Agile org is it a myth?
•
1 j'aime•471 vues
Tayloristic organization is something we are used to see on most places. Common attributes of such organizations: sequential development, command and control, silos and its efficiency. Sharing an idea about alternative way to design organization which better fits (from my point of view) dynamic growth, agility and continuous improvement.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Agile org is it a myth?
Similaire à Agile org is it a myth? (20)
Dernier
Dernier (13)
Agile org is it a myth?
- 1. Is it a myth? Agile(Network) organization
- 3. How to organize work?
- 5. Competition
- 6. Full stack ad-tech platform Media Agencies Brands Trading desks Publishers
- 7. 35 -> 700+ in multiple locations desire to keep the culture 300+ in product development
- 11. 1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods 2. Scientifically select and develop employees 3. Strict division of work between workers and managers 4. Very detailed instructions for workers
- 12. DoingThinking != Workers are dumb. *Method is NOT applied on managers and oriented downwards Everything can be planned precisely.
- 13. Workers Managers budgets strategy planning control command do what are told implement follow instructions report no information decisions
- 14. Why perfect* for 1911? * even back then not all agreed
- 15. Level of education Information access Lower competition (monopolies, complicated projects…) … and it’s 2016 now
- 16. 1954 Peter Drucker Management by Objectives
- 17. 1960s Douglas McGregor Theory X and Theory Y
- 18. 1951 in Japan 1993 in US W. E. Deming 94% of problems are system driven
- 19. 1951-1971 Taiichi Ohno Toyota production system
- 20. 2006-… Niels Pflaeging Organize for Complexity
- 21. 2007-… Nassim Nicholas Taleb Things that gain from disorder
- 22. One common thing It’s not about people It’s mostly about the system
- 23. Is scientific management the best tool for…? High competition Knowledge workers Fast pace Change Complex work
- 24. Everyone is busy Project manager 1. Team of analysts 2. Team of Devs 3. Team of QAs but users are not not happy
- 25. SCRUM to the rescue!
- 26. It Works! Multi functional team Technical practices Common goal Team is formed around value creation Team is protected and served by SMs Value is delivered incrementally
- 27. Back to org. design
- 29. Things are getting slower
- 30. Not optimizing the whole
- 31. - manage dependencies - ensure value delivery Control is needed over set of functions:
- 34. POD Interdisciplinary (all needed roles) Clearly defined value and output Responsible for whole delivery cycle Defined dependencies/boundaries Can make decisions Shared goal
- 35. Principles Transparency De-centralization Service Collaboration Focus on value 2 emergent leaders: direction & execution
- 36. Product POD Closest to end users Mobile Direct revenue Business offering Campaigns optimization SSP DMP Core business
- 37. Platform POD Fraud Indirect revenueUnique knowledge API middleware Data storageData collection Research Infra Monitoring infra Difficult to scale out Used by many
- 38. Service POD Serves other PODs Supportive functions: HR, Guilds(QA, …), Coaching, Procurement, … Main principles: educate delegate through satellites accumulate & spread knowledge
- 40. Value map works on a scale of 400 people Product + Dev + IT services + CS
- 41. Dependencies Missing units are faster to notice
- 42. hire slow - fire fast on-boarding mindset better than you
- 43. Technical excellence API first thinking Chaos monkey Automate everything Craftsmanship
- 44. Designed for change split by value delivery keep PODs small: < 30 - 40
- 45. Transparency it’s scary difficult to maintain highly appreciated and noticeably improves decision making depends on leaders
- 47. Collaboration culture remote offices underestimated: Cross dependent product apparently is not enough
- 48. Guidance of change but let details evolve, don’t prescribe them principles are not enough describe main artifacts & guidelines asap
- 49. Do it everywhere Platform & Service PODs it will become a bottleneck
- 50. Delegation & Control* maintain healthy diversity of: - practices - approaches - tools - … * there is always a temptation to make everything the same control objectives, not approach
- 51. Conventional methods - presentation - managed discussion - status report - open discussion - brainstorm Liberating structures - TRIZ - 15% solutions - Min specs - …
- 52. Is it a myth?
