Regular readers may remember a RTWMatters’ New Year’s Resolution to flex our collective bicep, bite the pain bullet and get a “People over Process” tattoo. 

Turns out, however, that our trip to the tattoo parlour was premature; the ink is in but, thanks to soon-to-be RTWMatters Blogger Richard Green, our slogan has been improved.

Here’s an excerpt from Richard’s email to us on the subject of RTWMatters’ body art, which we think is right on the money.

“I've been struggling with one of your resolutions—People over Process.  I do understand the sentiment that drives you to that tattoo but I've spent a working life focusing on improving processes! 
 
"If the staff of an organisation have no carefully thought through and established processes then they will be mired in uncontrollable work, forced to learn the same lessons over and over, to reinvent ways to do things again and again and have no time to deal with people.
 
"The secret is to be clear about the purpose of the organisation (“what are we here for”) so the processes are not an end in themselves but exist to deliver better outcomes for people.
 
"How about, "Process serving People"?”

This is, as everyone in the RTWMatters office agrees, an excellent amendment. Not only does it put “People” at the centre of injury management practice, where they undoubtedly belong, it also draws attention to the fact that processes are an important part of effective care.

Good processes support successful outcomes.  They streamline the system, provide clarity to those involved and improve efficiency.  Richard’s comments have focused our attention on ‘good’ processes, and we are going to have this as a second platform for RTWMatters this year.  What are good processes, and how can we support you with them?

Developing, and more importantly, implementing and using ‘good’ processes can be bloody difficult.  It might sound easy, but good intentions are not simply enough.

Why?

RTWMatters’ Publisher Robert Hughes believes that, “in some instances process does become an end in itself and then it can lose sight of the problem it was intended to resolve.  This kind of lost process is often that which is developed at arm’s length from the problem the process is notionally intended to resolve.

“Those workers compensation authorities that do not handle their claims in-house and therefore do not have a day to day, nose to nose, relationship with claimants—the people who have the problems the authorities are established by law to serve—often lose sight of the people involved. Instead the authorities’ focus can slip to the bottom line, policies that protect the bureaucratic bum, process that is academic rather than practical, generic instead of individual, personal and human.

“In my opinion the majority of staff and boards of the authorities should be drawn from the ranks of past claimants. Were this Wonderland and I the Queen of Hearts it would be “Off with their heads” to each and every bureaucrat who has not endured as a claimant, or spent at least 3 of the last 12 months as a claims manager or RTW Coordinator. Close personal experience of the matters to be resolved should be a fundamental prerequisite for participation in the administration of workers comp legislation.

“‘Off with their heads!’  I say, we want the kind of process Richard describes, that works for people.”

Like Rob, Dr Mary Wyatt, RTWMatters’ editor, thinks that “Process serving people” needs to have the end user in clear sight—and processes needs to be checked and reviewed to ensure they are effective.  Loading those who work in the field with more and more processes can easily detract from the main game.  When claims staff say “I don’t have time to talk to the worker” something is seriously wrong. 

Mary cites one of her favourite studies undertaken by The Gallup Organization in the US, commissioned by IntraCorp, a Study of Injured Workers and Their Experiences with the Workers’ Compensation System. 

Interviews of 600 injured workers across ten states found that:

• Workers who knew about what to do ahead of time benefited from what Intracorp has termed the “halo effect.” They were more satisfied in all areas.
• Those who knew about the procedures in advance were more apt to follow their employers’ recommendations on hospitals and doctors, and also expressed a higher degree of satisfaction with their employers.
• Employees who received prior communication about the workers’ comp process were out of work for shorter periods and were less likely to seek out a lawyer. 

Thanks Richard Green, for nudging our New Years’ Resolution in an even better direction.   Your input has led us to have an additional theme for the year: 
“Process serving people.”