with those "chaotic chance"
theories is that without excellent timing the first go round, you have no life left with which to make a second attempt.  When I consider the design of the heart muscle or the rest of the human circulatory system and compare it with the crude clumsy flow of traffic through intersections I come to appreciate the excellence and elegance of natural design.

I see 2 kinds of synchronized events.  Intentionally synchronized events (like the execution of an entertainment program) and unsynchronized events (like bumping into a friend unexpectedly while out for a walk).  I suspect a large percentage of events could fit in either category depending on perspective, assumptions and interpretation of the events.


Giving up our need to control an event absolutely could quite possibly yield a better event synchronization.  Consider hockey players sitting on a bench when the action comes and slams into the boards in front of them.  They respond by ducking back to avoid getting hit with sticks, bodies or fists. Letting each of them respond individually and independently is far more efficient and effective than having some "fail-safe" centrally controlled "make players duck now" button if such a preposterous thing were conceivable.
Or (also at the hockey game) consider the shouts of the crowd when a player on a breakaway takes a shot on the opponent's net and just barely misses. "Ahhhhhh....."  Thousands of people independently observing the same event, understanding it to have meaning and responding in a similar manner.


Some people make their living by recognizing or predicting such responses.  Consider how the stock market reacts when there is a reduction in stock price.  People tend to react in similar ways, often watching the reactions of others to determine their own reaction.


Seeing these synchronized events raises some questions like;

• What role do practice and education have to play in well coordinated outcomes?
• What role does perspective have (what team were you cheering for)?
• How do assumptions change our reactions to or understanding of synchronized events?

Can you think of synchronized behaviour that people attempt to control which might be better left to independent reaction?


Cheers,
Greg.