I’ve recently completed an Executive Education program via the MIT Sloan School of Management on Business Process Design for Strategic Management. This was a really interesting program that covered Dynamic Work Design, Structured Problem Solving (e.g.), Designing Work (and the workplace) for People, and Visual Management. Special thanks to my employer, Glencore Copper Assets, for putting me through this one.
I really enjoyed the detail on visual management, along with the multi-industry examples of visual management in practice. The other item that was very useful was the A3 tool and the detailed peer and academic input we received as we worked through its use within a variety of domains. It was also excellent to see the cohort composed of learners from such a wide array of industries and backgrounds – this made the discussions and problem solving activities so much more valuable.
This course focused on two domains that are referenced a lot in the educators’ academic work – the factory domain and the studio domain – and how problem solving is both similar and different in each (e.g. of publications). My only criticism of the program was simplifying the domains in this way, and even defining them in this way. I would have liked to see the domains linked to domains as defined and studied in other academic fields so that the research and related tools would have broader applicability. For example, it would be really useful to see this work tied to the kind and wicked domains (Sage | PDF) as they are highly studied and critiqued. In my mind the kind domain is akin to the description of the factory domain in this program as it involves a strong match between information acquisition (learning) and its application (predictions and choices); whereas the wicked domain is akin to the studio domain as it involves strong mismatches between information acquisition and its application. This would have removed the confusion many participants (including me) had with the material as the factory domain doesn’t just exist in factories and the studio domain doesn’t just exist in creative studios. This would have also facilitated a deeper-dive into cross-field academic work.
The purpose of the domain differences in the program were to illustrate the process design and problem solving options that differ between work that is repetitive and easy to define (much process design assumes this model) in comparison to work that involves a greater amount of education and experience to understand an appropriate solution in differing contexts (many process fail in this domain as they assume too much static workflow and outputs). This is a really interesting problem in itself.
I would highly recommend this program for anyone interested in their own Full Stack Human Resources journey as it not only broadens your breadth element, it also facilitates related learning in cross-domain design and problem solving processes and activities.
Here’s my certificate: