Imagine a game of chess where every piece is not related to the other. They all go out to battle on the board. They all try to win for themselves and not for each other. Put in another way, you play every move only with the intention of not losing on that move. There is no long term vision in the gameplay. What can be the possible outcomes?
From where I'm looking at it, there can only be one. Fail.
Strategy. The thread that binds together all the individual components, tells us when to sacrifice a pawn to save the queen, when to sit quiet even when an easy target is available. Strategy.
To abstract this thought to a broader perspective, consider every piece on the chess board to be a person in the management hierarchy of an organization. Each piece is related to the other either implicitly or explicitly. Ones performance will influence the other in a particular way. Just like the bishop could influence the queens next move, an engineering tester can influence the plans of a middle manager and how he plans out the work structure.
The binders in a management structure are the different roles played by intermediaries, Liaison, Integration, Cross Linking of different groups and using of formal reports. Think of it as the Pawn telling the Rook, "Ok, so let me die this time around. That gives you a clear chance for his next 3 pieces". Similarly a Liaison role filled between a test engineer and the marketing guy brings them on the same page. He/She acts as a translator. "Ok Mr. Marketeer. The bottom-line is, our 'worlds most efficient' automobile is giving 5 miles/gallon. We need a new selling point!" Fast and efficient flow of information along the structure. The structure in focus here can be formed using one of many, or a combination of many from among,
1. Function
2. Type of Product
3. Market for the Product
4. Hybrid: Matrix or Front/Back structure.
So now that a strategy that works is in place, with all the necessary connections between the ones who ensure its success, the next step would be evaluation. We did the splitting up of roles into individual parts and connected them using a strategy. But is it really taking us (the organization) anywhere? How do we gauge the effectiveness? Incentive based evaluation to bring back everyone on the same page!
All these again circumvent to a same point. The importance of a good IT support structure for the management structure. Creating logs at every step keeps everyone in the loop about decisions being made and decisions to be made. It exemplifies that the success of a strategy depends in a big way on a successful IT infrastructure in the organization.
The bottom line of this thinking is,
Firstly – don’t design your management systems to each be independently perfect – design them as a group to compensate for each other.
And second, don’t get too hung up on which conceptual strategy, architecture, org structure etc. to occupy, simply use the ones that have the most power for you when you are addressing a specific issue. (easier said than done!!)
P.s. You never know, Gary Kasparov could be the one who holds all the secrets to a successful management strategy. He did beat Deep Blue! More on that later..
From where I'm looking at it, there can only be one. Fail.
Strategy. The thread that binds together all the individual components, tells us when to sacrifice a pawn to save the queen, when to sit quiet even when an easy target is available. Strategy.
To abstract this thought to a broader perspective, consider every piece on the chess board to be a person in the management hierarchy of an organization. Each piece is related to the other either implicitly or explicitly. Ones performance will influence the other in a particular way. Just like the bishop could influence the queens next move, an engineering tester can influence the plans of a middle manager and how he plans out the work structure.
The binders in a management structure are the different roles played by intermediaries, Liaison, Integration, Cross Linking of different groups and using of formal reports. Think of it as the Pawn telling the Rook, "Ok, so let me die this time around. That gives you a clear chance for his next 3 pieces". Similarly a Liaison role filled between a test engineer and the marketing guy brings them on the same page. He/She acts as a translator. "Ok Mr. Marketeer. The bottom-line is, our 'worlds most efficient' automobile is giving 5 miles/gallon. We need a new selling point!" Fast and efficient flow of information along the structure. The structure in focus here can be formed using one of many, or a combination of many from among,
1. Function
2. Type of Product
3. Market for the Product
4. Hybrid: Matrix or Front/Back structure.
All these again circumvent to a same point. The importance of a good IT support structure for the management structure. Creating logs at every step keeps everyone in the loop about decisions being made and decisions to be made. It exemplifies that the success of a strategy depends in a big way on a successful IT infrastructure in the organization.
The bottom line of this thinking is,
Firstly – don’t design your management systems to each be independently perfect – design them as a group to compensate for each other.
And second, don’t get too hung up on which conceptual strategy, architecture, org structure etc. to occupy, simply use the ones that have the most power for you when you are addressing a specific issue. (easier said than done!!)
P.s. You never know, Gary Kasparov could be the one who holds all the secrets to a successful management strategy. He did beat Deep Blue! More on that later..
No comments:
Post a Comment