Forum Posts Feed
The Checklist Manifesto
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by washere
May 8, 2019 at 02:21 AM
Endless eternal return to the lowest common denominator, a false binary choice, the old dance: to checklist or not.
As requested, who is for checklists? Who against? hehe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUe_Pi8NfT4
Posted by MadaboutDana
May 8, 2019 at 08:46 AM
Again, it’s not an old dance, it’s a very topical one.
Checklists are old news, of course. But the importance of checklists has only recently been rediscovered.
And yes, good checklists are indeed based on all kinds of process-based analysis (flow charts among them). Checklists themselves are not an analytical tool, however, they are a process control tool.
As my wife (a former HR director) reminds me, however: checklists are great, as long as they’re constantly reviewed. No process remains entirely static, everything needs to be updated to match the latest needs/requirements/technologies. It reminds me of the old saw: if you don’t strive to improve, you inevitably start to decline. Which also applies to the tools you use to help yourself improve (like, aha, checklists).
Posted by washere
May 8, 2019 at 12:09 PM
I’m not saying checklists are an old dance. Nor that checklists are bad. I said checklists are good. How much simpler can it be put? It’s as contradictory as someone defending the author (seemingly) and attacking a shopping list as an example which is what he mentioned himself in the book. Maybe they didn’t read it.
Like the book, I said (on last page) it’s a good tool and methodology, alongside others. The false dichotomy, attacking checklists as a method OR promoting it and lists as the only tool (as in Rainman) are two opposite extremes though. When the book’s own example is attacked in the name of defending it (falsely) and good is quoted as bad, then there is obviously no point to go further into the science of the actual field.
Posted by NickG
May 8, 2019 at 12:54 PM
I must say that, as a relative newbie here, I’m finding this discussion a little peculiar. Checklists are a tool and, like all tools, they’re good for certain purposes (insert screamingly obvious analogy such as not using a hammer to saw wood).
Also, like all tools, they need to be used well to give good results (develop screamingly obvious analogy about good saw but bad workman).
I think there’s a potentially interesting debate about specific cases (“would a checklist be effective here?”) an d that may be part of what’s going on here, but there seem to be other debates mixed in with any one post at risk of being applied to multiple discussion strands, even if that wasn’t what the poster intended.
I also seem to see some zero sum thinking - that to the extent that checklists are good or bad, they’re taking away or adding something to another toolset.
I might have misunderstood - I confess I’m struggling to flow all the threads here - so please do feel free to say so if you think so
Posted by Paul Korm
May 8, 2019 at 09:49 PM
You hit the nail on the head @NickG. There’s a somewhat obscured point of view floating around inside this thread.
NickG wrote:
I must say that, as a relative newbie here, I’m finding this discussion
>a little peculiar.