Tag Archives: Outcomes

Building a house and transforming a business have more in common than you might think…

A case for organisational design principles…

Regardless of whether you are designing a house, a commercial building, starting a new business or transforming an existing operation, the cause of many substandard designs and implementations can very often be traced back to a common failing.

The following is an analogy, but one I have witnessed first hand, both in a personal and in many business contexts.  It resonates because the impacts of poor design have long lasting effects on those involved and invested, both financially and personally… and I would be surprised if you too hadn’t witnessed similar scenarios.

 

The vision…
You and your partner decide to build a house.
Your vision for your house is that it be the home of your dreams… the last place you will build, a place where you can live comfortably for the rest of your lives, and a place where your family always feel welcome and safe.

To achieve your vision, you agree on a strategy to:

  • Find a block of land with city views with a rundown house on it,
  • Clear the block and build a new, energy efficient house,
  • Design the house yourselves and engage a draftsman to complete the technical drawings, (saving money to be redirected towards energy efficient features),
  • Use sustainable building products,
  • Be energy self-sufficient within 5 years.

Design…
Whilst you search for a suitable block, you commence your house design. You split up the various sections of the house between you and your partner, and design each space around your specialities and preferences…ie: you design the kitchen, your partner designs the bedrooms and so on…
You come together periodically to discuss the progress you are making and the major issues you are thinking through, room by room… and by the end of the design phase, you are both happy with the spaces you’ve designed and the functionality of each.

You find a suitable block, make the purchase and engage your draftsman to turn the design into a plan. The draftsman works as directed, and compiles the design into a working plan. You tweak your designs slightly as the draftsman points out obvious issues, but on the whole, each room and space retains its design elements and you are ready to get final building approvals and engage a builder.

Implementation…
Your builder starts construction.
The build progresses well, but as with all builds, there are inevitable, small issues encountered in a number of spaces by the builder. Some he resolves using his own experience, some he refers to you to decide on. Most of the resolutions are minor with small adjustments to dimensions, alignment with frames and trusses etc, but the plan for each of the affected spaces only require minor amendments.

The build is completed, and as you and your partner stand in your new home for the first time, you are both are ecstatic with the result.

Operationalisation…
A few weeks pass. You move in and start to inhabit and live in the space. A few things catch your eye.
Whilst standing in the kitchen, cooking, you glance to your left and find that you have a clear line of sight straight through the master bedroom door, through to the ensuite and the exposed toilet.
You look straight ahead and notice that the lighting in the living space is annoyingly off centre from the lighting alignment in both the kitchen and the outdoor extension of the living area.
You hear your children playing outside, but you have to move out of the kitchen/living area, where you spend the majority of your time, to be able to keep an eye on them.

In the upstairs bedroom, the laundry shoot in the wardrobe, that had to be moved just 50mm to avoid the underfloor structures, now drops the clothes further away from the laundry wall beneath, meaning the basket needs to be placed annoyingly out in the walkway that leads to the outside door of the laundry, to ensure the clothes aren’t dropped in the middle of the floor.

The solar panel system purchased does not generate enough power to run both the house and the pool, due to an upgrade deal you were able to negotiate on the size of the pool. And, under the house, the planned water tanks have had to be downsized, due to a budget decision made during the cut and fill stage of the build, meaning that the water storage capacity will not allow you to produce a self-sufficient water supply.

As you look closer, you continue to notice other issues over time. The deficiencies in the way the house performs become more frustrating, but over time you adjust to living with them, albeit that your satisfaction is greatly diminished, your dream has been tarnished and plan of self-sufficiency now seems unachievable without significant additional investment.

The point is…
The vision and strategy were sound. Each partner understood the strategy and vision, and each space was designed in accordance with that vision and strategy, however…

  • Each space was designed, planned and built to operate as a singular space.
  • Decisions relating to each space were taken in isolation and based on the design priorities of that space and its designer.
  • Discussions at the planning stage, between the designers of each space, regarding the achievement of the strategy and the vision, were high level, and whilst productive, did not draw out the inter-linkages between each space and the impacts of each design element.
  • As time wore on, these discussions became more and more about the detail of each individual space, and the tie-back to the original intent was discussed less and less.
  • There was no clear, definitive set of design principles on which to base and validate every design decision, amendment decision and budget decision.
  • As such, there was no way to validate that each element of the design and build was actually going to achieve the strategy and vision… There was a large “grey-space” between the strategy and vision, and the execution of the plan.

