Reinforce, Optimize, Innovate, Destroy, or Let it Be?

This is the inherent difficulty when attempting to resolve a problem in an existing process: is it necessary to completely replace an existing solution with something new, or merely to make a few minor adjustments to an otherwise perfect existing solution?  The way to settle the dispute between innovators and optimizers exists, though it is very much neglected: as-is analysis.

The as-is analysis considers the present solution, acknowledging that it was put in place to solve a problem, and conceding that the present system was designed by people who were intelligent and insightful – but that even the most intelligent and insightful people make mistakes that lead to failure or partial success and it is possible for the people presently involved, equally intelligent and insightful, to find a way to improve.    Said another way, as-is analyst answers some basic questions:

• What was the existing solution instituted to accomplish?
• Are those goals (still) valid and worthwhile?
• Is the existing solution being implemented as designed?
• Is the existing solution effective in accomplishing its goal?
• Is the existing solution efficient in accomplishing its goal?

The answers to these questions help define the scope of the present effort: to reinforce existing solutions, optimize them, replace them with something innovative, or leave it alone?   It’s an important decision to make to put sufficient but not superfluous effort into the effort.

If the goals are no longer valid or worthwhile, then the solution should be to desist and destroy the processes – they are merely rituals that likely render no benefit and entail expense or inefficiency.

If the existing solution is not being implemented as designed, then reinforcement is necessary, as the evidence does not warrant changing or replacing it.  If it can be done properly, it may work.

If the existing solution is not effective in accomplishing its goal, the innovation is needed to replace it with an entirely new solution that will be more effective.

And if the existing solution is effective but inefficient, optimization is necessary because the solution is valid, but adjustments are necessary to improve upon it (get greater results with less effort/expense).

My sense is that a though as-is analysis is seldom done, particularly when there is a proposed replacement for an existing solution that has generated great enthusiasm, or a significant amount of resentment or dislike for the existing solution.   These are more psychological or political factors that have nothing to do with functional improvements.