Author: naomiorgdesign

I'm currently working with an organization where I often hear possessive phrases like 'my sixes and sevens', or 'he's my six', or 'my sevens are good', and recently I was met someone and the person introducing us said 'meet my new seven'. I found out the real name of seven when I asked her. Sometimes I get emails with subject headings like 'Review of the sevens'. Initially all this number stuff baffled me. Then I found out it was about grades. I had to go and look up the grading system as I had no idea whether six was higher or lower than seven and what any other grades might be. (Bizarrely six is higher than seven).

Describing people by numeric grade rather than name is, for me, a weird echo of a past era. I was early in my career at Price Waterhouse when I remember being appalled that someone introduced himself as 'I'm an A1'. Again I had to ask him his name.

I am still appalled by people being lumped into number collectives but what I find amusing in this instance is that the phrase 'at sixes and sevens' is a popular phrase used to convey 'something that's in a state of total confusion or disarray, or people who are collectively in a muddle or at loggerheads about how to deal with some situation.' Hmm – maybe this is why six is higher than seven in the organization, but on the other hand most organizations I work with give the impression of being somewhat confused, hence the need for 'transformation' or 'change' – but maybe this organization is more open in its admission by openly talking about 'sixes and sevens' – they just omit the 'at'?

So are all these sixes and sevens contributing to an organization that is 'at sixes and sevens'? I'm curious to know what would happen if we changed/removed the grade/labeling system. I'm not sure it is of any value in its current form. Indeed I think it could be a value destroyer.

Grading systems in most organizations sit alongside competency frameworks, performance management systems, accountability levels, decision and authority rights, and other formal compliance and governance controls that attempt to keep people in order. They tend to give rise to bureaucratic systems which if anyone attempted to cost out in terms of operating them (if you have, let me know) would probably be abolished on the spot. Think how much time you have spent on performance reviews in the past year – either reviewing other people and/or participating in your own and recommending or not promotion to the next grade. And grading performance: met, well-met,exceeded … What is the financial cost of this and does it yield a good return on investment?

Grades are an indication of formal position in a hierarchy, and I am not against hierarchies per se – Steve Denning has written an interesting piece on this topic. However, position in a hierarchy does not necessarily reflect competence, ability to learn, experience or anything else that offers insight into human potential. I vividly remember the man who checked my entry card as I passed every day entering the building. Striking up a conversation with him I discovered he was a champion rose grower and had developed a new strain of rose that had won a European gold medal. He was the lowest grade in the organization yet think what skills of patience, experiment, innovation, knowledge sharing, and so on he exhibited in his non-work life. In the rose growers' grading system he was probably at the top.

Grading systems act as filters on perceptions. While I was thinking of grades what sprang to mind was an image of six neatly graded eggs in an egg box. (Not seven, because they wouldn't fit neatly in a box so maybe in the grading system where sixes are higher than sevens it may be that it's the grade seven out of the box thinker who doesn't get in? What does that mean for the organization?)

Out of curiosity I looked up egg grading. The American Egg Board has a whole system – rivalling any organizational one – for grading eggs. You'll be relieved to hear that 'the quality of an egg is determined by the grade of the egg and is not related to size. All eggs are classified according to the US standards for interior and exterior quality factors. This determines the grade of the egg as AA, A, or B.' There are six grades of size ranging from 'jumbo' to 'pee wee'. So an egg can be graded as 'jumbo AA' for example. Rather like Grade 7, well-met, don't you think?

Sadly we don't know how the eggs feel about being graded in this way but we do know from blind trials that eaters of them cannot tell the flavour difference between the grades (size or quality). Read this very funny example of one trial. The result was 'It was pretty clear evidence that as far as eggs go, the mindset of the taster has far more bearing on the flavour of the egg than the egg itself.'

Thus it is with organizational grading systems. The mindset of the person in the specific grade tends to feel or act that grade, while the people interacting with a specific grade of person tend to treat them according to their assigned grade. That's why TV programmes like 'Back to the Floor' are so much fun. See, for example, Peter Baker, Managing Director (MD) of British Bakeries, 'swapping the boardroom for a week of putting crosses on hot-cross buns, scooping up litres of garlic butter with his hands, and chanting business mantras in his Newcastle upon Tyne bakery'. If people don't know that the MD is the bakery worker they treat him/her as a bakery worker and not as an MD.

Grade level is (if well-earned and not a long-service award) an indicator of competence in a particular aspect of organizational skill that is valued more than another aspect. But the value system is an often unchallenged organizational aspect, and competence is situational (as MD v baker). Consider critical or strategic roles in an organization – the roles that done badly or left unfilled would jeopardize your organization's performance. Usually these are front line roles often interfacing directly with customers – call centre agents, or personal shoppers, baggage handlers or flight despatchers. None of these role holders are highly graded in an organization but all require highly competent and skilled people without whom the organization would flounder.

A focus on grade as an indicator of value or worth is demeaning. People are not gradable eggs. Their 'flavour' cannot be determined by their grade. Organizations that change their focus from grade to other indicators of value or worth – innovation, creativity, getting things done, showing initiative, for example – can do so within a flexible structure that recognizes that in any role the role-holder is at times (in Barry Oshry's thinking) a top, middle, bottom or customer. Grades may be helpful in determining something but they are not a necessary feature of organizations. Zappos, Valve, Gore, and Semco are four successful and focused companies often mentioned as exemplars of no grades and flexible structures. If they can do it so can others.

