Debbie Nightingale, MIT © 2002 1 People/Organizational Issues in the Lean Enterprise Professor Debbie Nightingale October 21, 2002.
Post on 27-Mar-2015
216 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
1
PeopleOrganizational Issuesin the Lean Enterprise
Professor Debbie Nightingale
October 21 2002
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
2
The soft stuff is the hard stuffrdquo
-Chris Cool VP Lean Enterprise
Northrop Grumman ISS Sector
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
3
Issues in Lean EnterpriseImplementation
How to organize for leanChange managementEducationTraining (re-training)TeamsGlobalVirtual teamsExcess peopleMetrics
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
4
Socioeconomic Drivers
Globally rising and converging standard of living
Increasing rate of technological change
Environmental responsibility
Profound increase in understanding of ldquoneedsrdquo1048773Customer1048773Employees1048773Stockholders1048773Partners
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
5
Changing Roles of the Enterprisethe Individual amp the Community
Leading edge companies will succeed even if a State or Nation does not
The Leading Edge Corporation will be an opportunist that capitalizes on the competitive resources provided by the individual and the community
Sustained access to these resources will require a company to be a proactive partner with the community and the individual
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
6
A Premise
It is not the physical facilities but the
organizational capability that will
differentiate success from failure of the
enterprise
Source Gerhardt Schulmeyer President ABB-North America
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
7
Human Resource Shifts
From
Perform task
Reward for doing
Skills life equal to career life
Training as 1 of payroll
Individual treated as cost
Limit human potential
To
Perform task amp provide knowledge
Reward learning and doing
Skills obsolescence at 20 per year
Training as 7 of payroll
Individual viewed as asset
Maximize human potential
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
8
Shifts Required to Support Teamingamp Partnering as a Core Competency
From
Physically control core competencies
Reward individual contribution
Transfer knowledge within team
Single decision style hierarchy
Material supply chain
To
Control the knowledge of core competencies
Reward individual contribution and team success
Transfer of knowledge between teams
Multiple decision styles hierarchy team empowered
Knowledge supply chain
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
9
Knowledge Supply Chain
Treat knowledge as a commodity
Treat the knowledge process as an integrated supply
Utilize the core competencies of industry and academia
Apply the principles of supply chain management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
10
Requirements for Competitive Excellence
New technical ampbehavioral
discoveries that resultin new technologies
new principles
New knowledgeconverted into new
teachings new talent
Leading-edge productand process platformsthat satisfy customer
needs
Continuously educatedemployee using latest
knowledge for effectiveexecution of technical
amp managementprocess
Knowledge
Generation
Knowledge
Transfer
University
Industry
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
2
The soft stuff is the hard stuffrdquo
-Chris Cool VP Lean Enterprise
Northrop Grumman ISS Sector
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
3
Issues in Lean EnterpriseImplementation
How to organize for leanChange managementEducationTraining (re-training)TeamsGlobalVirtual teamsExcess peopleMetrics
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
4
Socioeconomic Drivers
Globally rising and converging standard of living
Increasing rate of technological change
Environmental responsibility
Profound increase in understanding of ldquoneedsrdquo1048773Customer1048773Employees1048773Stockholders1048773Partners
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
5
Changing Roles of the Enterprisethe Individual amp the Community
Leading edge companies will succeed even if a State or Nation does not
The Leading Edge Corporation will be an opportunist that capitalizes on the competitive resources provided by the individual and the community
Sustained access to these resources will require a company to be a proactive partner with the community and the individual
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
6
A Premise
It is not the physical facilities but the
organizational capability that will
differentiate success from failure of the
enterprise
Source Gerhardt Schulmeyer President ABB-North America
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
7
Human Resource Shifts
From
Perform task
Reward for doing
Skills life equal to career life
Training as 1 of payroll
Individual treated as cost
Limit human potential
To
Perform task amp provide knowledge
Reward learning and doing
Skills obsolescence at 20 per year
Training as 7 of payroll
Individual viewed as asset
Maximize human potential
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
8
Shifts Required to Support Teamingamp Partnering as a Core Competency
From
Physically control core competencies
Reward individual contribution
Transfer knowledge within team
Single decision style hierarchy
Material supply chain
To
Control the knowledge of core competencies
Reward individual contribution and team success
Transfer of knowledge between teams
Multiple decision styles hierarchy team empowered
Knowledge supply chain
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
9
Knowledge Supply Chain
Treat knowledge as a commodity
Treat the knowledge process as an integrated supply
