MDI vs. Process Management

During 1999 - 2000 the County of Yakima developed a process management model that was developed elsewhere which included metrics of a tested and working model with the Department of Transportation. Nevertheless, during 2006, a six or seven year period has elapsed after its initial introduction and execution in which most 'bugs' if they ever existed, should have worked themselves out of the process through constant refinement procedures. You'd think!

During the latter part of 2006, the system and process was again exercised, executed and delivered extremely poor response times, and other issues which are not really in the Mutual Design process. Other problems have arisen and not been addressed for I believe several years now.

This present situation is more like a model which develops forms of micro-management instead of building group and individual innovation and 'think out of the box' theories with working scenarios for the delivery mechanisms which include the technicians and all forms of communication including their own individual check lists which should satisfy their own command post.

During 2000 the Associative Model of Management was introduced to the same group. A contractor was paid a lucrative figure somewhere in the $250K range to deliver a model which promised system fixes, process refinement, elimination of non business redundancy and the immediate need to increase (streamline) IT production and delivery times.

About the same period, the system was not only introduced to another group somewhere in a different part of the State, but implemented with my help in a heavily predominant Microsoft supported region and district entity. This process model worked for the whole of the IT staff and became their new process model to follow, train and refine.

However, the consultant that was paid was told not to implement that design back at the County because the MDI model was a far superior system and his service was no longer needed. Sadly, many of the Associative Model for Business and Information System components that were revolutionary in terms of eliminating the practices of silo management which greatly decrease sharing of communications and information was never implemented.

As end-users to technology can reaffirm, when the support mechanism of technology is not efficient in terms of user-friendliness or plain helpful, who loses? In this case, because it is a governmental structure, the end-user loses. Loses work momentum, gains financial deficits instead of decreased costs per individual worker throughout the system. It will not take a financial management genius to figure out the metrics on this one - instead of decreased worker costs; the MDI system and its flawed process and deficient program management structure, interferes with the whole of the enterprise management model. It would never pass muster in a corporate structure focused on daily operational cost reductions.



Executives every where should be aware of these systems in their midst if a proactive vision to reduce costs, increased fixes and endless buying are out of whack! One of the tricks which work is to implement the help of astute Information Management people who understand performance management. You might also entertain applications like SAP for your enterprise functions. Rely on proven results instead of the school of marketing dollars and its endless plethora of hype.