Creativity vs Quality: the debate
The eternal question - much like the chicken or the egg... shall the creative spark that is the genesis of all truly inspired work be allowed to rule untrammelled? Or shall the tried and tested methods to control quality gain precedence? As Luna Lovegood pointed out in the last and most-awaited Harry Potter, "the answer is that a circle has no beginnings" which, incidentally, is by way of fast becoming a cult line with Potter fans. In fact, if one were to consider JK Rowling herself, it would make for a fascinating case study in this context.
Simply consider where the boy wizard would have been without the wellspring of creativity from which Rowling pulled him out... He would not have existed. However, had Rowling not brought to bear all the considerable craft and discipline that she had at her disposal, there would have been no Harry Potter phenomenon. The two factors may be as alike as chalk and cheese, but are equally crucial to the success of any initiative. It's a bit like marriages working best when the spouses complement each other rather than appearing to be clones.
If one were to take that stand into the IT industry, or even industry at large, it would be borne out. The best organisations, the best initiatives, have emerged from a marriage of creativity and quality. Even at HCL, had we not had that creative spark, we would have been unable to evolve the elements of the transformation journey that we undertook about a year ad a half ago. The policies and attitudes that it has thrown up have today become an integral part of the work culture at HCL and have had a significant positive impact on the bottom line. (Hyperlink to people blog where we talk of "employee first"?). However, had we not had the discipline and the means to control quality, and ensure that these ideas were implemented as they were meant to be, we would not have met with the success that we are reaping today.
Over the decades, we have realised that the two are inseparable. Effectively it becomes a people versus processes debate. While on the one hand, processes are designed to be "people-proof"? in a manner of speaking, so that no matter who is using that particular process, the work is still done with the same efficiency in theory, on the other, the irony of it is that the processes are ultimately, designed by people. Neither the process nor the person is infallible. Which begs the question - what should be given priority?
To my way of thinking, there is no single panacea. I personally prefer to put my faith in people first and processes later but there are exceptions to everything. What works best, according to me, is applying individual judgement and analysing each situation, reading what it demands, and then deciding on a ratio of the two. It does sound like a lot more work than applying standard practices throughout, especially since they have been tried and tested over the years, but hey, whoever said perfection was easy?