Notes de l'éditeur
- Tayloristic organization is something we are used to see on most places. Common attributes of such organizations: sequential development, command and control, silos and its efficiency. Want to share an idea about alternative way to design organization which better fits (from my point of view) dynamic growth, agility and continuous improvement from my point of view. Will explain why decided to go this way and will share personal experience and lessons learned.
- adform.com - independent and open full stack ad-tech platform servicing: media agencies, trading desks, brands and publishers globally. company was growing rapidly each year +50% each year both revenue and people wise. worn various hats during this period so could have a look at the same challenge for different angles. and try different things which worked and didn’t work.
- so how to organize work? which way is better? who is the ultimate winner? organizing work is a tool. tool cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. can be very misleading and can bring lots of misunderstandings when applying it. to understand and know which tool to apply best you must always evaluate at least two things context: where it will be applied history: why this tool was created
- context
- high competition
- full stack ad-tech platform servicing: media agencies, trading desks, brands and publishers globally
- wanted to maintain: transparency, ownership, focus on value delivery, possibility to innovate/learn/experiment, empowerment and delegation
- history
- he was working as mechanical engineer at the factory. while working he was noticing lots of inefficiencies at work and wanted to change and improve it. while observing all the situation he invented way to organize work that changed the world
- revolutionary method
- he described following things which were revolutionary at that time and solved lots of issues, helped factories to increase efficiency, reduce error rate and etc. so everybody started to replicate this method and apply it everywhere: projects, government and etc. after analyzing this method more you might identify following thinking behind
- nothing to comment here b) it’s the same as to build judgement system based on thinking that all people are criminals by default or people are innocent by default c) you can easily prove that it’s just a false expectation. next time just try to come at work exactly at 9.00 (without coming in advance and waiting will required time). you will see that even such a simple tasks is extremely difficult to achieve. and than make it more difficult and try to do the same by arriving at 9:00 to an office in another city. and of course application of these principles leads to a very obvious (and common nowadays way of organizing work)
- typical organisation
- most people were hired from the fields (farmers and peasants), so of course they didn’t know how to operate machinery. overall education wasn’t well spread availability of information was low it wasn’t possible to start a company like nowadays. there were less reach people with possibilities due to low competition mainly all work was repetitive now it’s 2016 and all these things changed dramatically, especially level of education and information access. so even this can lead to a thinking that this method should be reviewed. and additionally, despite these kind of obvious factors there were people back then who didn’t agree and had a different point of view on the same problem
- 90% of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get work done
- Create an environment where employees are motivated via self-control
- Create an environment where employees are motivated via self-control
- we are reducing time line by reducing non-value adding wastes
- Most organizations are designed to produce fear, not value
- end users and clients are never represented on the org. chart as if companies would exist for themselves. people start to focus on internal problems rather than clients
- Functional Silos not Value Delivery due to this situation there is a feeling that things are getting slow. whole organizational chart doesn’t represent value delivery. it’s often hidden and requires an effort to understand that.
- Typical situation when e.g. IT is batching purchases to get better contract because their main KPI is how much money spent instead of measuring cost of delay or upfront purchases that all departments are making trying to minimize impact of mistakes that they are going to make during planning
- as each function doesn’t know what is the end result and have different goals than it becomes obvious that strict control is needed to ensure value delivery. sometimes it can be even worse as functional leader is typically doesn’t care about end results as he/she has own KPIs that he must care about
- what can be the alternative?
- network structure?
- inter disciplinary product or service team
- work principles
- type1 - closest to clients
- type2 - indirect value
- control functions become service providers
- pros & cons and lessons learned
- helps to make business decisions.
- easier to adjust to business needs and notice problems
- business agility without technical agility will generate more problems
- must not forget that this structure is dynamic and change is a necessity (in contrast to functional structure)
- it’s not easy to be transparent
- focus on value increases sense of ownership
- some things must be prescribed still
- partial application introduces some problems (which are not vital, but generate additional buzz) services become bottleneck earlier than you think, so although it’s more obvious to start from product pods, but it’s more critical to start from platform and service pods
- often people see diversity as a threat
- No
- This is inspired by Niels Pflaeging ideas and thoughts. His book is must read