Do you think perceiving people through the lens of a grading system contributes to an organizational state of being at sixes and sevens? Let me know.

This past week I went to an organization development meeting where we were discussing Gareth Morgan's paper Reflections on Images of Organization on the metaphors he uses to interpret organizations and I've also been listening to stories of people's experiences of business transformation.
Then on Saturday, a lovely hot sunny but slightly windy day, when I was on a boat trip on the River Thames my companion remembered a story she'd loved as a child: The Wind and the Sun. Do you know it? It's an Aesop's fable with a moral to it and there are various versions but most of them are on the lines of this one:

The North Wind boasted of great strength. The Sun argued that there was great power in gentleness. "We shall have a contest," said the Sun. Far below, a man traveled a winding road. He was wearing a warm winter coat. "As a test of strength," said the Sun, "Let us see which of us can take the coat off of that man." "It will be quite simple for me to force him to remove his coat," bragged the Wind. The Wind blew so hard, the birds clung to the trees. The world was filled with dust and leaves. But the harder the wind blew down the road, the tighter the shivering man clung to his coat. Then, the Sun came out from behind a cloud. Sun warmed the air and the frosty ground. The man on the road unbuttoned his coat. The sun grew slowly brighter and brighter. Soon the man felt so hot, he took off his coat and sat down in a shady spot. "How did you do that?" said the Wind. "It was easy," said the Sun, "I lit the day. Through gentleness I got my way."

Going back to the stories of transformation (people were talking about what happened in 2011 in their organization), I heard tales of 'tightening of belts', a desire to hold on to things that people felt they were losing, 'square pegs being fitted into round holes', lack of staff involvement and leadership reflection, knee jerk reactions to the (acknowledged) need to downsize and reorganize. People asked me 'What's going to be different this time around?' I heard the worry and felt their anxiety.

That's a great question – and the answer depends partly on how people are consciously led through the next transformation. And the fable helps illustrate. Here's an example of a leader who was of the north wind ilk. At the time he was described as 'the logical extreme of an executive who has no values, no honor, no loyalty, and no ethics'.

'Chainsaw' Al Dunlap was brought it to transform Sunbeam, a failing company. During his time there, Dunlap reduced the number of factories from 26 to 8, cut $225m of costs, reduced the workforce by 6,000 and cut charitable contributions. The result of his approach, far from saving a failing company, caused the share price to drop below the price it was when he took the helm with a mission to save it. He was fired from his role as CEO of Sunbeam after just less than two years in post. As a result of his efforts 'Sunbeam could never shake the taint caused by Dunlap and filed for bankruptcy in 2001 … 'Rarely does anyone express joy at another's misfortune, but Dunlap's ouster elicited unrestrained glee from many quarters. Former employees who had been victims of his legendary 'chainsaw' nearly danced in the streets of Coshatta, La., where Dunlap shuttered a plant'.

Here's another example, this one of the sun type leader:

Mark Rogers is two months [March 2014] into his role as CEO of Birmingham City Council. His role is to manage a business transformation that saves £822 million from Birmingham's budget, sells-off the flagship NEC, reduces the workforce by 1,000 jobs this year and generally to 'turn around the giant super-tanker pretty darn quick'.

He began well by, in his first week, writing a blog on why he took on the role and has written regularly each week. Last week he wrote about leading with Birmingham City Council's values (empathy, respect and trust) saying:

'I believe passionately that it is entirely possible for a very large council such as ours to lead with its values, but previous experience tells me that, to succeed, we all need to deliver on a small number of key approaches. For starters, therefore, I expect colleagues to sign up to two key ways of working: active distributed leadership; and a positive commitment to self-awareness and courageous conversations. Active distributed leadership is all about you (and me) taking responsibility for promoting and living the values of the council. This is not someone else's business; it's ours. I can't do it all on my own. I need your support and I need you to help me ensure that the values are known and in evidence every day. And where they're not, do something about it'.

So here is someone already encouraging people to live the values, opt in and participate, and feel encouraged: 'lit up' even. Although it's very early days I heard from someone who works for the council (and has met Mark Rogers) that 'Everyone is talking about the blog and his style of management as refreshing and just what we need. Mark is going down well with people who don't subscribe to command and control as the default organisational norm. I think time will tell if he is able to cut through the organisational machine … [but] I am hopeful.'

'Sun' leaders, like Rogers, operating through positive values, involvement, role modeling and setting expectations have the qualities necessary to transform organization, They are transformational leaders, and there's a lot of organizational theory around them, for example:

Transformational leaders cause change in individuals and social systems. In its ideal form, transformational leadership creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the end goal of developing followers into leaders. Enacted in its authentic form, transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale and performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to the mission and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers that inspires them; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that optimize their performance. (Mindtools has some practical tips on transformational leadership).

