When Should a Process Be Art, Not Science?

Managers have gone overboard with process standardization. Many processes - such as leadership training or auditing - are more art than science. Imposing rigid rules on them squashes innovation, reduces accountability, and harms performance. Tuck professors Hall and Johnson advise companies to rescue artistic processes from the tide of standardization with a three-step approach. 1. Identify what should and shouldn't be art. Companies need art in variable environments (if, say, raw materials aren't uniform) and when customers value distinctive output. If those two conditions aren't present, mass processes (which eliminate variation) or mass customization (which controls it) will be required. Steinway & Sons, for instance, uses artistic processes to make concert pianos. Not only does the wood used in soundboards differ, but professional musicians appreciate the instruments' unique "personalities." Ritz-Carlton adopted an artistic approach to service after discovering that tightly defined procedures weren't meeting the needs of its diverse customer base. Once employees were allowed to improvise, customer satisfaction improved. 2. Develop an infrastructure to support art. Artists require proper training and metrics that help them maximize value for customers (such as continual customer feedback). Scientific processes can provide a stable platform for artists to work upon, but art and science should never be intertwined. Firms also must institute ways to mitigate failures, which are inevitable with variation. 3. Periodically reevaluate the division between art and science. Managers must ask: What new technologies can make a science of art? Do my customers value variation? How do the costs and opportunities of art and science stack up? Art and science both have important roles to play in business processes. They need not be at odds but must be carefully harmonized.

• Creativity
• Product standardization
• Process analysis
• Process improvement