Bertrand Duperrin's Library tagged organizationaldesign → View Popular, Search in Google

May

2012

L’architecture organisationnelle est sensible à l’échelle

"La taille d’une organisation influe sur les modes de prise de décision, de transfert d’information ou de coopération, ce qui fait que les « bonnes recettes » à 10 personnes ne fonctionnent pas forcément à 100 ou encore moins à 1000. Plus précisément, un grand nombre de problèmes apparaissent lorsque la taille augmente, et l’efficacité n’est pas proportionnelle à la force de travail disponible. Cette constatation n’est pas sans rappeler ce qu’on observe dans les systèmes parallèles (cf. la loi d’Admdhal) qui montre que la puissance que l’on obtient en multipliant les processeurs est compensée par la tâche croissante de synchronisation. Ce n’est pas une surprise : les petites structures souffrent moins des problèmes de coordination et de synchronisation !"

organisationarchitecture.blogspot.fr/...ure-organisationnelle-est.html

- Preview

organization coordination dunbar scale scalability context teams management structure organizationaldesign lean interfaces autonomy SOA complexity networks socialnetworks enterprise2.0 socialbusiness podularity

La tentation d’éviter les tares des grandes organisations opérationnelles en les découpant en plus petites est pertinente si le coefficient est faible, et pas forcément efficace dans le cas contraire. Ce qui nous ramène à la thèse initiale : la bonne organisation dépend du contexte et de la taille.
Je pense que la taille de 150 est un seuil critique dans la gestion des organisations, et ceci est conforté par 20 ans de discussions avec des managers opérationnels.
15 more annotation(s)...
- C’est ce qui explique qu’en dehors des réunions d’information, il existe des tailles idéales pour des réunions de brainstorming ou de prises de décision, entre 7 et 10.
- dans le monde complexe du 21^e siècle, les activités de communication qui sont nécessaires pour coordonner des tâches obtenues par décomposition d’un objectif unique prennent une part sans cesse croissante du temps actif disponible.
- C’est ce qui explique les limites de la Taylorisation : en décomposant/spécialisant, on multiplie des interfaces qui, contrairement à la vision mécanique du 20^e siècle, exigent des flux d’information de coordination à complexité quadratique.
- Dès que l’organisation dépasse une certaine taille, les échanges indirects (qui passent par la médiation d’une autre personne, d’un groupe ou d’un support) dominent les échanges directs.
- . Si l’on souscrit à la thèse de March & Simon qu’une des fonctions clés du management est de gérer les flux d’information, il est clair que cette structure de management est forcément sensible à l’échelle.
- le management a une responsabilité essentielle dans la transformation de l’entreprise face aux défis de l’agilité et de la complexité. Il est clair que tout ce que j’écris depuis quelque temps d’appuie sur la « puissance des petites équipes », en particulier les méthodes agiles de développement et le lean software development. En revanche, il ne faut pas s’y tromper, ces bénéfices sont très fortement dépendant de l’échelle et on n’organise pas une grande équipe comme une petite
- En revanche, tout ne se règle pas par auto-organisation.
  Il faut donc bénéficier des avantages des « small teams », au sein d’une architecture modulaire semblable à celle du système d’information
- « lean management » gère cette problématique avec des équipes autonomes et indépendantes, reliées par des interfaces « dures » (stables et contraignantes).
- Une des craintes des spécialistes du lean par rapport aux pratiques 2.0 est qu’elles créent des interfaces « molles » et renforce les dépendances.
- on retrouve les principes du SOA : organiser en termes de services, définis par des interfaces « strictes » pour favoriser l’encapsulation, c’est-à-dire l’autonomie locale
- Les équipes doivent être organisées au sein d’une structure, avec un véritable management qui joue un rôle, et qui s’appuie sur une culture propre aux grandes organisations, celle de la maîtrise de la complexité.
- La structure de coordination de l’entreprise – en particulier les réseaux créés par l’Entreprise 2.0 - est une structure multi-échelle, elle ne globalise pas les problèmes, mais elle se décline de façon fractale à des échelles multiples.
- La science des réseaux sociaux nous enseigne qu’une bonne structure de coordination est « scale-free » dans un sens très particulier qui signifie que la répartition des degrés dans les nœuds de connexion suit une « power law », ce qui implique qu’il existe de nombreux nœuds très connectés
- Un réseau podulaire est la combinaison de petits sous-graphes fortement connectés (les pods) dans un maillage plus large
- On trouve dans cette conclusion une clé d’articulation pour le management : l’autonomie est fournie par l’utilisation de « small teams », le « mastery » est une des ambitions des pratiques du lean, et le management est bien là pour expliquer et nourrir le « sens »