For an example of a long-serving transformational leader – look no further than Alan Mulally, CEO Ford Motor Company, who in 2006 was brought in to transform the organization, is still there, and has succeeded spectacularly. Here's a snippet from an interview with him. In answer to the question 'How would you describe your leadership style, he says:

At the most fundamental level, it is an honor to serve–—at whatever type or size of organization you are privileged to lead, whether it is a for-profit or nonprofit. It is an honor to serve. Starting from that foundation, it is important to have a compelling vision and a comprehensive plan. Positive leadership–—conveying the idea that there is always a way forward–—is so important, because that is what you are here for–—to figure out how to move the organization forward. Critical to doing that is reinforcing the idea that everyone is included. Everyone is part of the team and everyone's contribution is respected, so everyone should participate. When people feel accountable and included, it is more fun. It is just more rewarding to do things in a supportive environment. … if you have consistency of purpose across your entire organization and [if] you have nurtured an environment in which people want to help each other succeed, the problem will be fixed quickly. So it is important to create a safe environment for people to have an honest dialogue, especially when things go wrong.

So, in answer to the question about 'what will be different?' about the business transformation the people I was talking with are going to experience, the answer is – it depends whether all of us in the organization are willing and able to become 'sun' style, transformational leaders – whatever our organizational level.
What are your techniques for developing transformational, 'sun' style leaders? Let me know.

'Why don't people ask us why things are the way they are?' is a question I've heard several times recently. 'They don't understand the history' is one of the many variants on this question, posed by established employees about newcomers to the company. This started me wondering about organizational history and its value. It's all too easy when joining an organization to rubbish what's going on or talk disparagingly about what seem like old fashioned or odd ways of doing things. Maybe a real curiosity about why things are the way they are would be helpful in positioning organization design work.
Investigating down this track a bit I found a piece about the acquisition of Cadbury (a UK company) by Kraft (a US company).

'We also know, however, that leaders with no patience for history are missing a vital truth: A sophisticated understanding of the past is one of the most powerful tools we have for shaping the future. Consider how Kraft Foods managed its 2010 integration of the British confectioner Cadbury. Cadbury's management had mounted fierce resistance to the acquisition, and many of its 45,000 employees feared the loss of their values and an end to the product quality for which the company was known. As the clash of cultures was picked up by the business press, many observers predicted that this would prove to be yet another value-destroying deal, a nightmare of postmerger failure to integrate.'

This didn't happen: an outcome that the writer of this article puts down, in part, to the skillful uses the integration team made of each organization's history.

'Company archivists quickly launched an intranet site, titled "Coming Together," that honored the parallel paths Kraft and Cadbury had taken. Poring over historical materials, they had found much evidence of shared values, and the presentation reinforced those common themes. For instance, the founders, James L. Kraft and John Cadbury, were both religious men whose faith had deeply influenced their business dealings. Both had demonstrated a commitment to creating quality products for their customers. Both valued their employees at a time when workers were often seen as a commodity, and both believed in giving back to their communities. In addition to the founders' stories, the intranet site included interactive time lines, iconic advertising images, brief documentary videos, and dozens of detailed histories of brands such as Oreo cookies, Maxwell House coffee, Ritz crackers, and now Cadbury chocolate and Halls candies-—all designed to show how leading Kraft and Cadbury brands had come to sit side by side on grocers' shelves.'

It would be easy to scoff at this as just a PR stunt but in 2012 2-years after the acquisition came a newspaper report that despite some acrimony, generally speaking the tone was in favor of Kraft's takeover.

'Kraft is far more engaged with the local community than Cadbury ever was," says Katie Teasdale, at the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. Steve McCabe, the local MP for Selly Oak, says: "I'm personally quite impressed with what they are trying to achieve. This R&D is pretty crucial to keeping business in the area."

And earlier this year – January 2014 – parent company Mondelez International (Kraft spilt into two companies in 2012) announced a massive upgrade to the UK facility which involved some layoffs and redeployment of staff. Following the Cadbury/Mondelez tradition of employee care and community involvement this was being carried through with care and sensitivity. Tim Pile, president of Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, noted "I would also commend the maturity of Mondelez's approach to consulting with its employees. Technology investments of this type inevitably mean a requirement for fewer jobs. However, Mondelez wants to involve its employees in thinking through every idea possible before arriving at a jobs number."

The respect for company tradition and history appears to carry through in the way Mondelez makes leadership appointments. In September 2013 Hubert Weber, more than 25 years with the company, was appointed Executive Vice President and President, Mondelēz Europe bringing 'a deep knowledge of the European business from both a country and category point of view.' h

So is this 'deep knowledge' of an organization necessary for leadership success? Certainly the Board appointing Satya Nadella (22 years with the company) to Microsoft's CEO position, in February 2014, appeared to think so. As did those appointing 'company veteran' Doug McMillion, in February 2014, to lead Walmart. Board chairman Bob Walton noted, "Doug is uniquely positioned to lead our growing global company and to serve the changing customer, while remaining true to our culture and values. He has broad experience – with successful senior leadership roles in all of Walmart's business segments – and a deep understanding of the economic, social and technological trends shaping our world. A merchant at heart, Doug has both a long history with our company and a keen sense of where our customers globally are heading next."