Utilize the core competencies of industry and academia
Apply the principles of supply chain management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
10
Requirements for Competitive Excellence
New technical ampbehavioral
discoveries that resultin new technologies
new principles
New knowledgeconverted into new
teachings new talent
Leading-edge productand process platformsthat satisfy customer
needs
Continuously educatedemployee using latest
knowledge for effectiveexecution of technical
amp managementprocess
Knowledge
Generation
Knowledge
Transfer
University
Industry
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
3
Issues in Lean EnterpriseImplementation
How to organize for leanChange managementEducationTraining (re-training)TeamsGlobalVirtual teamsExcess peopleMetrics
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
4
Socioeconomic Drivers
Globally rising and converging standard of living
Increasing rate of technological change
Environmental responsibility
Profound increase in understanding of ldquoneedsrdquo1048773Customer1048773Employees1048773Stockholders1048773Partners
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
5
Changing Roles of the Enterprisethe Individual amp the Community
Leading edge companies will succeed even if a State or Nation does not
The Leading Edge Corporation will be an opportunist that capitalizes on the competitive resources provided by the individual and the community
Sustained access to these resources will require a company to be a proactive partner with the community and the individual
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
6
A Premise
It is not the physical facilities but the
organizational capability that will
differentiate success from failure of the
enterprise
Source Gerhardt Schulmeyer President ABB-North America
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
7
Human Resource Shifts
From
Perform task
Reward for doing
Skills life equal to career life
Training as 1 of payroll
Individual treated as cost
Limit human potential
To
Perform task amp provide knowledge
Reward learning and doing
Skills obsolescence at 20 per year
Training as 7 of payroll
Individual viewed as asset
Maximize human potential
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
8
Shifts Required to Support Teamingamp Partnering as a Core Competency
From
Physically control core competencies
Reward individual contribution
Transfer knowledge within team
Single decision style hierarchy
Material supply chain
To
Control the knowledge of core competencies
Reward individual contribution and team success
Transfer of knowledge between teams
Multiple decision styles hierarchy team empowered
Knowledge supply chain
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
9
Knowledge Supply Chain
Treat knowledge as a commodity
Treat the knowledge process as an integrated supply
Utilize the core competencies of industry and academia
Apply the principles of supply chain management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
10
Requirements for Competitive Excellence
New technical ampbehavioral
discoveries that resultin new technologies
new principles
New knowledgeconverted into new
teachings new talent
Leading-edge productand process platformsthat satisfy customer
needs
Continuously educatedemployee using latest
knowledge for effectiveexecution of technical
amp managementprocess
Knowledge
Generation
Knowledge
Transfer
University
Industry
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
4
Socioeconomic Drivers
Globally rising and converging standard of living
Increasing rate of technological change
Environmental responsibility
Profound increase in understanding of ldquoneedsrdquo1048773Customer1048773Employees1048773Stockholders1048773Partners
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
5
Changing Roles of the Enterprisethe Individual amp the Community
Leading edge companies will succeed even if a State or Nation does not
The Leading Edge Corporation will be an opportunist that capitalizes on the competitive resources provided by the individual and the community
Sustained access to these resources will require a company to be a proactive partner with the community and the individual
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
6
A Premise
It is not the physical facilities but the
organizational capability that will
differentiate success from failure of the
enterprise
Source Gerhardt Schulmeyer President ABB-North America
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
7
Human Resource Shifts
From
Perform task
Reward for doing
Skills life equal to career life
Training as 1 of payroll
Individual treated as cost
Limit human potential
To
Perform task amp provide knowledge
Reward learning and doing
Skills obsolescence at 20 per year
Training as 7 of payroll
Individual viewed as asset
Maximize human potential
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
8
Shifts Required to Support Teamingamp Partnering as a Core Competency
From
Physically control core competencies
Reward individual contribution
Transfer knowledge within team
Single decision style hierarchy
Material supply chain
To
Control the knowledge of core competencies
Reward individual contribution and team success
Transfer of knowledge between teams
Multiple decision styles hierarchy team empowered
Knowledge supply chain
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
9
Knowledge Supply Chain
Treat knowledge as a commodity
Treat the knowledge process as an integrated supply
Utilize the core competencies of industry and academia
Apply the principles of supply chain management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
10
Requirements for Competitive Excellence
New technical ampbehavioral
