Great read John. This is why I believe mapping (people based) knowledge networks is key to the success of knowledge management and employee enablement aims.
Most of the organisations follow the very same waterfall org structure still. Agile culture is a must in new age organisations, to be future ready, and org chart must change too to show the commitment among the teams, to know who are the real leaders, to enable synergy and collaboration.
Venugopalan, thank you for the comment. I'll be talking about agile vs. linear work soon. There is still a (large) place for waterfall-style work, the trick is knowing when to use it. But, as you say, an agile culture is needed to enable organisations to adapt to ever-changing conditions.
Hey Benjamin, I too think it is really interesting that it was drawn like fern and in so doing connotated organic growth ~ sustenance flowing up from the grounded board of directors out to the free-flowing tips that interfaced with the outside world. How quickly it was inverted! I think in this day and age the disablement often outways the enablement and therefore it shouldn't be the only, nor the dominant, organisational graph of relationships.
You must remember, Jack Welch's advice about Buerarcy - it protects the organization from the incompetent. In our mission-critical software intensive system of systems in defense and space, with may dozens of team spreads sometime around the world, individual, managers, leader, and the customer are all on the same page sharing the same goal - which is a banner 60 feet long and 20 feet high in the lobby of our building -- 100% Mission Success!
Now this may be unique for many in some domains, but can be replicated and is replicated in our subcontractors.
This starts with the Program Manager, who is accountable for all the work.
Thanks, Glen. I'm not familiar with the Rocky Flats story but will add it to my reading list. In reference to Welch's advice, there are many alternatives to a bureaucracy that will "protect organisations from the incompetent". I particularly like Haier's Rendanheyi model which turns every employee into an entrepreneur. Of course, all structures need to serve the teleology of the system, so there is no single best template. Thanks again for your comment.
In Making the Impossible Possible they describe (retroactively) what the process was for "organizing for success."
The book tells the story of how the 1st CEO and proposal manager, thought to himself "I need 20 or so direct reports for this 7 year 9 B$ program, who know how to get something done every single day without fail." "Who are those people, who also know about nuclear weapons?" "I know Navy Ships Captains!" The senior management team became the "Navy Mafia"
I came there through a neighbor who was the shipper of the USS Virginia, who fired the first Tomahawk at Sadam. The concept of "heliotropic abundance" is what's on the ship.
The ship is a pure command and control org charter, top-down. The Captian is responsible for everything, every single day. But NOTHING gets done, with the crew all working together as a seamless team.
Our son once asked our neighbor "who's in charge when your sleeping?" Answer "the crew knows how to manage without me. If something important happens, they'll wake me."
There's a HUGE myth about the C&C process in the military. Another good book is "Leaders Eat Last" with was a motto of the Spartan Army and the USMC. He goes through successful and not-so-successful companies
Great read John. This is why I believe mapping (people based) knowledge networks is key to the success of knowledge management and employee enablement aims.
Most of the organisations follow the very same waterfall org structure still. Agile culture is a must in new age organisations, to be future ready, and org chart must change too to show the commitment among the teams, to know who are the real leaders, to enable synergy and collaboration.
Venugopalan, thank you for the comment. I'll be talking about agile vs. linear work soon. There is still a (large) place for waterfall-style work, the trick is knowing when to use it. But, as you say, an agile culture is needed to enable organisations to adapt to ever-changing conditions.
Hmm... yes and no. Organisation charts are the 'original' constraints - disabling and enabling: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antlerboy_organisation-management-enterprisearchitecture-activity-6762640506850811904-Hc7B
Hey Benjamin, I too think it is really interesting that it was drawn like fern and in so doing connotated organic growth ~ sustenance flowing up from the grounded board of directors out to the free-flowing tips that interfaced with the outside world. How quickly it was inverted! I think in this day and age the disablement often outways the enablement and therefore it shouldn't be the only, nor the dominant, organisational graph of relationships.
You must remember, Jack Welch's advice about Buerarcy - it protects the organization from the incompetent. In our mission-critical software intensive system of systems in defense and space, with may dozens of team spreads sometime around the world, individual, managers, leader, and the customer are all on the same page sharing the same goal - which is a banner 60 feet long and 20 feet high in the lobby of our building -- 100% Mission Success!
Now this may be unique for many in some domains, but can be replicated and is replicated in our subcontractors.
This starts with the Program Manager, who is accountable for all the work.
Take a look at
https://www.slideshare.net/galleman/making-the-impossible-possible-11761602
and the book
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Impossible-Possible-Extraordinary-Performance/dp/1576753905
I'd suggest that Helitropic Abundance - the basis of our success - can be applied on any project
Thanks, Glen. I'm not familiar with the Rocky Flats story but will add it to my reading list. In reference to Welch's advice, there are many alternatives to a bureaucracy that will "protect organisations from the incompetent". I particularly like Haier's Rendanheyi model which turns every employee into an entrepreneur. Of course, all structures need to serve the teleology of the system, so there is no single best template. Thanks again for your comment.
In Making the Impossible Possible they describe (retroactively) what the process was for "organizing for success."
The book tells the story of how the 1st CEO and proposal manager, thought to himself "I need 20 or so direct reports for this 7 year 9 B$ program, who know how to get something done every single day without fail." "Who are those people, who also know about nuclear weapons?" "I know Navy Ships Captains!" The senior management team became the "Navy Mafia"
I came there through a neighbor who was the shipper of the USS Virginia, who fired the first Tomahawk at Sadam. The concept of "heliotropic abundance" is what's on the ship.
The ship is a pure command and control org charter, top-down. The Captian is responsible for everything, every single day. But NOTHING gets done, with the crew all working together as a seamless team.
Our son once asked our neighbor "who's in charge when your sleeping?" Answer "the crew knows how to manage without me. If something important happens, they'll wake me."
There's a HUGE myth about the C&C process in the military. Another good book is "Leaders Eat Last" with was a motto of the Spartan Army and the USMC. He goes through successful and not-so-successful companies