Seaman and Smith, writers of the Cadbury story above are strong advocates of the value of knowing the organization's history. 'The job of leaders, most would agree, is to inspire collective efforts and devise smart strategies for the future. History can be profitably employed on both fronts. As a leader strives to get people working together productively, communicating the history of the enterprise can instill a sense of identity and purpose and suggest the goals that will resonate. In its most familiar form, as a narrative about the past, history is a rich explanatory tool with which executives can make a case for change and motivate people to overcome challenges. Taken to a higher level, it also serves as a potent problem-solving tool, one that offers pragmatic insights, valid generalizations, and meaningful perspectives-—a way through management fads and the noise of the moment to what really matters. For a leader, then, the challenge is to find in an organization's history its usable past.'

Accepting that it's true that knowledge of an organization's history is a powerful tool for successfully shaping its future – how can leaders new to an organization manage without that legacy? Here are five ideas:

1. Don't ignore or discount an organization's history. You may have come in to save it but do so bearing in mind that "The past can never be hidden [we must embrace] it with new hope and new dreams so that both past and present form one unified trunk that continues to shelter our people"
2. Acknowledge the power of the past. An organization's 'store of experience – its evolving culture and capabilities, its development within the broader contexts … shapes the choices that executives have to make and influences how people think about the future.'
3. Look for people who will tell you stories about the organization's triumphs, failures, mode of operation and then listen attentively to them. With them use some of the techniques of learning histories to learn how the history has shaped today's perspectives
4. Ask 'how did we get to this point?' 'Unless you pose that question …. you risk tearing down fences without knowing why they were put up. Armed with insight into the history, you may indeed find the fence is not needed and must go. Or you may find there is good reason to leave it where it is.'
5. Where employees have a record of long service, shared experience and community, and a strong culture ask them to help you develop and tell the story of ' This is where we need to go. This is why we're here. This is why we can't be here anymore.' Ask them to tell it with you.

What is your view of organizational history? Do you think new leaders have to learn it to be successful? Let me know.

'In the olden days when wishing still worked' opens the fairy story – The Frog Prince. In it an ugly frog is transformed into a handsome prince. It's a classic tale serving not just as a good children's story but as a basis for observations on society. In one cartoon related to the story a frog longingly looks up at a young princess and says "But I don't want to be turned into a prince. I want you to accept me for what I am." In another a very jaded and irritated king and queen sit in their thrones next to one another as the king turns to her and says "If you must know, yes! I was happier when I was a frog!"

As a child I loved the story and I still like the notion that frogs can be transformed into princes (or that princes can be turned into frogs). Now I'm trying to apply the idea to organizations. Can organizations be 'transformed'? It seems easy enough for 'prince' organizations to be transformed into 'frog' organizations. BlackBerry is a case in point. Read about its rise and fall here. Is it now doomed to remain an ugly frog – did you know their original device was called the Leapfrog – or will it be transformed back into a prince by some kiss-like intervention?

One of the many issues cited for BlackBerry becoming a frog in the first place was, not quite an evil witch's spell, but a huge 'increase in bureaucracy, politicking, and a population of time servers'. An article about BlackBerry discusses a book on BlackBerry written by Alistair Sweeney, 'Sweeney described BlackBerry as "like the Soviet Union. Everyone's pretending to work and compared it to another brand-named tech firm with a reputation, deserved or not, for hidebound bureaucracy: Microsoft. RIM, he says, has lost the fire of a startup (despite heavy-handed efforts to recapture it), but without developing into a mature company. One anonymous employee agreed saying "We are no longer a company that is innovative and energetic, we are drowning in paperwork."

Many bureaucratic, long established large and rambling organizations want to transform to become slim, trim, and dynamic – and we hear the phrase 'business transformation' a lot. But is this wishful thinking, an 'olden days' leftover from 'when wishing still worked', or is it achievable?

Gary Hamel, a management academic, firmly states that 'it's understandable that most of us would assume bureaucracy is inevitable-—understandable, but not acceptable. We have to raise our aspirations … "difficult to imagine" doesn't mean "impossible to build." This implies, rightly that wishing for the awakening kiss is not the answer, rather it's 'good management and hard work' (a lovely phrase from the story Charlotte's Web) that provides the transformation. Oh, and a lot of IT. Hamel gives a 15 point list of what a transformed-from–bureaucratic to ideal-non-bureaucratic organization looks like, most of the items heavily IT enabled.

Sadly he doesn't specifically say what time, resource, effort, and will has to go into achieving a state where, for example, (number 4 on his list) 'complex coordination problems are solved peer-to-peer, rather than through top-down mandates; where people have all the information they need to recognize their shared interests, and the collaborative platforms they need to co-create win-win solutions.' I'd love to see the detailed project plan with financials to achieve this: in the absence of it I feel a Dilbert cartoon coming on.

Another item on his list that caught my eye (number 15) was 'Leadership rank is the product of peer-based assessments and objective measures of competence and contribution rather than the product of title or position'. A huge, and expensive, burden in a typical bureaucracy is the performance management system that attempts to objectively measure competence and contribution. Generally such systems fail so let's not attempt ranking by 'objective measures' in a non-bureaucracy. Even if competence and contribution could be measured then the measures would more likely be situational e.g. BlackBerry's CEO was perceived by peer based assessment to be more competent when the share price was highest and less competent when it was lowest.