discoveries that resultin new technologies
new principles
New knowledgeconverted into new
teachings new talent
Leading-edge productand process platformsthat satisfy customer
needs
Continuously educatedemployee using latest
knowledge for effectiveexecution of technical
amp managementprocess
Knowledge
Generation
Knowledge
Transfer
University
Industry
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
5
Changing Roles of the Enterprisethe Individual amp the Community
Leading edge companies will succeed even if a State or Nation does not
The Leading Edge Corporation will be an opportunist that capitalizes on the competitive resources provided by the individual and the community
Sustained access to these resources will require a company to be a proactive partner with the community and the individual
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
6
A Premise
It is not the physical facilities but the
organizational capability that will
differentiate success from failure of the
enterprise
Source Gerhardt Schulmeyer President ABB-North America
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
7
Human Resource Shifts
From
Perform task
Reward for doing
Skills life equal to career life
Training as 1 of payroll
Individual treated as cost
Limit human potential
To
Perform task amp provide knowledge
Reward learning and doing
Skills obsolescence at 20 per year
Training as 7 of payroll
Individual viewed as asset
Maximize human potential
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
8
Shifts Required to Support Teamingamp Partnering as a Core Competency
From
Physically control core competencies
Reward individual contribution
Transfer knowledge within team
Single decision style hierarchy
Material supply chain
To
Control the knowledge of core competencies
Reward individual contribution and team success
Transfer of knowledge between teams
Multiple decision styles hierarchy team empowered
Knowledge supply chain
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
9
Knowledge Supply Chain
Treat knowledge as a commodity
Treat the knowledge process as an integrated supply
Utilize the core competencies of industry and academia
Apply the principles of supply chain management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
10
Requirements for Competitive Excellence
New technical ampbehavioral
discoveries that resultin new technologies
new principles
New knowledgeconverted into new
teachings new talent
Leading-edge productand process platformsthat satisfy customer
needs
Continuously educatedemployee using latest
knowledge for effectiveexecution of technical
amp managementprocess
Knowledge
Generation
Knowledge
Transfer
University
Industry
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
6
A Premise
It is not the physical facilities but the
organizational capability that will
differentiate success from failure of the
enterprise
Source Gerhardt Schulmeyer President ABB-North America
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
7
Human Resource Shifts
From
Perform task
Reward for doing
Skills life equal to career life
Training as 1 of payroll
Individual treated as cost
Limit human potential
To
Perform task amp provide knowledge
Reward learning and doing
Skills obsolescence at 20 per year
Training as 7 of payroll
Individual viewed as asset
Maximize human potential
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
8
Shifts Required to Support Teamingamp Partnering as a Core Competency
From
Physically control core competencies
Reward individual contribution
Transfer knowledge within team
Single decision style hierarchy
Material supply chain
To
Control the knowledge of core competencies
Reward individual contribution and team success
Transfer of knowledge between teams
Multiple decision styles hierarchy team empowered
Knowledge supply chain
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
9
Knowledge Supply Chain
Treat knowledge as a commodity
Treat the knowledge process as an integrated supply
Utilize the core competencies of industry and academia
Apply the principles of supply chain management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
10
Requirements for Competitive Excellence
New technical ampbehavioral
discoveries that resultin new technologies
new principles
New knowledgeconverted into new
teachings new talent
Leading-edge productand process platformsthat satisfy customer
needs
Continuously educatedemployee using latest
knowledge for effectiveexecution of technical
amp managementprocess
Knowledge
Generation
Knowledge
Transfer
University
Industry
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
7
Human Resource Shifts
From
Perform task
Reward for doing
Skills life equal to career life
Training as 1 of payroll
Individual treated as cost
Limit human potential
To
Perform task amp provide knowledge
Reward learning and doing
Skills obsolescence at 20 per year
Training as 7 of payroll
Individual viewed as asset
Maximize human potential
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
8
Shifts Required to Support Teamingamp Partnering as a Core Competency
From
Physically control core competencies
Reward individual contribution
Transfer knowledge within team
Single decision style hierarchy
Material supply chain
To
Control the knowledge of core competencies
Reward individual contribution and team success
Transfer of knowledge between teams
Multiple decision styles hierarchy team empowered
Knowledge supply chain
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
9
Knowledge Supply Chain
Treat knowledge as a commodity
Treat the knowledge process as an integrated supply
Utilize the core competencies of industry and academia
Apply the principles of supply chain management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
