Aside from its sterling reporting and analysis, one of my favorite features of The Economist is that it names columns about regions after figures important to that region’s history. So the column on what is now called the European Union (EU) is named Charlemagne, after “one of the continent’s great unifiers,” and the first crowned Holy Roman Emperor, according to the Economist.com Web site.
Always good to begin with a digression thinly disguised as background. But I…well, you know…
Anyway, the Nov. 17 edition of the Charlemagne column, “A dissertation on Romanian pork,” seemed to me directly relevant to the art and craft of business process management. In brief, it turns out that the animal-welfare requirements stipulated for EU membership fly in the face of long-held traditions among Romanian farmers. The farmers are allowed to kill pigs at home for personal consumption, as they have for some time – but only if they use an EU-specified animal-stunning device, something most of Romania’s millions of subsistence/family farmers can’t afford. (It’s also risky to combine electric stunning devices with the snow and wet ground common to Romania during winter, when the traditional ritual pig-killing takes place.)
Anyway, the Romanian farmers appealed for exemptions similar to those granted by the EU to Jewish and Muslim butchers, but were turned down, according to the column. The reason? That exemption applies only to religious rites, while the EU says the Romanian tradition is, well, “only” a tradition. Even though the pigs in question are traditionally killed around the end-of-winter feast of Saint Ignatius and Christmas holidays, which seem more religious than mere traditional associations to this admittedly distant observer.
Of course, this whole thing involving human beings, compromise is being sought. One possibility is having veterinarians screen the pigs for trichinosis and “throw in pig stunning free,” as The Economist so pithily put it. Meanwhile, at least some of the same farmers who are struggling to comply with the animal-welfare strictures are welcoming greater restrictions on potentially harmful pesticides. And so it goes.
The Take-Aways:
1. No process is ever developed, managed, revised, or retired in a vacuum.
2. No person or team is ever smart enough to predict the consequences of every such action completely accurately each and every time.
3. Unintended consequences are at least as difficult to plan for/around as they are to avoid.
4. Unintended consequences CAN be managed around, however, given clearly defined goals, clear consistent communications, and active inclusion of and participation by all affected stakeholders.
Please adjust your collaboration, communications, documentation, and/or process management tools and policies accordingly.
Leave a comment