However, let's applaud the MixHackathon, under Hamel's aegis, for raising the challenge of busting bureaucracy. Its aim is to encourage us to imagine alternatives to the bureaucratic model. The organizers explain that 'In the current phase of the hackathon, we're working to define the attributes of the post-bureaucratic organization-— what new management practices can provide an alternative to the bureaucratic model of top-down control and formal rules and procedures?'

Sam Palmisano, former chairman, president and CEO of IBM introduced the much talked about 'IBM jams', aimed at busting bureaucracy and introducing new management practices. In his 2003 letter to shareholders he said:

So, for 72 hours last summer (2003), we invited all 319,000 IBMers around the world to engage in an open "values jam" on our global intranet. IBMers by the tens of thousands weighed in. They were thoughtful and passionate about the company they want to be a part of. They were also brutally honest. Some of what they wrote was painful to read, because they pointed out all the bureaucratic and dysfunctional things that get in the way of serving clients, working as a team or implementing new ideas. But we were resolute in keeping the dialog free-flowing and candid. And I don't think what resulted – broad, enthusiastic, grass-roots consensus – could have been obtained in any other way.

By many accounts Palmisano was successful. During his nine years as IBM's chairman and CEO Palmisano oversaw a 10.2% annual increase in its stock price and here's what one commentator said 'As he concludes his career [2012], he leaves his successor, Virginia Rometty, with an iconic giant poised to dominate its industry for decades to come.'

But, not so fast to judge success, read what new IBM CEO Virginia Rometty says in her 2013 annual letter to shareholders. She talks of 'transformation' 'IBM is executing a bold agenda. It is reshaping your company, and we believe it will reshape our industry. In this letter I will describe the actions we have taken and are taking, and the changed company that is emerging from this transformation. … However, we must acknowledge that while 2013 was an important year of transformation, our performance did not meet our expectations.'

So did Palmisano's 'transformation' ultimately result in a different form of bureaucracy that now needs 'transformation'? Perhaps 'transformation' isn't so much frog into prince and everything is then hunky dory, but is a situational stage that needs continuous revisiting or there's a reversion to bureaucracy, albeit of a different type.

Peter Rennie commenting on the Gary Hamel blog mentioned above offers a Chinese saying; 'The more things change, the more they remain the same.' In his view 'busting bureaucracy' is the wrong approach. It's better to offer 'a better way', that addresses the fear that things will fall apart without hierarchy. He argues that 'real, sustained change is not dramatic. It is slow'. But isn't slowness one of the hallmarks of bureaucracy?

I think I'm getting stuck like a frog in a swamp. Here's what I've learned so far – the sample size is a small and skewed to tech companies but you'll get the idea: Bureaucracies are unwieldly, un-nimble, and 'olden days' organizations. Organizations of whatever era that start out as slim-trim-dynamic often become bureaucracies. Attempting to transform a bureaucracy to a slim-trim-dynamic state doesn't seem to work very well and it doesn't happen quickly enough for impatient shareholders. Quick transformation isn't possible anyway because 'the more things change the more they remain the same.'

What's your view on transformation? Can bureaucratic frog businesses transform into slim trim dynamic prince businesses and will they then stay that way or will the prince like organization age into wrinkles, sagginess and spread as a real life prince would? Let me know.

NOTE: here's a piece I wrote on business transformation a few years ago. http://www.mmc.com/knowledgecenter/BT-OrgBalance.pdf

'A design brief is a written document for a design project developed in concert by a person representing the business need for design and the designer. The document is focused on the desired results of design – not aesthetics. Design briefs are commonly used in consulting engagements.' Wikipedia

'I'm going to get a clear, formal brief', someone told me this week. She's been asked to re-organize the function that she's also a member of – not such an easy task. I'm also involved in a function re-organization, and am at the same stage as she is: aiming to get a clear brief. So we've decided to mirror our approaches, sharing tools, info, etc. as we go. And that includes our process for getting a clear brief. It takes time, and involves thought and discussion.

I agree with the person who said 'a design can only be as good as the brief you worked from. The best projects are borne from creative briefs that are open enough to inspire ideas, while being specific enough to feel workable'. She goes on to say: 'Picture the scene. You've just landed a new client, who hurries a brief to you. There are a few holes in the brief, but instead of asking for constant clarification, you get to work. Later you're told the design "isn't quite right" … Ambiguous design briefs are infuriating. What's worse, clients who set you up to fail often go away thinking you stuffed up.'

Generally speaking product or brand designers are fully aware of the value of pre-brief work. For example, Patricia van den Akker, Director of The Design Trust, makes the following point:

'It really is worthwhile to spending some time to get the design brief right. Work closely together with your client to co-create a design brief. Time spent … working out what the client wants and doesn't want will ensure that you will be able to create the right design solution and have a satisfied client at the end! … Don't assume anything, write down and describe the requirements into great detail.'

She follows this by saying that when she worked for a product design consultancy as much time was spent on finding out exactly what the client wanted as was spent on working on the design itself, the value in this lead up to the brief being to a) ensure clear communication b) develop/improve the working relationship with clients c) manage expectations on both sides.