10
Requirements for Competitive Excellence
New technical ampbehavioral
discoveries that resultin new technologies
new principles
New knowledgeconverted into new
teachings new talent
Leading-edge productand process platformsthat satisfy customer
needs
Continuously educatedemployee using latest
knowledge for effectiveexecution of technical
amp managementprocess
Knowledge
Generation
Knowledge
Transfer
University
Industry
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
8
Shifts Required to Support Teamingamp Partnering as a Core Competency
From
Physically control core competencies
Reward individual contribution
Transfer knowledge within team
Single decision style hierarchy
Material supply chain
To
Control the knowledge of core competencies
Reward individual contribution and team success
Transfer of knowledge between teams
Multiple decision styles hierarchy team empowered
Knowledge supply chain
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
9
Knowledge Supply Chain
Treat knowledge as a commodity
Treat the knowledge process as an integrated supply
Utilize the core competencies of industry and academia
Apply the principles of supply chain management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
10
Requirements for Competitive Excellence
New technical ampbehavioral
discoveries that resultin new technologies
new principles
New knowledgeconverted into new
teachings new talent
Leading-edge productand process platformsthat satisfy customer
needs
Continuously educatedemployee using latest
knowledge for effectiveexecution of technical
amp managementprocess
Knowledge
Generation
Knowledge
Transfer
University
Industry
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
9
Knowledge Supply Chain
Treat knowledge as a commodity
Treat the knowledge process as an integrated supply
Utilize the core competencies of industry and academia
Apply the principles of supply chain management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
10
Requirements for Competitive Excellence
New technical ampbehavioral
discoveries that resultin new technologies
new principles
New knowledgeconverted into new
teachings new talent
Leading-edge productand process platformsthat satisfy customer
needs
Continuously educatedemployee using latest
knowledge for effectiveexecution of technical
amp managementprocess
Knowledge
Generation
Knowledge
Transfer
University
Industry
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
10
Requirements for Competitive Excellence
New technical ampbehavioral
discoveries that resultin new technologies
new principles
New knowledgeconverted into new
teachings new talent
Leading-edge productand process platformsthat satisfy customer
needs
Continuously educatedemployee using latest
knowledge for effectiveexecution of technical
amp managementprocess
Knowledge
Generation
Knowledge
Transfer
University
Industry
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
11
The Knowledge Process
Knowledge Generation
Build a knowledge basevia Research Adaptation
Discovery Experience
Knowledge Development
Transform raw knowledgeinto codified Principles
amp Practices
Knowledge Transfer
Produce Documentation ampPeople that will facilitate
knowledge delivery
Knowledge Need amp Use
Implement amp adjustknowledge to meetCustomersrsquo Needs
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
12
Corporate Culture ChangeOrganizational
Aspect
Traditional
Practice
Shift in
Practice
Authority Based on Position Based on Knowledge
Decision Making Close to Top Where Action Is
Employee Contribution Limit knowledge amp Skills Enhance
Information Closely Control Share Widely
Rewards Individual Preference Teamwork
Status Highlight Differences Mute Differences
Supervision Watchdog Resource
SOURCE MSB REPORT OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
13
Responsive Practices amp Culture
From
Teach Productivity
Teach the Need to Change
Customer Satisfaction
My Standards and Metrics
To
Teach Innovation amp Creativity
Teach the Process of Change
Society Stakeholder Satisfaction
Our Standards and Metrics
Source Next Generation Mfg 1997
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
14
The Fundamental Transition
To make change happen means we
must change the way we are
and perceive we are measured
Stand Alone Equip
Single Discipline Employees
Integrated Equip
Systems
Multi-discipline
Employees
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
15
Making Change Happen Is Not Easy
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage - than the creation of a new
system
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
Source Machiavelli The Prince 1513
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
16
Assessing a Corporate Culture
Driving
Beliefs StrategyManagerial
Beliefs
People
Beliefs Performance
Systems
Structure
Hypothesis if the beliefs are not aligned performance suffers
SOURCE Boston College
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
17
Levels of Culture
Artifacts
The visible hearable feelable manifestations of
the underlying assumptions eg behavior
patterns rituals physical environment dress
codes stories myths products etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
18
Levels of Culture
Shared Espoused Values
The espoused reasons for why things should
be as they are eg charters goal statements
norms codes of ethics company value
statements
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
19
Levels of Culture
Shared Basic Assumptions
The invisible but surfaceable reasons why
group members perceive think and feel the
way they do about external survival and internal
integration issues eg assumptions about
mission means relationships reality time
space human nature etc
