Three Thousandths

It seems like every meeting I go to these days includes a conversation concerning the spelling out of a standard operating procedure into a published policy, or the formalization of an informal procedure into a codified process.  Everywhere there has historically been latitude there is now a drive to narrow the range and make it substantively more predictable.

- I deleted a bunch of stuff here -

When I was a student one of my instructors told us that when you set out to design a machine for scenery that you have two choices: you can design to a mechanical tolerance of three thousandths of an inch or you can work to a much larger tolerance and build in adjustability.  If done properly the machine will work regardless of which design approach one chooses.  The difficulty is that a theatrical shop will have significant difficulty fabricating to a +/- 3/1000" tolerance.  The tolling we have and the materials we work in don't make that kind of precision easy.  The result being that the fabrication probably won't be done properly and a precisely designed machine will likely fail. Alternatively if you take the tooling and materials in to account ahead of time and assume that the high precision is optimistic in our shop and set out from the start to include adjustability you stand a much higher chance of success.

I think about this a lot when we set out to standardize and codify things at work.  So much of what we do is specific: specific to a production, specific to a design, specific to a class, specific to a person.  We can design processes that are highly codified or we can design processes with built in adjustability. 

Don't get me wrong.  If I'm asked to codify processes I will codify them and if asked to spell out what I assume to be a known standard procedure I will spell it out.  I like creating policy documents.  I am really good at it.  Is it the best approach?  Only time will tell.