The drive toward “scientific management” has primarily meant a push for measuring and standardizing processes. The advantages of this are obvious, from improved quality control to lower costs. Applied to the wrong areas of activity, however, process standardization can actually undermine performance rather than optimize it. As Hall and Johnson argue, many processes work best when treated like artistic work, rather than rigidly controlled. They explain the conditions under which a process should be more artistic than scientific and then discuss how to develop an infrastructure to support art and the importance of periodically reevaluating the division between art and science.
A “process matrix” can help you decide how to categorize processes. One axis of the matrix is the degree of variability of the process environment; the other is the value of output variability to customers. When both are low, mass customization works well. Artistic processes are those where inputs to the process are variable (in their example, no two pieces of wood used to make a Steinway piano soundboard are alike), and where Customers value variations in the process’s output (pianists appreciate the distinctive sound quality of their own pianos). When you have identified a process as artistic, you should train employees in the judgment required to respond creatively to variable conditions.
Once you have determined which processes should be artistic, the next step is to develop an infrastructure to support art. Four practices can help with this, starting with creating appropriate metrics. This means relying on external measures of success and regularly exposing artists to customer feedback. Second, manage artistic and scientific processes separately. Third, build effective training programs. This will involve providing employee “artists” with experiences such as apprenticeship with a master, stories of outstanding customer service, and extended time with a customer. Finally, tolerate failure. Failures will be inevitable since the variations characterizing artistic processes make it impossible to satisfy every customer on the first attempt. What matters is to prevent failures from affecting customers and to learn from them.
The final step in managing art is to periodically reevaluate the division between art and science. This involves asking questions such as: What new technologies can help make a science of art? Do my customers still value variation? How do the costs of art stack up against the benefits? What opportunities does art allow that science doesn’t? While this article offers some useful guidance in distinguishing between processes to manage scientifically and those to manage artistically, for a deeper look, we recommend the related piece, “Are There Limits to Total Quality Management?”
Payment required for full access. ManyWorlds receives no money from this referral.