What is more important for whole organization change, design/structure or method/approach?
…tempting, but it will be more collaborative to let this have a life of its own.
This was a question I asked on LinkedIn that elicited some interesting responses
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yby9mu2 if you want the full thread
Spurred on by all the comments and Gail’s invitation to add more to the mix I have reopened this question. More context.
My view is that it is possible to build structure that gives opportunity for design to support the appropriate method and facilitate various approaches. At times, in stand alone project tracks the right side of the equation will prevail. When those tracks begin to stack up and overlap into programs design is necessary. When the programs are each pieces of corporate strategy and the paths to business objectives then all four design/structure/method/approach must be illuminated and led with skilled internal and external resources.
I have seen over and over method/approach bulldoze any chance for design/structure more times than I can count in my career. And, to be fair, I have seen design/structure squash any chance of quick change in project work.
Because I am often the translator from client to options for whole organization change putting these two, often disparate, perspectives in context is a constantly changing explanation. I was vague in the original question because I was hoping for twists and angles. We have some- Uday’s two sides of the coin, Raution’s fundamentals versus fixes, patience and persistence from Paul, member impact from Tim and perspectives from others.
I think change management is in its infancy (the word I usually use is immature which raises the cackles of method evangelists) for whole organization change. Huge initiatives which will change the environment of all and the behavior of many have annual burns in the tens of millions and yet no one can describe an end state. That is a recipe for lack of trust for the next change/budget/burn.
Whole organization change (transformational requiring change of behavior, attitude perspective and business models) requires a spiders web of horizontal, vertical and meandering connection, integration and collaboration. Which leads me back to the question again. To get that do we need better design, better execution or maybe just a concerted effort to explain/teach all this to clients?