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
20
Cultural Interfaces
NationsEthnic GroupsGovernmentIndustryIndustryIndustryCompanyCompanyDivisionDivisionFunctional GroupsHierarchical EchelonsOccupational Communities
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
21
Cultural Change Issues1 Identify the business problem or issue
2 Develop the strategy amp tactics to deal with the issuesolve the problem
3 Assess the present state of the culture to identify how assumptions will aid or hinder what is to be done
4 Focus on those cultural elements that will aid you ignore the ones that will hinder you unless they are absolute constraints
5 Identify the people in your organization who are ldquoculture carriersrdquo of the elements that will aid you
6 Empower these culture carriers amp build change teams around them
7 Develop processes for overcoming normal resistance to change
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
22
The Change Process
Overcoming resistance to change by creating
ldquopsychological safetyrdquo --
The Change Process
In order for new learning to occur survival anxiety has to
be greater than learning anxiety This is best
accomplished by reducing learning anxiety
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
23
The Change Process
1 Creation of a compelling positive vision
If I learn this new stuff how will we all be better off
Why should one do this Where is it all leading
2 Involvement of the learner in the changelearning process
Can I design my own learning process
3 Formal training
What do I need to know to fulfill the new vision what is
involved in the new behavior amp attitudes
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
24
The Change Process4 Informal Training
Will I get the ldquoknow-howrdquo and skill of handling the new
situations This level of training involves redefining what
things mean and changing the standards by which things
are judged
5 A practice field and coaches
Can I try my hand in situations where mistakes are OK and I
can learn from them Will there be coaches around to tell
me whether I am doing OK and how to do better
6 Corrective feedback
If things are done correctly or incorrectly will there be
continuous appropriate feedbackSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
25
The Change Process
7 Positive role models amp examples examples amp cases of what not to do
Will we observe our own managers all the way up the line
ldquowalking the talkrdquo and setting positive examples Are there
stories myths parables that exemplify correct and
incorrect behavior and attitudes
8 Support groups in which learning problems can be aired
Are there formal opportunities in which learning problems
can be aired and discussed in a supportive environment
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
26
The Change Process9 A reward and discipline system consistent with the new learning
If I or others do it right will we get consistent rewards and if
I or others are failing in some way will we get appropriate
feedback if others are violating the new rules will I observe
them getting appropriately disciplined
10 New structures and routines to support the new behavior
If I learn the new things and do them will my behavior be
ldquonormalrdquo in the organization
Source Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
27
The Bottom Line Questions1 Does culture have to change or do you have to change business
processes within the present culture
2 If culture has to change can you build on enhancing cultural
strengths rather than eliminating elements of culture
3 If cultural elements have to be eliminated are you prepared to
deal with the anxieties involved
4 Are you willing to allocate the time and resources necessary to
actually change the cultureSource Ed Schein Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
28
Migrating From Taylorism
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
29
To Druckerism (The Notion ofthe Knowledgeworker)
The factory will be an information networkrdquo
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
30
Has Led to an IdealKnowledgeworker Profile
Breadth of Knowledge
Depth
of
Knowledge
Source Profile 21 SMEDearborn MI
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
31
The Teamwork Continuum1 Team 2 Manager 3 Shared
Formation Centered Leadership
Managerrsquos
Role
Team
Memberrsquos
Role
One on One
Supervision
Directs each
Memberrsquos Work
Do What They
Are Told
Group Leader
Focus on Goals
Manage Group
Work Together
As a Group
Team Coordinator
Members are Goal Focused
Shared Leadership
Initiate Actions
Track Data
Lead Projects
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
32
The Teamwork Continuum (cont)4 Self - Directed 5 Self ndash Managed
Boundary Manager
Coaches Team
Manages Interface
Run Day - to - Day
Operation
Resource ldquoStaffrdquo
Provide Help on Request
Team is Accountable
for own work
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
33
Rewarding Teamwork
Individual Group Organization
Financial
Non-Financial
To successfully reward teamwork research has
found that all six of the matrix elements must be
clearly definedSOURCE Dr Ann Majchrzak USC
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
34
Organizing for ProductDevelopment and Transfer to
Manufacturing
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
35
The Process of Innovation
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
36
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
37
Departmental Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
38
Time and Coordination
Time can always be substituted for coordination1048773And the converse
Improved coordination can reduce development time
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
