Month: August 2011

This week we've been having a lot of debates on the pros and cons of hoteling which is the office management strategy that considers certain office resources, such as workspaces and equipment, to be shared assets, rather than assets 'owned' by specific individuals within the company. In this case it is cubicles and desk space that by being shared can help optimize the office efficiency, reduce real estate costs by employing more people in the same space, and increase employee satisfaction and retention by giving them access to workspaces and resources whenever and wherever they need them. Hoteling is typically characterized by an on-line reservation and check-in processes, and includes telephone switching functionality.

Hoteling's basic principle is that of optimizing the unused space in office buildings by allowing employees to book cubicles, offices, and conference rooms for short periods of time. In many offices everyone who works full-time, part-time, or mobile works has a desk space which is 'theirs' but studies prove time and again that for many hours a day these spaces are underutilized.

Hoteling can take various forms and we're experimenting with a variety including:

a) People don't have their 'own' workspace or neighborhood but book space anywhere in the building through a booking system on an as needed basis.
Advantages: an intelligent booking system can prompt or push people to book in certain parts of the building enabling other parts to be powered down thus saving energy. Best use can be made of space. People get to meet and interact with workers who they might not come into contact with in a more static space use approach. This interaction promotes a sense of 'whole organization' belonging and potential for collaboration and connectedness.
Disadvantages: people feel 'shunted' and they may not be able to get a booking close to their colleagues. They can begin to feel isolated if they are not building community with a regularly met group of co-workers.

b) People are allocated to a 'neighborhood' but without their 'own' space and book desk space within that.
Advantages: people feel part of a community and can develop a sense of 'home' because they are using the same kitchen area, copy facility, and so on.
Disadvantages: space is used less efficiently. People gravitate to a preferred space. There is less opportunity for casual connection and collaboration.

c) People book space within given neighborhoods which may be 'mixed use'. In this variation some people have their 'own' space and some people book space. Whether you have your own or book depends on personal workstyle preference and on work content.
Advantages: people make a choice (which they can change) about whether they want to have their own space or are happy booking on an as needed basis. Visitors can book space anywhere that's available which proves beneficial as one user remarked:
"On previous trips, I've usually had to ensure I arrive at least an hour earlier than I would like to search around for a vacant desk so that I might "squat" there for the day in hopes that no one arrives… With the new hoteling system I logged in and booked an empty space for four consecutive days. Needless to say, this saved me a lot of stress each morning and assured I could arrive on my own schedule with a suitable place to start my work each day."
Disadvantages: as for b) above

So where does the design aspect come into this arrangement which sounds like a purely practical thing. What we've discovered is that there are issues and opportunities in four aspects: people, place, technology, and process.

People: we are finding that people do not warm to the idea of hoteling. They want space that they feel is 'theirs' where they can store personal items, put up photos, display memorabilia, and generally make it 'homey'. Equally even if they are out of the office a lot they want to return to a space where they feel part of the team or community. Endlessly not knowing who you will be sitting next to is not for them. Rather as most people would not want to spend their life in a real hotel, people who spend a lot of time at the office don't want that hotel feel about it. However, we have to balance real estate costs and carbon footprint management with the social and personal concerns of worker or risk losing motivation and productivity. So we have a real opportunity to design in effective ways of doing this.

Place: we are evaluating neighborhoods where people doing like work, or project teams, or internal business units, are co-located. One of the considerations is how does place layout link to work style. Consultants a variety of disciplines have come up with various typologies of workstyle/workplace – just Google "digital nomads" to get an idea of some of these – and depending on how we think of the workforce we need to make sure that we are designing office space effectively whilst recognizing that they are likely to be working in other locations a lot of the time.

Technology: hoteling requires good technology: phone, computer, booking system, intranet access, document sharing, IT support, etc. People need to have soft phones or have a 'follow me' phone system where they can log in to their number.

Process: Alongside the people, place, technology discussions go the business process discussions. How do we ensure processes are streamlined and that we are tracking and measuring them effectively. It's all too easy to underfocus on the business processes and you struggle to reduce real estate footprint and keep your people happily productive.
So our thinking is now wrapped around these four elements and our organization design work is directed at keeping them in sync and optimized. Not always an easy task but a challenging and worthwhile one.