While the value of clearly defining the brief is well understood in some design circles in my experience it isn't understood or discussed much in relation to organization design work. This suggests an opportunity for organization designers to learn from the experience of designers in other fields. It's good to see this work burgeoning. For example the UK's Design Council offers coaching and workshops to public and private sector organizations that 'introduce you and your team to key design methods, including customer journey mapping, low-cost prototyping, and visual techniques for articulating problems and potential solutions.'

And Ideo, an international design firm, is a well-known player in the field of meshing visual/product design with business design claiming that by 'shifting focus from linear practices to iterative design processes, we can shed light on new options and explore the various alternatives.'

In order to get to a clear brief I've been working with my client and varying numbers of his team over the last few weeks to develop some basic building blocks: a statement of strategy intent (the vision), design principles, definitions of organizational words and phrases that we throw around without knowing if we mean the same thing by them, values, business unit 'tone of voice', the elements of the end to end value chain, the business model (using the business model canvas), a list of things that people are developing independently that could be shared – leading to streamlining and efficiency gains, and another list of all the activities that contribute to the value chain.

So, at this point we have an unassembled kit of parts and I'm detecting certain impatience at points from the client who just wants to announce his new organization chart. So pressure is mounting to assemble the kit and with a couple more discussions around activities/value chain we'll be ready to construct and agree the brief which will then at some point in the near enough future lead to the organization chart.

The point of all this pre-brief work – which I think the client understands – is to help him and his team think through what they want the organization design to achieve in terms of performance outcome, and how they would like this to happen – for example by command and control, by 'everyone a leader', by formal or informal means, by existing (legacy) systems or new systems … Also it has revealed all kinds of questions that need to be answered in the design. Where are the interdependencies? How much synergy between product lines can we aim for? What are the real constraints we are designing within? What are the opportunities for making a transformational difference? Does the work we are charged with require new capability/skills? How can we think about scaling up/down? None of these types of questions are tackled by just shuffling the people around the organization chart but all are important to designing something that is a well-functioning, high performing business unit and one that interfaces effectively with the rest of the organization.

There is a lot of information around on what the specific elements of a design brief should be. Search on 'writing a design brief' and you'll get literally millions of hits. Some directed at the client who writes the brief in order to select consultants, and others directed at the consultant who is going to do the work and is essentially checking with the client that the project scope and outcome is clearly understood. It is this latter that is what I am usually doing. That is, I write the brief, the client then adds, amends, comments, and generally give feedback on it. The net result is an agreement on the brief. Often I use the project charter. (See the September 2012 tool on my website). It is concise but comprehensive enough to keep referring back to as the project proceeds to check progress. If the situation changes it can be amended as needed (and agreed). A longer, more formal brief template is available from The National Archives of the Department for Business Innovation & Skills – in fact they have two templates a programme brief and a project brief.

For examples of a more visual brief look at Design from a Creative Brief or some of the Google images on the searching under the same phrase (design for a creative brief). And for a collaborative development of a project brief you could use the project brief canvas available from the UK's Arts Council (a 15 page guide)

How do you tackle getting a good organization design brief? Let me know.

You think things are but they aren't. Until last week I thought banana skins were bio-degradable and it was ok to toss them into the wild from a hiking trail. Now I find that although they are bio-degradable it is not ok to toss them. They take two years to disappear. I didn't meet any banana people but I wasn't on Ben Nevis: I was on a conservation week in the Caledonian Forest when we got this piece of information.

Before the week I naively thought there were Christmas Trees aka pine trees, but it turns out that there aren't really – there are many, many types of pine some native to the Caledonian Forest and some not. The non-natives are rooted out to make room for the natives and you can learn why here but on the first day to me that smacked of a lack of diversity policy.

I quickly found that wasn't true either. The idea is for a diversity policy around native tree species – specific pines, alders, rowan, birch, aspen. So although there is a diversity policy it isn't as diverse as it could be if non-natives were included.

But having accepted that non-native species are 'bad' and native species 'good' I read a review of a recently published book 'Where do camels belong?' The author discusses 'the contradictions of 'native' and 'invasive' species, a hot issue right now, as the flip-side of biodiversity, [and asks] But do we need to fear invaders? And indeed, can we control them, and do we choose the right targets?' According to the blurb:

'Ken Thompson puts forward a fascinating array of narratives to explore what he sees as the crucial question – why only a minority of introduced species succeed, and why so few of them go on to cause trouble. He discusses, too, whether our fears could be getting in the way of conserving biodiversity, and responding to the threat of climate change.'

He is of the view that we needn't fear (all) invasive species and some are good. So more to add to the pile of things that are, aren't.

It was a fascinating week of finding out new stuff. Among other things I learned how to take out a wire fence, how to plant trees, how aspens are grafted, how ospreys fly from Senegal, that ants tend to build their hills facing south. Watching the ants on their hills reminded me of Meteor, a short story, by John Wyndham. In this, intrepid travelers from an ancient, distant planet land on Earth believing that 'This planet [Earth] is very young, and if we do find intelligent life, it will be only at its beginning. We must find them and make friends with them. They may be very different from us, but we must remember that this is their world. It would be very wicked to hurt any kind of life on its own planet. If we find any such life, our duty is to teach, and to learn, and to work with them.' Sadly, the things this species think are, aren't – and they cannot understand the reality of what they have landed in. I won't spoil the story but it is a powerful tale.

