However, org templates can be useful in the very early stages to avoid arguments over process. For example, you find people coming from Companies A, B, and C. They may have very strong differences of opinions and find themselves wasting a lot of time arguing over structures that the company isn't even ready for yet.
It can be helpful for very early leadership, such as the CTO, to say: "For the first year we're adopting these specific patterns -- we'll pursue these by the book with no adaptations. At the end of the year we'll retro, inspect, and adapt."
John -- I couldn't agree more. The spirit of my post is simply to stress the idea that we should apply critical thinking to the tools and methods we use, and strive to have them aligned with our values, principles and context. Without it, there's a high risk they won't.
The example you gave gives clarity on why we're doing things the way we're doing—not because it's from [ successful company X ] but because it provides the bootstrap that we need, and we'll adapt it to our reality through feedback.
Yes! We did something similar in my past; less Shopify-style explicit, more Autonomous Teams. There needs to be some infrastructure for orgs to make that transition.
What's super valuable about your graph—from Values to Tools & Activities—is that it provides a visualization the elements to define that organizational infrastructure & processes. It loosely resembles a tree-diagramatic version of Pace Layers, too. Super cool.
Please mind that regarding the graph you mentioned (which is super valuable indeed), all credit goes to the book "This Is Lean" and its authors. I lifted that picture from it, as named in the source. :)
How I understand this (still early in my journey) that there is a need to balance out two driving forces:
- Uniqueness (of company, position, problems)
- Imitation / Copying (something we aim for / look for)
Many companies I was part of went into one or the other directions too much. Like with the Toyota examples, I think it's good to say "we use these methods & tools as a starting point." As a company, it's important to rather have a good feedback and learning mechanism.
That's where good change management and change agents (leaders) are really important. And that's where in my experience a lot of senior managers fail (and cascading down).
In the general case I think you're right.
However, org templates can be useful in the very early stages to avoid arguments over process. For example, you find people coming from Companies A, B, and C. They may have very strong differences of opinions and find themselves wasting a lot of time arguing over structures that the company isn't even ready for yet.
It can be helpful for very early leadership, such as the CTO, to say: "For the first year we're adopting these specific patterns -- we'll pursue these by the book with no adaptations. At the end of the year we'll retro, inspect, and adapt."
John -- I couldn't agree more. The spirit of my post is simply to stress the idea that we should apply critical thinking to the tools and methods we use, and strive to have them aligned with our values, principles and context. Without it, there's a high risk they won't.
The example you gave gives clarity on why we're doing things the way we're doing—not because it's from [ successful company X ] but because it provides the bootstrap that we need, and we'll adapt it to our reality through feedback.
Yes! We did something similar in my past; less Shopify-style explicit, more Autonomous Teams. There needs to be some infrastructure for orgs to make that transition.
What's super valuable about your graph—from Values to Tools & Activities—is that it provides a visualization the elements to define that organizational infrastructure & processes. It loosely resembles a tree-diagramatic version of Pace Layers, too. Super cool.
Thanks, Jonathan!
Please mind that regarding the graph you mentioned (which is super valuable indeed), all credit goes to the book "This Is Lean" and its authors. I lifted that picture from it, as named in the source. :)
How I understand this (still early in my journey) that there is a need to balance out two driving forces:
- Uniqueness (of company, position, problems)
- Imitation / Copying (something we aim for / look for)
Many companies I was part of went into one or the other directions too much. Like with the Toyota examples, I think it's good to say "we use these methods & tools as a starting point." As a company, it's important to rather have a good feedback and learning mechanism.
That's where good change management and change agents (leaders) are really important. And that's where in my experience a lot of senior managers fail (and cascading down).