Execution of the plan was done with the best of intentions, but the result was a disconnected and sub-optimal result, with long lasting impacts on owner satisfaction and usability, inability to achieve the core objectives, inflexible design and ongoing costs exceeding budget.

Of course, the house being built is a metaphor for the development of a new business, an organisational transformation, or large program of work. Regardless of whether we are talking about house designs or execution of organisational strategy, people remain at the heart of all decisions, and as such, the implications of not setting up an environment where sound and confident decision making is possible, are likely to be long lasting and destructive.

Now, let’s revisit these issues in a business context… Do any of these sound familiar?…

  • Each division/department was designed, planned and built to operate as a singular operation.
  • Decisions relating to each division/department were taken in isolation and based on the design priorities of that division and its Manager/s.
  • Discussions at the planning stage, between the Managers of each division/department, regarding the achievement of the strategy and the vision, were high level, and whilst productive, did not draw out the inter-linkages between each division/department and the impacts of each department’s outputs.
  • As time wore on, these discussions became more and more about the detail of each individual division, and the tie-back to the original organisational intent was discussed less and less.
  • There was no clear, definitive set of design principles on which to base and validate every design decision, amendment decision and budget decision.
  • As such, there was no way to validate that the collective outputs of each division were actually going to achieve the strategy and vision… There was a large “grey-space” between the strategy and vision, and the execution of the business plan.

To avoid these issues…
Following the Vision and Strategy setting stage… but before the design and build phase, a set of overarching design principles and use cases are required to be developed, to turn the vision into a tangible set of actionable principles that could be used for all decision making, problem solving, prioritisation and planning.
The process of defining Design Principles commences by focussing thinking and energy towards the core “outcomes” desired, and ensuring that the important aspects of the vision and strategy are articulated in a way that can be related to and understood unambiguously.

Next stage is to refine and adapt each principle in more detail, exploring interconnections and more operational impacts and implications. This is achieved by asking detailed questions as to how the desired outcomes will be achieved, end to end…
Questions such as, “…What experience will the user have when operating in the kitchen…?”, “What are the mandatory aspects that should be hidden from view…?”, “What will the user see from each core work space…?”, “How will key usability features interact and operate throughout the entire lifecycle of each use case…?”, What are the limitations of the solar system, and how much future flexibility is built in to allow for expansion…?”.

In a business context, these principles will span seven core categories, describing how decisions and priorities are to be made regarding People/Customers, Products & Services, Channels of Access, Processes, Information & Data, Technology, and Capability. Questions driving the formulation of these principles might sound like, “…What experience will the customer have when accessing services that cut across multiple divisions or departments of the business…?”, “…How will captured data be reused throughout the lifecycle of the customer…?”, “…What are the core ‘outcomes’ that MUST be delivered for the business to achieve its vision…?”, and so on.

Once finalised, the answers are converted into principles. The result is a decision making and prioritisation validation reference that can be used to ensure that each element of the finished product, and every decision required to be made, every day, always contributes and remains linked to the achievement of the overarching vision and strategic intent.

Disagreements that arise, cease to become arguments of whether one person was right or wrong… but become far more rational discussions of the merits of the principle on which the decision was based. The resolution of these discussions then is either, a). the principle is still considered valid, and the decision stands, or b). the principle needs to be amended.

The sequencing is critical…
Building an effective operating model is an iterative process…

1. Organisational Vision and Strategies are validated,
2. Organisational Level Design Principles are defined and agreed (CEO and SLT level),
3. Divisional level principles are defined next, as extensions of the level above,
4. Manager/Department/Team level principles are then defined, as the next level of detail, utilising the principles from above,
5. Project/Process level principles can also be developed, ensuring alignment at the most operational levels of the business,
6. Design Principles are actively utilised and referenced for decision making and prioritisation across the business, and critically, referred to and reviewed in all ongoing decision making forums.

To achieve the optimal “outcomes” through organisational change when applying this methodology, it is imperative that implementation of the Operating Model follows the following sequence:
1). Design Principles first… 2). Optimal Process Designs or Changes required to deliver the principles come next… 3). The Structure and Capabilities required to achieve these come last.

Continue reading