This clash of are/aren't continued all week. A seven turbine wind farm proposed close to the Glen I was in has generated much local protest, but in the village post office there's a flyer about the ten myths of wind power and I find that Friends of the Earth 'supports the development of windpower in the UK'. So now I'm confused. Are wind turbines something to be in favor of or aren't they?

An amusement in the local restaurant was being given a dinner menu and when I asked whether 'tattie scones' were available the manager said 'Only order things that are on the menu. Don't ask for things that aren't.' In this instance tattie scones are available for breakfast but not for dinner. This customer service approach was a direct contrast to the thoroughly recommendable Rendezvous in Inverness where I was able to order a tattie scone (ok it was on the menu but not as a separate item) and when I said how delicious it was the manager served me another at no cost but less crispy because he wanted to know whether I preferred the more or less crispy version. Some restauranteurs are good at customer service, others aren't.

Off and on during the week I've been looking at some of the parallels between this conservation week and what I've experienced in organizational life. In fact, the conservation week was a microcosm organization. We were 11 people randomly flung together (in this case by calendar date choice). We seemed to have some shared values. We were expected to work as a team to achieve specific outcomes while following the rules of 'head office'. We had two managers (aka focalizers) – one very experienced and the other new. Of the workers (volunteers) some had done this type of work before and others hadn't. We were a mixed bag of ages, backgrounds, experiences, and lifestyles. (But all white, UK nationals).

It transpired that even with shared values we batted up against lots of things that are and things that aren't in this organizational mix – all typical of organizational life. For example – rules are/aren't there to be followed, managers are/aren't there to control, workers are/aren't able to make autonomous decisions, tested ways are better/newer ways aren't (or vice versa), and so on.

Reflecting on the are/aren't dichotomy and the difficulties and conflicts polarization causes I wondered what made the week so good. It could have been a recipe for disaster – in fact we heard lots of stories of weeks that were much less than wonderful – but ours was terrific.

What seemed to work to bridge the are/aren't divide in this instance were a range of factors that are not possible to design in. (Or are they?) The perfect weather most days helped as did having all the right tools for the jobs in hand. The background infrastructure/administration appeared to run smoothly although there were hints of mad paddling behind the scenes.

But beyond this – in terms of interaction people respected each other's perspectives, asked lots of questions, listened to each other and were curious about the context, history, and approach to the work and the environment in which we were working.

Learning was made easy because the experienced people were happy offering/sharing/teaching their knowledge and skills and seemed delighted to have the opportunity to do so in an adult to adult way – there was no talking down to inexperience, people were willing to ask for help (and accept help when it was offered), managers relaxed to become facilitators of getting things done not commanders of making people do things.

The work was challenging but not overly demanding, and was balanced with plenty of opportunity to socialize both on and off the job and in this learn more about each other's life experiences that had made us who we are today. This work/social balance quickly built a spirit of co-operation: people looked out for each other, were willing to go along with changes in plan and stick with a positive mindset.

Best of all everyone had an always bubbling sense of humor. We all spent a lot of time in gales of laughter at one thing or another.

This all sounds like organizational nirvana – I wouldn't go that far, but I think all the factors listed served to bridge the are/aren't divide, to keep things on track and to make the whole experience enjoyable.

What attributes do you think act as bridges in the organizational are/aren't divides? Let me know.

Organizational 'tone of voice' was one of the many points of discussion this week. Can you change organizational culture by changing the tone of voice? What is organizational tone of voice? Can you design it in/out? Is it an external brand thing or an internal communications thing – is it reflected in print and spoken word or both? Someone talked about his experience at Vodafone which a while ago had a campaign introducing its 'red, rock solid, and restless' tone of voice. Looking at their 2008 annual report on this I find that

'The Group further embedded the Vodafone brand essence, "Red, Rock Solid, Restless", which communicates a common way of behaving that is designed to enhance business performance and customer orientation. This has been reinforced at the local level through workshops that encourage teams to apply the Vodafone values to their specific work concentrating on improving the experience of their customers.' The qualities are explained:

• Red: Being passionate and energetic
• Rock Solid: Being reliable and following through on promises
• Restless: Continually striving for improvement and challenging the status quo

This sounds great as a cultural banner to muster behind. But the danger in these efforts is employee skepticism or downright hostility as in;

• Red = passionate (I really hate this job)
• Rock solid = dependable (trust us to get things wrong, consistently)
• Restless = always looking for new ways (out)

Robert Mills doesn't tackle internal skepticism but does offer a terrific overview of tone of voice particularly related to web design but with much that is applicable in other contexts. He says that:

'Tone of voice isn't what we say but how we say it. It's the language we use, the way we construct sentences, the sound of our words and the personality we communicate. It is to writing what logo, color and typeface are to branding.
When we speak to others in person, our non-verbal communication says more than the words themselves. Non-verbal communication consists of facial expressions, tone, cues, gestures and pitch. Online, we lose of all of these except tone. We can imbue our Web copy with a tone that is distinct, clear, consistent and relevant to the target audience. You can't create a strong and effective user experience without language. And tone of voice plays a big role in this'.

