No principle screams from the page to me than this one, yet rarely have I seen it implemented.
I have worked under various managerial styles, but it boils down to two approaches for me, integrated or divided. All enterprises of any size do need to be composed of many organizational units, but that is to divide up the people into manageable groups; it should not divide the enterprise into separate fiefdoms. Just think how many times you have seen or been part of a re-organization, and then think about how many times that has changed the actual work you or anyone else does; the latter adds up to just about nil.
Consider a complete enterprise, with all the usual line and staff functions ; ask anyone in that enterprise how it is structured to do its business and you will probably be shown an org chart. The usual hierarchy of boxes and lines, from CEO down to the base units, is the business graphic that is the oldest and most commonly used. However, why does it have to keep changing? That’s because people are not automons, they need to be grouped in ways that maximize their contribution to the enterprise, while hopefully having job satisfaction and a boss they don’t loathe; and since people come and go, and since people can change over time, any one instance of an organization (as represented by an org chart) will be become sub-optimal as time passes, so re-organization is needed, and it is a good thing if it re-energizes people and re-marshals the enterprise to be its most effective.
The problem is when management believes that the org chart at any one time also represents how the work gets done. Worse yet, they also use the org chart as the basis for changing/improving how the work gets done. This is the ‘divided’ managerial style I mentioned earlier, and it directly affects how the enterprise carries out projects.
At any one time, an enterprise has certain amount of capacity to implement change; the main numbers are how many people there are to do projects, and/or how much money is available to hire outside people to do projects. These numbers are a primary input to that common-place activity of annual budgeting/planning; these numbers are limited/finite, so managers need to decide how to best use them. In the divided managerial style, each major tree below the CEO on the org chart is allocated some portion of those numbers; if you have 10 people available for projects, the number used may be 120 person months. So, Sales is allocated 20 months, Operations gets 40, Finance gets 35, etc. Management may come up with what it believes are equitable/effective means of divvying up the number beyond just dividing it into equal units, but that is a sham; this is further reinforced by the sham idea that if each unit operates and changes successfully in of itself, then the total of all the units’ success will equal the overall success of the enterprise. Does your company have internal charges between departments, often referred to as ‘funny money’? Then your company is divided, because all that funny money means nothing to the bottom line of the enterprise.
A divided approach is a problem when projects are used to improve the business, because projects change the work, not the organization. Take an important and common business activity, order fulfillment. If you trace the work from when a customer first orders a thing or a service, to when its delivery is complete, many (many!) org units will be involved. So, if each unit independently attempts to change/improve that stream of work, they will either overlap with other units or duplicate what other units are doing without knowing it.
The main result for IT is that each org unit will want to use its allocated resources to get its own projects done. So, irrespective of their overall value to the enterprise, a number of projects will get initiated. This will result in overlap or duplication within the systems IT delivers, assuming the systems are delivered. IT management will be faced with conflicting demands on their limited resources, so only some sub-set of the projects will be proceeding while others wait for resources. This leads to projects stopping for a while when they get to a point where they need new types of resources, and then have to start up again when those resources eventually become available.
So, irrespective of the method used to divvy up project resources, the ‘divide’ approach produces an ineffective and wasteful projects environment. The solution to this problem is to move to an integrated managerial approach.
An ‘integrated approach’ recognizes that an enterprise is a team brought together to operate a business, not a collection of independent fiefdoms; a CEO that recognizes and leverages this approach also knows that projects to improve the business belong to the enterprise, and almost always impact multiple organization units. Given this recognition, how an enterprise organizes its resources to carry out projects then will (or should) be tailored to the mix of people involved, just like any other aspect of organization. This could be anything, from ad-hoc teams to a full Project Management Office. Any good structure will do, as long as the enterprise view is maintained.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