Apr

2012

Design Principles for Complex, Unpredictable, People Oriented Systems

"An IBM Global CEO Study conducted in 2010 concluded that complexity was the primary challenge emerging out of its conversations with 1,500 CEOs and senior government officials. “CEOs told us they operate in a world that is substantially more volatile, uncertain and complex. Many shared the view that incremental changes are no longer sufficient in a world that is operating in fundamentally different ways.” "

blog.irvingwb.com/...e-people-oriented-systems.html

- Preview

management adaptability unpredictability complexity organizationaldesign organization creativity innovation services serviceeconomy

These same CEOs cited creativity as the most important leadership quality they look for over the next five years.
Business and business schools are supposed to be all about applying hard, that is, quantitative, analytical approaches to management. What then do we mean by bringing seemingly soft topics like design and creativity to business and why is it so important in today’s world?
14 more annotation(s)...
- Analytical approaches work well when you have a pretty good understanding of the product you are developing or when you are dealing with a well defined problem
- But, they do not work so well when dealing with highly complex systems with fast changing, interacting components, where it is much less clear what is going on in the present, let alone how things will evolve into the future. We need different principles and processes to address this class of highly complex problems, many based on disruptive innovations which we have not encountered before
- In truth, design has spread like gas to almost all facets of human activity, from science and education to politics and policymaking. For a simple reason: one of design’s most fundamental tasks is to help people deal with change
- What do we mean by applying design principles to complex, unpredictable, people oriented systems and problems?
- The first is flexibility and adaptability. If you look at complex systems as a kind of spectrum, with natural biological systems – e.g., living organisms, ecosystems and evolution - at one end and physically engineered systems - e.g., bridges, airplanes and microprocessors - at the other, socio-technical systems fall someplace in between
- But the mechanisms to increase robustness will in turn make the system considerably more complex.
- This balancing act between complexity and robustness is never done.
- Quality of experience is the second major design principle I'd like to discuss. The industrial sector of the economy is oriented toward the production of physical goods. Product excellence and competitive costs are its key design objectives
- But, socio-technical systems are oriented toward people and services. While product excellence and competitive costs are also important to services, they are not enough.
- While advances in technology are now enabling us to bring major innovations to services, most of the really hard issues are not technical at all. They are human
- The bulk of research and innovation in services has to take place in the marketplace, where the people who consume the services are. The marketplace is truly the research lab for innovation in services, the place where new service ideas have to be developed, prototyped and tested.
- Finally, let me talk about the central role of marketing and communications as a design principle, arguably the least understood such principle.
- You have to engage your audience in a conversation about the future you are after. You have to gain their trust by clearly telling them what’s in your mind, your aspirations, your questions, your doubts, your frustrations, what you know and what you don't know.
- Advances in technology, - faster, more powerful, less expensive, - are concrete and visible. Design is subtle, more subjective, more open to human interpretation. But, as our increasingly advanced technologies enable us to build larger, more capable, more complex systems, the role of design becomes ever more important. It

E20C Workshop: E20 & OE

www.slideshare.net/...e20c-workshop-e20-oe

- Preview

enterprise2.0 socialbusiness organization organization2.0 organizationaldesign

Feb

2012

What Not To Leave Out Of Your Social Business Strategy

"

Consequently, one of the questions that seems to come up most often is this: What are the necessary moving parts in a social business strategy? What exactly needs to be included and what can be left out? While the short answer tends to be frustrating and uninformative, namely that it depends on what you’re trying to do. The longer answer, fortunately, is more interesting."

www.dachisgroup.com/...-your-social-business-strategy

- Preview

socialbusiness strategy communitymanagement riskmanagement businessprocess organizationaldesign communication eduction training

Community management
11 more annotation(s)...
- Therefore, most social business strategies, global or at the business function level, should address this as a first class citizen on their roadmaps and in their business case.
- Social platform strategy.
- The strategy should, when possible, account for how all this social technology should co-exist and where it should be consistent and integrated when they overlap. Functional overlap of social tools and platforms remains a major source of frustration, confusion and duplication in most organizations and needs to be dealt with pro-actively.
- Risk management.
- I find that the most effective social business strategies often call this something else entirely and plan from the beginning to address risk in simple, straightforward terms without making it a highlight of the effort.
- Business process redesign
- This means re-engineering business processes from the ground up to be inherently social, open, and participative. How to determine what the changes should be and the process to go about delivering on them must be a primary focus of the strategy effort.
- Organizational design
- In my view, org design is best split between the global strategy and the functional strategy, with a long-term plan in the former and more immediate changes in the latter. At first, this may just be the establishment of a central support unit for social business.
- Communication plan.
- Communication plans should be multi-modal, compelling, and consist of education, workshops, just-in-time training, and outreach to areas that are having challenges.