What follows in his article are many examples including – Starbucks, Innocent, Ben & Jerry's, Lovefilm – of tone of voice as they come across on the Web.

Many organizations have Tone of Voice style guides. The British Council's is interesting as it tells us what the tone is not, as well as what it is: 'Our tone is not arrogant or patronising. It is not dull, smug, overly official, dry, over-familiar, glib, loud, cheeky or disrespectful'. But 'The British Council's tone is confident. We are world leaders at what we do. We are professional, but we are also friendly, lively, upbeat, warm, approachable and enthusiastic.' They also firmly say that 'Whenever we are communicating on behalf of the British Council it should be in the British Council's tone of voice. This is not an option. It is mandatory.' (These last two sentences caused me to jolt a bit).

Much of the organizational 'tone of voice' information is about getting it right i.e. reflecting the personality of your organization in text and visuals related to internal and external branding and communications. Although Robert Mills (above) mentions it, in fact, there's not so much easily accessible information from the marketing/branding angle on the actual tone of voice used in the organization as people talk with each other, make decisions, negotiate, influence, express their position in the hierarchy and so on.

But this is taken up in other disciplines. The Center for Non-Verbal Studies, for example, describes tone of voice in terms of pitch, rhythm, loudness, and then discusses how use of tone expresses feelings and emotions as in sarcastic, submissive, superior, angry, sad, happy and so on .

In these various aspects of tone of voice I'm wondering how easy it is to develop people's day to day thinking about it so where brand guides exist for written tone of voice the intent is taken into day to day vocal tone. For example, going back to the British Council's tone of voice statements one of them is: 'We are 'inspiring' : We believe our knowledge is most valuable when it is shared. We are positive, enthusiastic and always encouraging.'

So how does that translate into the day to day operation of the business? Are there formal and informal systems/processes for sharing knowledge? Are people positive in their tone – what happens if their tone expresses negativity, or impatience, or frustration. Do people have to be enthusiastic all the time – what if they are apathetic or passive or just normally trucking along? Is 'always encouraging' realistic? What happens if someone is underperforming and is in the firing line?

Getting the tone of 'say' aligned with expression of 'do' is a hard task. I don't know what the British Council does to develop the alignment – maybe someone out there can let me know – but in organizations I've worked with it seems to be a missing element. It's tied up with organizational values – respect, teamwork, transparency, etc but I haven't seen much in the way of 'this is how we speak with each other and this is the tone of voice we use.'

As I said at the start, I'm wondering whether once the brand 'tone of voice' has been identified whether helping staff think about the actual tone of voice linked to this that they use with each other could support the business direction of an organization. Could, for example, an organization that valued grades/hierarchy where people fell into submissive and superior voice tones become an organization more inclined to value performance and outcomes if a common tone of respect and 'I'm equal to you' prevailed?

Can you design in actual tone of voice alongside brand tone of voice? What do you think? Let me know.

What's both fun and alarming about beginning a new job, as I did three weeks ago, is the complete disorientation I feel. It's like being in a foreign land with little in the way of signposts of any sort. It's a kind of giant scribble. Briefings, introductions and inductions are more confusing than helpful. I've found that the information they give only starts to make sense a couple of weeks in. On day one I'd rather know how to map to the printer, where the document appears (not at the printer nearest to me) and how to operate the photocopier (password requirements).

Part of my induction required taking a one hour on-line course about being responsible about information, including a section on not leaving printed out documents on the printer. I took the course on the Friday afternoon of my first week. Shortly before leaving the office I printed something out, collected my stuff and left. It was only when I got home I realized that the document was on the printer. I wondered whether I should rush back and retrieve it over the weekend, but didn't know whether I could gain access with my temporary pass. Ho hum.

The disorientation comes from all sides: Like the place I now work in has doors from the lift lobby into the office space that only open with a swipe card. That's understandable going in from the lift lobby but to get out to the lift lobby from the office you have to push a button. Pushing the door doesn't open it. I'm monitoring how long it takes me to learn to automatically push the wall button, instead of pushing the door.

Learning the acronyms is a hurdle that takes while to jump – I now have a list of over 30 – as does using fairly common words like 'policy' and 'department' in the very specific way the organization uses them which is different from the normal usage I am familiar with. Working with arcane log-in requirements for laptops, phones, VPN access, etc is all part of the process, as is learning which social media and cloud sites are inaccessible for reasons I am not clear on. And all of this which I think of as basic navigation stuff is paralleled by having to quickly learn the specific seascape as it were.

This is challenging. I'm looking for clues and subtle signs on where the power lies, who the influencers are, what is ok and not ok, what the language codes are, who is in which network, how things really get done, who is the 'go-to' person/people for information and support, what is valued and what is scoffed at, where the sensitivities are and where to tread carefully. Like anyone brought in to change the organization I am told I have a mandate to challenge – hmm.

I've met people who've worked for years for an organization as an external consultant. If they've then joined that company as an employee a whole hidden side of the organization becomes part of their landscape – they are now exposed to stuff that was outside their field of experience when they were hired for their external expertise. They're often surprised and dismayed. