- Build multi-functional team.
- Pick up the problem/challenge/value.
- Define whom it’s important for.
- Define dependencies.
- Define success/failure criteria.
- Slice it.
- Give it to the world.
- Retrieve & analyze feedback.
- Keep #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 – cycle short.
Depends (not important)
- Process you use – less is more. underestimated cost of spreading heavyweight process accross users.
- Tools you use – bottom up standardization normally works much better. but would be interesting to make an investigation how/if tools standardization really helps.
- Planning – as lots of work is invested into making a plan, people try to a void changing it to match the reality.
- Various definition and templates – often do not match real work even before being issued.
- Roles descriptions – typically defined for people below high level management.
p.s. Tayloristic organisation defines “not important” as highly important
Forget old company structure – it doesn’t support growth! By the way did you notice that clients, customers or users are never represented in organizational structure? It is like company exists for itself, but not for the clients…
Inspired by Niels Pflaeging ideas was writing some posts about what type of change we are introducing in my company. Any change is not an easy thing to do as different people need different arguments. Analogy with Scrum framework helps to explain these ideas to those practicing Scrum. I must say this comparison is so obvious that you get buy-in instantly.
But there are other people in the company. I found this article about product lines which basically is orientation towards value but has this smell of control and hierarchy. But even with control mindset and orientation towards value creation brings such benefits:
- Improved productivity by as much as 10x
- Increased quality by as much as 10x
- Decreased cost by as much as 60%
- Decreased labor needs by as much as 87%
- Decreased time to market (to field, to launch) by as much as 98%
- Ability to move into new markets in months, not years
Have no idea how precise are these numbers and how they were collected, but i think this can help to sell it to top management. What do you think?
p.s. posts that i mentioned above:
Do you build such organization? Don’t. There are better ideas.
What is your opinion on this topic? How do you understand progress? What matters in your company?
[iframe src=”http://prezi.com/embed/fdbea0790992d52a735738d7900bd985904b574b/?bgcolor=ffffff&lock_to_path=0&autoplay=0&autohide_ctrls=0&features=undefined&disabled_features=undefined” height=”400″ width=”550″ frameborder=”0″]
Why? Because most probably he will:
- Work on processes, not on value creation
- Be responsible for a certain centralized function: IT, Dev, PMO, Process Improvement department; which is not valuable without others (or just not valuable and gives overhead)
- Try to coordinate communication among different teams
- Have desire to push down decisions
- Have own goals
But you need leaders who will:
- Help to form cross-functional teams and delegate decisions to them
- Make information transparent and easily accessible
- Encourage collaboration
- Focus on value creation, not process improvements
- Build shared goals