How many corporate performance issues can be appropriately addressed with an organizational-systems-design approach? We deem any issue that can be stated as "how do we work together to accomplish X" as ripe for org design. Unfortunately, the methodology is often viewed narrowly as applicable only to large-scale corporate restructuring. In fact, an organizational systems model is scalable, pertinent to anything from a work group to a global Fortune 50 enterprise.
With an issue defined and a team chartered to develop solutions recommendations, the first order of business is to define what are we trying to accomplish. Using the framework of the Work System we define the beginning and the end and the transition between. The work is initially defined from an optimal perspective: when everything goes right, here is what happens, and here is the result. Then the discussion shifts to what can go wrong, e.g. where do we experience delays and where do we see defective outputs? Next step is to develop ideas regarding how to eliminate the delays and defects.
After dealing with "what gets done", we go to "who does what". Barring frequent reminders to keep what and who separate, the natural tendency is to define the work by defining all of the handoffs. Keeping "what gets done" isolated greatly simplifies the definition of the work. It also lays out a simple, no-handoff version of the work that lends itself to a streamlined assignment of roles and responsibilities.
Next consideration is what do we need to know to facilitate a streamlined process, and how will we know how we are doing regarding process performance. The information flow should align with the streamlined version of roles and responsibilities. Performance measures, if they are to really happen, require new roles and responsibilities.
Having the necessary skills, knowledge, and behaviors from the people responsible for the work is our next objective. Typically, when changes have been made to the work, structure, and/or information systems, gaps will be created between necessary competencies and available competencies. Therefore, a development plan is needed for existing staff and/or a hiring plan for new staff to fill the gaps.
Rewards considerations rarely need to include formal compensation and benefits, but rewards should always be considered. If a change is being proposed, the design ought to address making it easier to do the new way and more difficult to do the old. Here is a simple area where change efforts often flounder, because it remains easier to do the old way, and often punishing in some way to do the new.
Renewal relative to problem solving has two principle aspects. The first is learning by doing; the team that assesses the problem and develops the solution using a systems approach will be better able to tackle the next problem. The second is monitoring the results of the change, modifying the design based on analysis of performance data, and capturing lessons learned.
A major factor in successful change efforts is engaging and involving the people most affected by the change. The approach outlined above engages and involves those people in designing the change. When it comes time to implement the design, they experience more a sense of changing than of being changed. We'll leave it to you to decide which type of change is likely to meet more resistance.
Comments