I'm in the first 20% of a book entitled "The Checklist Manifesto" by Atul Gawande. So far, it seems to be quite anecdotal about the prudence of keeping checklists for very important sequences of tasks. He is an MD, so it is unabashedly medical. But I've watched enough "air disaster" documentaries to know that not extending flaps ins a no-brainer mistake that happens too frequently.

This book, along with my Bullet Journaling, will probably lead me to some sort of hybrid between an analog bullet journal and a Mac outliner app.

I read ii several years ago after listening to a long interview on radio. IIRC he generalized somewhat too much about the rules he extrapolated which might work for consultant surgeons or pilots but maybe not where broad creative analyses and problem solving and overall flexibility is needed which is most situations, thinking on your toes as in most cases. Nevertheless it was a hit book back then even before I found out about it.

However he is sort of genuine and not a serial trendy book author. Unlike the guy below whose latest hip book, elastic: flexible thinking iatoc, is in sort of opposition to checklist manifesto, he over generalizes even more:

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Mlodinow

I've also read it. Its target is avoidance of error rather than productivity or time management, although there are some crossovers. In my work as a project manager, I've found checklists hugely helpful to team working under pressure.

The author is a serious medical practitioner himself and has pushed the use of checklists in hospitals with significant success - the statistics on deaths and disabilities because of mistakes or forgetfulness are disheartening.

About 5 years ago, he gave a series of Reith lectures* on the future of medicine which were interesting and eye-opening. They're still available to listen to here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04bsgqn/episodes/player

*The Reith lectures are an annual series of (usually) 4 to 6 lectures sponsored by the BBC in the UK. They're always deeply interesting. Named for Lord Reith, first director general of the BBC.

This is a deceptively deep topic. Checklists are inherently dead simple concepts but knowing when and how to apply them is really complex. I did enjoy that book and it's a great primer on why checklists in certain contexts are important.

I'm an Industrial Engineer and have worked in several manufacturing industries. In this world, we have way too many checklists (and information in general) and not enough context on which ones are important and companies 'fix' that by adding meta checklists. You'd think that we'd get better at it as digital tools get better, but in a 20 year career, I've seen the opposite. We have better tools and metadata horsepower than ever but the increase information noise tends to outpace our ability to keep it under control. I strongly believe that this is the next wave of productivity gains after basic industrialization, actually leverage data we are now drowning in.

Here's a typical example of checklist hell:

I'm a maintenance engineer writing a work order to do preventive maintenance on a pump. It might look like this:

First few steps are always boiler-plate, company policy stuff:

1. Notify all a affected personnel and get all applicable permits for this work.... one example of this may be that you need a 'hot work' permit which is a whole separate checklist that contains it's own 'boiler plate blah blahs' about applicable permits and lockout procedures, then about 20 checks intended to account for any possible special conditions no matter how unlikely they are to occur.
2. Lock out the equipment following all applicable lockout/tagout procedures......which explicitly or implicitly refers to another separate checklist (likely authored by the safety department with different list standards) which is probably a general site-level checklist and MAYBE specific machine level instructions about this piece of equipment.

Then actual work:
3. Follow manufacturer's steps for the 6-month maintenance plan. This refers to the 'attached' manual pages that are a another separate checklist.... at least half of which is the same boiler plate general safety and permit checks in addition to a bunch of superfluous checks put there in response to isolated fluke incidents and mostly cover common sense. But as a maintenance engineer, who are you to decide which of these 30 'OEM recommended' steps aren't important?
4. Follow company specific checklist for that kind of equipment. Like what materials to use or not use based on the particular chemicals we make (blah blah).

If you need special tools or equipment:
5. Forklift- be sure to complete the daily operational checklist which is like 3 important things like 'are the f'ing wheels on' along with random crap like 'are their any cracks in the tail lights' because the company's safety directive is to ensure all equipment is in good condition at all times. And don't confuse this list with the weekly/monthly equipment checklists which are made up of redundant tasks and checks).
6. If you need to do any 'elevated work'....defined by...yes another checklist... you better go through the condition checklist for that which is a special OSHA audit category and therefore must be kept in it's own separate 'checklist hell' in case we get audited.

