I first had this idea almost 30 years ago, and while I cannot prove it to be true, the many organizations I have worked with since then have needed to change their internal design before results could improve.
That is, there is a direct link between the components of a design and the results. The characteristics of each component and the way the components fit together determine the quality of the results over time. For example, 3% annual growth in volume cannot suddenly transform into 10% growth (market conditions permitting) without organizational restructuring.
This restructuring can be radical or it can be small. The precise changes required are defined in a rigorous and comprehensive “Assess2Design” process. This process ensures that only what has to change is actually changed; change is a lean and effective program developed for that specific organization, carefully targeted to impact a specific outcome or results.
What got you here won’t get you there
I think this statement holds true for individuals, teams, and organizations.
If you are a plant manager, for example, the skills and abilities you have acquired in your career are what have led you to this position. But the skills and abilities required to become a candidate for the next step toward manufacturing leadership will be different and can be difficult to acquire in a plant manager position. The aspiring leader must have a clear strategy for skill acquisition based on a comprehensive understanding of what the next step needs to be.
The same applies to teams, except here skill disruption can be defined as the team’s ability to move to the next stage of teamwork.
According to ‘Cog’s ladder’, teams are developed through a 4-stage process summarized in Forming, Storming, Normimg and Performing. It’s a good summary, but I see that each of these stages needs to be revisited regularly to maintain the quality of teamwork on a path of continuous improvement. Teamwork must continually improve to obtain continuous improvements in the results delivered by that teamwork.
When it comes to organizations, what got you here won’t get you there indicates that changes to one or more components of the organization’s design are needed to improve results.
Planning, past, present and future
Planning necessarily has to do with the future. Planning starts with the past, “what happened last year and is last year a guide for next year?” I argue that the present should also be part of the planning.
In the present, here and now, there are myriad possible outcomes available, including those that are rooted in the past. So if the volumes shipped increased by 2% last year, the possibility that shipments will increase again by 2% in the next year is an available possibility. But the possibilities in the present include all other outcomes and a planning process that ignores present risks while ignoring the most favorable outcomes that are actually available.