Useful info
Say goodbye to the office cubicle. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110531-706758.html

Architecting mobility in the public sector
http://www.forrester.com/rb/Research/architecting_mobility_in_public_sector/q/id/35394/t/2

Workplace mobility: comparing business models of early adopters in traditional businesses with consulting firms.
http://henrystewart.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,8;journal,2,3;linkingpublicationresults,1:122160,1

Leveraging Mobility, Managing Place http://archive.teleworkexchange.com/pdfs/Leveraging_Mobility.pdf

The hoteling experiment: lessons and questions http://www.haworth.com/en-us/Knowledge/Workplace-Library/Documents/The-Hoteling-Experiment-Lessons-and-Questions.pdf

Managing Smart: Moving ahead with a virtual workforce https://www.teleworkexchange.com/uploads/1000/447-Session_2_1_Leventhal.pdf

How Cisco Designed the Collaborative Connected Workplace Environment
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ciscoitatwork/downloads/ciscoitatwork/pdf/Cisco_IT_Case_Study_Connected_Workplace_POC.pdf

Workers have to call to reserve their desks http://www.expressnightout.com/capbiz/PDF/Reader_CAPBIZ_02142011.pdf

This week I've been reading I'm Feeling Lucky: the confessions of Google employee number 59, by Douglas Edwards.

It's a great read: very funny, with lots of pointers on the good and bad of organizations and organization design. I finished it yesterday and have just gone back to see what pages, I have turned down and what notes I have written in the front of it. Yes, I read the paper version not a Kindle version. Five aspects stood out for me as I read it.

First, there are several descriptions of physical space use in the early (2000 ish) Google offices. For example:

Corridors were so choked with desks and power cords and boxed computer components that a stroll down the hall felt like a tour of Akihabara. … "We took a building that supposedly had a capacity of 220 and packed it with 298 people," George Salah confided. … Cubes for two people held four workstations. …. Worst of all, work teams were split up and located in different parts of the building, hindering communications.

There seems to have been no suggestion at all that people should work off-site, be hoteling, mobile workers and start saving on real estate and carbon emissions. Indeed there's no mention anywhere in the book of thinking of corporate real estate as a heavy investment or energy savings as an imperative. In fact the opposite appears to hold true – people were expected to live on-site 24 hours a day – hence the chef George (wonderful descriptions of him), the massage team, the games pitches, the people bringing their pets in and so on.

Second, cost effectiveness, however, is a recurring theme, "Larry and Sergey wanted to optimize the tradeoff between productivity and rent. … What would happen if you three people in a space designed for two? How about five?" Beyond that they brought in Gerald Aigner "the flaming sword of frugality" to manage supply costs. "They should pay us", Edwards notes was the starting position for any negotiation with a vendor.

Third stuff not related to the immediate task in hand got short shrift from Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Their leadership decision making gets a lot of airing through the book. Then, and maybe now, their particularly idiosyncratic approach to leadership must have been hard going for the troops – no mention of 'leadership development programs' for them, though one wonders if they had not set up the company but been employees of someone else how their careers would have gone.

Take Brin's response to customer feedback email, for example: As the backlog of unanswered emails began to swell, Sergey offered a useful perspective. "Why do we need to answer user email anyway?" he wanted to know. He thought it was inefficient [to respond].

Fourth there is the implied contrast between everybody being able to air their views, but then not being told things that materially affected them. There's a description of a company reorganization in 2001 in which "most of the engineers were caught by surprise. So too were the project managers, who learned in public that their jobs no longer existed."

Fifth as I laughed out loud at the descriptions and the goings on the Zen phrase 'in the beginner's mind there are many possibilities and in the expert's mind there are few' popped into my head. Brin's and Page's way of going about things – in terms of running a business – was the beginner's way and it worked.

Coincidentally today I was talking to an employee at Facebook which is now at the same point in its history as Google was in the period Edwards is writing about. Much of what we were talking about echoed the experiences of Edwards working in a climate of rapid growth, idiosyncratic leaders, innovative product, broad reach, etc.