Finish and document the work and turn back over to operations.
7. The maintenance planner has a checklist to make sure the work was done safely. Operations management has to sign off on the same slightly different 'was this done correctly and is it operating good now' checklist which of course has it's own redundancies.

I've personally witnessed a situation where there were so many safety checks to drive 'incidents to zero' that the joke was it takes 26 signatures to cut a pipe... and a welder still died because a pretty basic safety check "are oxygen levels low in this enclosed space" was skipped....like 12 times for that particular procedure that day.

We are well past the point where a mechanic couldn't possibly check all the things that all these departments have, in good faith, added to various checklists over the years and still manage to get any actual work done. Yet, when something goes wrong, this nest of redundant bullshit is picked apart so that the company can shift the blame to someone who "didn't follow the procedures".

Of course we have the tools to solve this problem, there are plenty of 'smart' checklist tools out there and I do my best to apply them when possible. But it's almost always a wasted effort if 98% of the rest of the organization can't comprehend digital information flow beyond the paper concept. And until that changes, we remain in checklist hell.

Writing an effective, useful checklist for others is really hard in a vacuum and nearly impossible when nested among other related checklists. Those very few of us who are good at it (I'm NOT) aren't getting paid or recognized nearly enough.

As a developer I try to automate processes where I can. But where this isn't practical I create a checklist. So I have checklists for: new product version release, newsletter etc. The checklists have saved me a lot of embarassing and time-consuming mistakes over the years.

--

Andy Brice
https://www.hyperplan.com

nathanb wrote:

We are well past the point where a mechanic couldn't possibly check all
the things that all these departments have, in good faith, added to
various checklists over the years and still manage to get any actual
work done.

Interesting. There has been talk recently about the proliferation of 'bullshit jobs' that don't really contribute to society in any meaningful way. We should perhaps we equally worried when the bullshit starts penetrating into real jobs.

But, having been able to watch some builders at work from my hotel window in Malta, some health and safety is definitely a good thing!

--

Andy Brice
https://www.hyperplan.com

https://focusmanifesto.s3.amazonaws.com/FocusFree.pdf

Andy Brice wrote:

Interesting. There has been talk recently about the proliferation of
'bullshit jobs' that don't really contribute to society in any
meaningful way. We should perhaps we equally worried when the bullshit
starts penetrating into real jobs.

But, having been able to watch some builders at work from my hotel
window in Malta, some health and safety is definitely a good thing!

--

Andy Brice
https://www.hyperplan.com

It's actually a good problem to have, historically speaking. We've captured most of the productivity and safety low-hanging fruit where things are far safer than they ever used to be. But as complexity has increased (to be able to achieve high safety and quality rates) the same strategies that got us there (following simple checklists) are no longer as effective and often detrimental. So we are experiencing a plateau of progress, especially in the construction industry, because we still don't manage beyond the checklist.

OMG this topic is going to go on forever too I guess as it's not clear what the actual debate is about as with many other threads which rambles off topic into a myriad of sideways. This is like the nurture-nature debate, no end in sight.

Except to be precise, here it's Top-down (checklist) vs bottom-up (flexible). Endless and pointless debate. Horses for courses. The actual topic though is about the Top-down checklist approach. More Minsky than Von Neumann.

Well, I think it's a valuable debate, simply because we're all interested in cognitive processes, and the impact of e.g. checklists (not to mention other forms of neurocerebral assistance, including e.g. hallucinogenics) on cognitive processes is still being (re)discovered. Take, for example, this recent statistic (reported in FutureCrunch, a genuinely wonderful palliative for all the horrendous goings-on reported in the mainstream media):

"Deaths after surgery in Scotland have dropped by more than a third since 2008, thanks to the use of a safety checklist. Sometimes, the solutions are simple."