Social Means Freedom, for Better or for Worse

"A Stanford Professor quit his job. But he doesn't plan to go to another prestigious university. Nope. He, like others, has discovered the power of teaching online; in his case, he reached 160,000 students in a single online course on artificial intelligence. This is more than a story of online learning or mass dissemination. It proves a point: What once required a badge and a title within a centralized organization no longer does.

The implications for global education are huge, of course. And that would be interesting enough. But there are also implications for organizational design and talent management for firms of all sizes. "

blogs.hbr.org/...l_means_freedom_for_bette.html

- Preview

organization organizationaldesign talentmanagement costcutting sharedpurpose alignment

Nimbleness model #1: Staffing with "concentric circles."
Instead of organizing in a hierarchical way that focuses on "getting the right people on the bus," this model is about building concentric circles of talent that flow and resize as needed.
7 more annotation(s)...
- A construct of circles rather than hierarchies allows an organization to tap into the so-called "freelance nation," the global talent pool of the creative class.
- Nimbleness model #2: Customer service outside the perimeter.
- McAfee did something transformative to their service exchange by using social. McAfee formed a strong bond of commitment with the hundreds of unpaid technical experts in the larger marketplace who know (and like) McAfee's platform of solutions. They invited these "McAfee Maniacs" to participate in much of McAfee's web-based technical support. The most prolific Maniacs posted responses numbering in the thousands.
- first line of defense of loyal, committed experts cooperating in the viability of the platform. Customer satisfaction didn't decline. There is probably no better defense shield than passionate market experts co-opted with a company — and for free.
- he point of these examples is what these organizations got, not what they cut. They gained fluidity and flexibility — important to the demands of the social era. But they also got, in the case of Singularity, the leading edge content people to come together to teach current ideas to what they believe are change-agents who will make the world better.
- When you have shared purpose, it doesn't matter how many people work "in the company" and how many work "with" the company or how many are serving as an army of volunteers who want to advance the mission.
- But they will need an extremely clear purpose, and shared, decentralized power throughout. When a clear purpose is coupled with shared power, people can self-organize to reach the goal.

Jan

2010

Organizational Design in Social Business

"The effectiveness of an Organizational Design exercise depends on the fit of process, structure and behaviour that make up the organization and how they are aligned with both existing and desired future capabilities.

Social Business Design adds a new type of complexity to an organizational design exercise. In traditional organizational design exercises, it was paramount to identify both the current state and the future state of the organization, and then design a path to that final outcome. In Social Business Design we must identify not only the bounds but also the flexibility of the organization to adapt to new factors and to develop emergent outcomes."

www.dachisgroup.com/...onal-design-in-social-business

- Preview

organizationaldesign socialbusiness integration ecosystem change changemanagement strategy goals management organization

Integration of External and Internal ecosystems. What is the current and desired future level of interaction of the organization’s ecosystems? An understanding of the current and desired future sociality of the organization is critical.
The organization and its partners must have the ability to design, manage and measure the changes being made to itself. This is often achieved through the use of both internal and external (consultant) resources. Before beginning a change exercise, it is important to understand what has come before.
1 more annotation(s)...
- Changing an organization in the absence of a strategic goal is not generally a sound path. Before re-designing an organization and implementing a change program, a strategy and set of clear goals are paramount to a successful organizational design.

Dec

2009

Edward Lawler on new management models

"So what I have been trying to do in a new book is say what that looks like, and yes, I have incorporated certainly some of the things that we did in Management 1.0 and Management 2.0. I think it really has to have a different philosophy and a different orientation with respect to both organizational design, how we treat the work force, how we think about the work force and basically how we lead in this kind of economy and in this kind of competitive environment."

www.fastforwardblog.com/...-what-i-call-wirearchy-emerges

- Preview

management management2.0 management3.0 organizationaldesign involvement control organization wirearchy

It seems to me that, if you are going to have a valid, viable 3.0, it has to include the right blend of leadership behaviours. Yes, where you inspire people by a sense of mission, sustainability, accountability – but also have a valid management approach which deals with fundamentals like goal setting and work specifications and product evaluation produced by employees.
I think it depends substantially on what business you are in, how sophisticated the business is, and how complex it is, but I see much more self organizing, much more use of information technology, social networks, and perhaps even internal markets to create the forum and allocate financial resources within organizations, and that’s an area where there would be enormous differences.