Is the book worth reading? I'd recommend it. Not just because Google is iconic, but because it tells a very good story of one employee grappling with preconceived ideas of how things should be, with personality conflicts, with leadership hubris, with balancing home and work, with individual and organizational risk taking and with making many mistakes and chalking up a few successes.

It also provides food for thought for example, on the value of prototyping, on the divide and conquer approach (of "getting other people to do our work for free"), on the benefits of everything provided for 24 hour on-site working, on getting the balance right between involvement and command, on working with suppliers and other stakeholders, and on how to grow a successful organization from the ground up.

Were I running an organization design book club this would be one on the list to discuss.

I just started to read A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander that someone gave me for my birthday. My friend knew I was interested in it because he looked at my Amazon wish list – which made me wonder whether Santa now looks at Amazon wish lists rather than at notes floated up chimneys. The book was on my list because now that I'm moving in architectural circles I find that it's a book frequently mentioned, and I was curious about seeing if Alexander's pattern language of the physical architectural could translate to organizing the work systems, processes, and behaviors that are stuff of the organization design as I define it – "arranging how to do the work necessary to achieve a business purpose and strategy".

Myriad companies traditionally associated with architecture, product design, and facilities layout, are entering the field of organization behavior, organization development, change management, and organization design as I know it – are finding. Tim Brown of IDEO (a global design firm) in his Fast Company article Strategy by Design, notes that "In order to do a better job of developing, communicating, and pursuing a strategy, you need to learn to think like a designer." Helpfully he offers his five-point plan on this:

Hit the Streets: Any real-world strategy starts with having fresh, original insights about your market and your customers.

Recruit T-Shaped People: They are able to explore insights from many different perspectives and recognize patterns of behavior that point to a universal human need. That's what you're after at this point — patterns that yield ideas.

Build to Think: Once you spot a promising idea, you build it. The prototype is typically a drawing, model, or film that describes a product, system, or service. .. The goal isn't to create a close approximation of the finished product or process; the goal is to elicit feedback that helps us work through the problem we're trying to solve.

The Prototype Tells a Story: Prototyping is simultaneously an evaluative process — it generates feedback and enables you to make midflight corrections — and a storytelling process. It's a way of visually and viscerally describing your strategy.

Design Is Never Done: Even after you've rolled out your new product, service, or process, you're just getting started. In almost every case, you move on to the next version, which is going to be better because you've had more time to think about it.

What's interesting is that I see architecture and design firms racing to recruit anthropologists, ethnographers, organizational psychologists, and similar, collectively called "Human Factors" experts to work on client projects. But I don't see these design firms advertising for human resource consultants to do this work. Nor do I see HR Departments racing to employ architects and designers to help them apply design thinking to their organizations issues and challenges. But they should.

Why? Because there is a spiraling confluence of physical space, technology, business processes, and the way people work. One of the projects I am working on has been battling uphill using traditional 'change management' approaches to increase mobile working, desk sharing, and collaborative exchanges. We want to do this for a number of purposes, to:

• Reduce duplication and overlap of service provision
 Drive service innovation and performance improvements
 Build capacity for change within the organization
 Develop organizational flexibility and agility
 Ensure a collaborative/team based approach
 Reduce corporate real estate footprint
 Meet sustainability targets

'Hitting the streets' we realized we could achieve the various purposes by associating with a different language – that of reducing our organization's energy use. We're now 'building to think' roping in our sustainability experts, our measurement guys, and our IT people, to design the pattern that in Alexander's words "[together] create a coherent picture of an entire region, with the power to generate such regions in a million forms, with infinite variety in all the details."

What this means in practice is that we'll have an approach to energy reduction that offers business units the ability to reduce their energy use in the way that makes sense to them using the patterns that are on offer in any combination they please. So we're now looking within the organization for the T-shaped people who can work with the business units to choose and assemble, and work with the patterns.