And here's the actual report: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-47953541

Cheers!
Bill

It's good to specify what the actual debate is about, not always the case here, before it goes on, and on.

washere wrote:

OMG this topic is going to go on forever too I guess as it's not clear
what the actual debate is about as with many other threads which rambles
off topic into a myriad of sideways. This is like the nurture-nature
debate, no end in sight.

Except to be precise, here it's Top-down (checklist) vs bottom-up
(flexible). Endless and pointless debate. Horses for courses. The actual
topic though is about the Top-down checklist approach. More Minsky than
Von Neumann.

I guess it's moved away from the book, but I interpreted the question as an inquiry about how others apply checklists. That we've established obvious use cases like surgery or aviation, where routine is established and stakes are high, but how do we apply them to more fuzzy areas without getting lost in the sauce? Maybe I read too much into the original post, as I've been thinking intensely about the use, abuse, and deliverance from checklists in my line of work for many years now. I thought the discussion was about what the boundary of the checklist domain looks like, about where it's useful and where it fails, and why.

Somewhat related, this dichotomy might be a useful way to look at it: Frankenstacks and Rhizomes- https://mailchi.mp/ribbonfarm/frankenstacks-and-rhizomes?e=9621d0c003

I don't think it's that complicated. For example let's consider a shopping list. In the supermarket one might remember something needed not on the list. Or there might be something nice on offer with a huge price reduction that is tempting. Or another item that might open up the potential of another item already on the list. Or something one discovers or is recently launched. Or something another person recommends. Or warns about to replace with something else more healthy or better or same yet cheaper. The "realistic" scenarios can be endless.

It's still an essential checklist however one is still flexible and more "open".

I think of a checklist as a reproducible sequence of events or decisions (which are also events) that lead with certainty to an outcome specified in advance. ("You'll arrive at Mars if you start with step one and continue to step 11,234.") It takes a lot of time, talent, and treasure to come up with that sort of checklist, and equally so to execute against it.

Shopping lists are more or less colloquial or vernacular "check lists". I think we mentally make those sort of lists and burn through them all day long.

That's a Flow Chart. Still a checklist that, as i said in the first comment on this thread, what pilots and consultant surgeons, like the author, go through. It can also be called procedural modularity etc.

The point, despite the foolproof example seems lost, again. It is pointless to say whether the top-down analytical approach is correct or if the bottom-up perceptual approach is correct. Both, checklists & flexibility are needed. Just as anyone saying all is by nature or all is by nurture is looked upon as an idiot nowadays.

Procedural checklists or Flow charts give way to a more complex theoretical field, then it is another area of study. It does not stop there either, can get more complex still. But if the shopping list example is too difficult to drive the main point home, lets not complicate more needlessly.

However the debate here is whether to checklist or not to checklist. The answer is yes, but it is not everything. Just like the many examples I gave regarding the shopping list are forks in the checklist needing decisions. Which is what actual life is like, as I said here too, making decisions on your feet.

Interesting, if I understand @washere's interventions above, I seem to have thoroughly misunderstood the nature of my career's work. LOL. Oh, well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRHVMi3LxZE

Meaning, I should off myself? That’s not on my checklist.

washere wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRHVMi3LxZE

I read the book a while back and agree with NickG that it is mostly about error avoidance, mostly in certain fields, and I much appreciate nathan's observations defeating the purpose with too many checklists.

I think checklists can be a superb, perhaps unbeatable, tool for training. This is how you do this. Military training and rituals are a good example of an area where they can be highly effective.

I think this thread is focused and on point and interesting except for the posts complaining that it isn't! Lol.

Paul Korm wrote:

Meaning, I should off myself? That’s not on my checklist.

washere wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRHVMi3LxZE

Far from it, never occurred to me, I'm the glass half-full kind of guy.

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

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).

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.

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

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.