39
Project Team Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
40
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
41
Matrix Organization
Technology
MarketSource Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
42
Matrix Connections to Marketand Technology
TechnologyM
arke
t
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
DeptHead
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
ProjMgr
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
43
The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in ProductDevelopment Organization
Departmental Organization Departmental structure is
more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies
It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort
This is however accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change
Project Team Organization Project Team structure groups
people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager
It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics
This is however accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort When this is carried to an extreme it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
44
Contact with Technology
If Departmental Organization provides better connection to technology are all technologies equal in the degree to which this necessaryThe answer of course is no
What then is it about different technologies that determines the degree to which close contact is necessaryThe answer is the rate at which new knowledge is bei
ng generated
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
45
Rate of Change of Knowledge
Mature stable technologies
Rapidly changing technologies
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
46
Coordination
Turning to Project Team Organization if this form of organization provides better coordination the question follows are all projects equal in the amount of coordination neededThe answer is no
What then is it about different projects that determines the amount of coordination that is neededThe answer is the degree of interdependence that exi
sts in either the product architecture or among the tasks that must be performed in product development
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
47
Interdependence of the Architecture orof the Tasks to be Performed
dK
dt
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
48
Organizational Structure Space
dK
dt
rate of change ofknowledge
interdependenceI =
dKdt =
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
49
Three Possible Situations
dK
dt
Departments
Project
Team
ss
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
50
Duration of Project Assignment
dK
dt
ssProject
Team
Department
Ti
T2
T1
T1 gtT2
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
51
Structuring the Organization
Standard Industrial PracticeIgnores the rate at which technologies are d
eveloping (despite the fact that this can often be measured)
Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception)
Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter)
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
52
How to Handle this Situation
Project
Team
Departments
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
53
Two Possibilities
Re-partition the overall problem to reduce interdependencies
Form a project team but rotate personnel between the project team and the departments for time periods that are related to the rate of change of their disciplines
Source Tom Allen Sloan School of Management
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
54
Integrating the Lean EnterpriseRequires Expansive Leadership
Leaders of changeSystem integratorsProcess optimizersAgility flexibility implementersTechnologistsldquoFuturistsrdquoGlobally astuteMarketers
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
55
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Confusion
Unnecessary commentary
Irrelevant observations
Random thoughts
Self-imposed barriers
Ego
Lean Behaviors
Self-awareness
Humility
Compassion
Suspension
Deference
Calmness
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
56
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Irrationality
Revenge
Inaction
Positions
Interpretations
Uncertainty
Lean Behaviors
Quietude
Reflection
Honesty
Benevolence
Consistency
Generosity
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
57
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Negativity
Excess
Gossip
Sarcasm
Preoccupation
Ambiguity
Extreme flattery
Lean Behaviors
Patience
Humor
Understanding
Respect
Listening
Observation
Trust
Source ML Emiliani Lean Behaviors MCB University Press 1998
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
Debbie Nightingale MIT copy 2002
58
Comparison of Behavior Attributes
Fat Behaviors
Cynicism
Subjectivity
Bias prejudice
Deception
Selfishness
Pride
Criticism
Lean Behaviors
Sincerity
Equanimity
Objectivity
Discipline
Rectitude
Wisdom
Balance
- Slide 1
- Slide 2
- Slide 3
- Slide 4
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Slide 7
- Slide 8
- Slide 9
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Slide 13
- Slide 14
- Slide 15
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- Slide 18
- Slide 19
- Slide 20
- Slide 21
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- Slide 26
- Slide 27
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Slide 31
- Slide 32
- Slide 33
- Slide 34
- Slide 35
- Slide 36
- Slide 37
- Slide 38
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
- Slide 41
- Slide 42
- Slide 43
- Slide 44
- Slide 45
- Slide 46
- Slide 47
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Slide 51
- Slide 52
- Slide 53
- Slide 54
- Slide 55
- Slide 56
- Slide 57
- Slide 58
top related