Our next task will be to help with the prototypes and ensure that they 'tell a story'. Again Alexander offers insights he describes 'a rough procedure by which you can choose a language for your own project, first by taking patterns from this language … and then by adding patterns of your own'. This is precisely the tack we will be taking on the project.

Finally we'll be regularly ramping up the energy reduction goals proving the point that 'design is never done' (something that people who tinker with the organization chart can't seem to grasp). Alexander, in his book begins with towns, pointing out that "These patterns can never be designed or built in one fell swoop – but patient piecemeal growth, designed in such a way that every individual act is always helping to create or generate this larger global patterns [that] will, slowly and surely, over the years, make a community." And in keeping with values of participation and involvement – these, one hopes inherent in well managed organizations – notes that small groups shape their corner of the world. The large patterns cannot be created by "centralized authority, or by laws, or by master plans."

So we have it. Five design principles and a concept of a pattern language. A different tack for us and one that is already bringing ripples of excitement and interest, and a far cry from the apathy we've experienced from conventional change management and organization design approaches.

In my work I'm often having to choose a case study to illustrate points or practice on during workshops. FInding the right case study for a public program or an internal program can be difficult. A client asked for guidance notes on this. So here they are. They're adapted from The Art and Craft of Case Writing, William Naumes and Margaret J Naumes Good sites for buying case studies from are: Harvard Business Review, ecch, and Ivey.

Introduction
People coming to an organization design program find it helpful to work with real examples and case studies. If participants are all from one organization then consider using a recent case study from their own. But remember there are pros and cons to this – particularly people may have a point of view on how it was handled v how it should have been handled. If you want to base the case on your own organization anther approach is to outline an OD project that is being thought about but not yet initiated. Then people can work with planning how it could be. Below are other points to consider when selecting a case.

Communication medium
What is the best method for presenting the case? Written report, video, slide presentation, webinar? Know why you are choosing this method?

Message
• Is there a hook that draws people in and that they can identify with e.g. a particular issue that resonates, a situation similar to one they may have experienced (or think that they may)?
• Does the case contain the key issues and points learning points that act as vehicles for the program or training? For organization design work it should encourage discussion about organizations as systems, and also the way the issue/situation was addressed, and or resolved (or not). It could be something like a departmental merger, and acquisition of another company, a new leader joining who wanted to 'shake things up' to improve performance, a decision to downsize or upsize, entering a new market, a strategic change of direction e.g. from niche product to commodity product, or a culture shift?
• Can the case be linked to organization design theories and models? i.e. if we worked through it could it follow the OD methodology?

Details
• Is there sufficient information for participants to work with it effectively e.g. facts, figures, context? How much will they have to assume or guess (or how familiar are they with the case)? NOTE: It is good to have some familiarity but if course participants were heavily involved or negatively impacted by the situation they may not be able to see it from a different perspective or suspend judgment on it.
• Is there more information than is needed? If so, why is it there – to add interesting details, to lend realistic complexity? (NOTE: you need to know why the detail is there).
• Are there personalities in the case that the participants can identify? (NOTE: is this ok in your situation?)
• Is the material organized in a logical way?
• Is the timing of events in the case clear?
• Does it need additional explanatory material like annual accounts?

Style
• Is the case presented in the past tense (except for direct quotes)? NOTE: it is easier for participants to work with something in the recent past than something that is currently ongoing in their organization.
• Is the tone objective (i.e. no value judgments such as 'obviously', 'excellent manager', etc. unless they are in direct quotes)?

I was asked to compile a 'recipe' for an organization design Subject Matter Expert (SME) the other day. Here it is for you to try out.

The Vision
What is an SME? It's all too easy to assume a nebulous vision of a guru swanning around giving ad hoc but sage advice to hard-working organization design project team members and then seeing them act on it.

But a workable vision for SME value-add to a project is much harder edged than this. Envision an effective SME. He/she has in-depth, specialist or expert knowledge of a business area, work process, or system functionality. With this goes the ability to transmit and share his/her knowledge to the organization design project team in a way that helps them successfully meet, or even exceed, their goals and objectives.
So, for example, a measurement SME will be able to help the Measurement work team choose specifically, what to measure, why to measure it, and how to measure it.

