Having recently left University, I departed with the notion that Organisations DO NOT exist which was instilled into myself and classmates from a blunt but frank lecturer who will always live fondly in our memories. Furthermore, he delved into the fact that if so called 'organisations' employ formal planning methods, then they are actually preparing to fail, in comparison to the popular saying. If this is the case then what are the other options and what do we call our organisations??
'Organisations do not exist' Batten, J. 2010
Firstly, formal planning sets a rigid structure which doesn't allow for change in both objectives and time so therefore the only other logical methods includes either using Gantt charts or the slightly more flexible CPA or critical path analysis. What is this? The CPA is an algorithm for scheduling a set of objectives within a particular project and is becoming a trendier technique in the management of projects.
The basic technique for using the CPA is to construct a model of the project which includes:
1. A list of all the activities required to complete the project
2. The duration it takes to complete each activity
3. The dependancies between the activities
Using these values, CPA calculates the longest path of planned activities to the end of the project, and the earliest and latest that each activity can start and finish without extended the length of the project.
In light of this more fluid planning method, it must be noted that it is not going to fit within the structure of a typical hierarchal organisation, therefore a business must flatten the structure where departmentalisation is disregarded and a CAS or Complex Adaptive System is created. This will allow for social interaction to occur, which encourages social innovation and ultimately emergence which is the basis for any forward thinking business and will provide the fundamental grounds for a long and successful 'organisation'.
Great Post!
ReplyDeleteCertainly gives a good insight into how modern businesses are having to move away from typical structured pyramids and focusing more on flexible set ups where compartments are not where to be seen! Very much like the thinking of the late and great, Steve Jobs.
Im interested into the reasoning behind the principles of complexity being able to flourish in a less structured business? I work at a company where each employee has set tasks and everyone gets on with their work and is done effectively and efficiently. We all wear shirt and ties, have a very formal routine and almost always meet our tasks....as the saying goes 'if it aint broke, dont fix it'...
ReplyDeleteHi Dave,
ReplyDeleteThe point I am trying to raise is that should a business employ a dissipative structure then it allows the agents within to interact with each other providing more opportunity to create more ideas from the ground up as im sure u'll agree, very little great ideas come from the board room. Therefore, when a business removes its individual compartments it allows the emergence of new ideas and provides longevity rather than the stagnation, which is so often the case in UK SME's. In regards to the formality of business wear, many companies are now moving towards a more relaxed approach, such as the Innocent smoothies brand where the offices look like a playground and the floor is actually laced with artificial grass. I am not condemning formal planning, I am merely suggesting its validity and applicability to the forever changing business environment.
Completely agree in relation to the 'forever changing business environment' and maybe what your suggesting maybe more adequate as the flexibility issue has been a problem in the past and has caused projects to over-run as the rigidity of the plan could not handle change. I have just seen the offices at Innocent and although I think they are great, I think they are only suitable for certain businesses. One thing that I do disagree with is this issue with calling firms 'Organisations'. I really dont understand that why the terminology can cause an issue. Can you shed any light on this?
ReplyDeleteDave, Firstly I would like to say, I was exactly like you, how could calling them organisations be a problem. Since, I have realised that organisations operate in such a manner that can be counter productive for certain businesses. A typical hierarchal pyramid uses a top down system whereby each individual agent belongs to a certain department and has to answer to the management above. However, in this case the agents do not interact with other agents from different departments who often have the answer to solutions from the outside looking in. Therefore, if the agents are able to share info, then the outcome is the emergence of new data which can in turn develop into innovative ideas which obviously helps the company. Overall, I think that the terminology is not the issue, its what the entity of the neo-classical organisation stands for in comparison to the post modern complex adaptive, or even more so evolving systems. I hope this has answered your question.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that your referring to the principles of complexity and I also believe that the way in employees interact with eachother is certainly a subject that can affect the success of a company. The people or as you call them 'agents' are more important that the project managers as they are the ones who actually engage in the work, PM's can often get tangled in power trips and forget the reason why they are there. I think that the path analysis is a good tool to use, however can be difficult to employ when giving strict guidelines and therefore, although floored, formal planning is still valid.
ReplyDeleteHi Sharon,
ReplyDeleteI agree with formal planning's validity to a certain extent but still cant get round the fact that if one aspect of the plan does not go as expected, then the whole process is compromised. Surely you agree with FP's rigidity issue?