The Challenge
There are several challenges to the SME role:
a) The SME brief is not clear so he/she doesn't know what the expectations are in terms of contribution and delivery.
b) The project team does not recognize the need for SME support in the tranches (or for a cross-cutting SME for example for change management).
c) The program lead does not have the skills or resources to select SMEs.
d) The team members do not know how or when to ask for SME support and assistance.
e) There is an inadequate match between what the team needs and what the team wants from the SME – are they looking for a trainer, peer-reviewer, approver, knowledge sharer or something else.
f) There is no point of contact for the SME to report or refer to for guidance and updates.
g) SMEs are not perceived as a 'real' contributor and are left off communications and out of meetings that could be relevant.
h) The SME has other organizational roles that take precedence over this one.

The Process
Making the SME role successful for the project requires, as a first step the development of a clear brief for the role. This should include information under the following headings – example text is given:

What we are looking for in an SME We are seeking someone who can bring technical expertise to our Policy workstream. Ideally you will have worked with telework policies and be well versed in the how organizations develop and implement these.

You will have built a reputation as a 'go-to' person in this expertise, and be able to give advice and direction on how we can extend and develop telework in the organization. We also expect you to have the skills and confidence to both recommend and push for policy changes if it becomes evident that these are needed.

Additionally we are looking for someone who is comfortable with sometimes chaotic, emerging situations, who can be proactive and is quick at 'connecting the dots'.

What you can expect from us: A challenging project that provides growth and learning for you as we take teleworking to new heights. Great people to work with.

What we expect from you: 25% of your time for the duration of the project. Proactive involvement, suggestions, advice, recommendations as the project progresses. New ways of thinking and new perspectives on your domain of expertise as it applies to teleworking. Best practices from other organizations. Full participation as a team member. Contributions to our knowledge bank (white papers, articles, other resources).

Activities: Participation in weekly team meetings. Regular contributions to the project collaboration space
Development of team member skills and expertise (e.g. through running lunch n learn sessions).

Deliverables: Case study and white paper for external circulation

The second step is selection of the right person or people. An article by Jose Fajardo lists some SME selection criteria (adapted below) for selection of an internal SME.

Domain expertise: Does the person have deep expertise in the specific domain e.g. performance management, customer service, telework policy?

Business process expertise: Does the person know how the organizational processes work e.g. how to get resources, the capabilities of an IT system?

Methodology expertise: Does the person have expertise in relevant methodologies e.g. consulting, facilitation, coaching, project management?

Recognized competence: Is the person credible and is he/she a good contributor?

Independence: Has the person a track record in thinking 'whole organization' and not 'my piece of it'.

Availability Is the person willing and able to be available (and has this been cleared if necessary with his/her manager?)

Authority Does the person have the authority and skills to make decisions, give advice, and recommend courses of action?

The third step is to make sure the project team is calling on, and using the SME's skills. Not to be forgotten is the appropriate regular feedback, reward and recognition of SME work during the project duration. Below is an example of non-monetary reward – often the only type available – sent to the whole team, including SMEs, after a public event.

Team,

You absolutely rocked the house! Your knowledge, presentation and command of difficult subject matter that others are just barely scratching the surface on was clear! … ALL of you performed magnificently! …. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! Your stars really shone brightly and you definitely represented our organization in the most excellent fashion! KUDOS Team!

The players
The SME is interacting with a range of players including
• The program manager
• Work team members
• Other stakeholders (e.g. the SMEs line manager)
• Other SMEs
• Organizational employees
• Customers
• External organizations

Golden rules for SME interactions with the players:

1. Focus on being credible. Provide good, useful, and usable information about the area of expertise tailored and appropriate for each of the players.
2. Be original in your approach to your expertise and its application to the different players
3. Provide authoritative guidance in a way that doesn't come across as demanding or controlling

The Outcome
Following the recipe above will result in expertise being put to good use. It will add value to the project deliverables and demonstrate a good return on investment in the SME role.

The Next Steps
Think through the expertise you need for your project.
Follow the recipe – making any suitable adaptations.
Enjoy working with your SMEs.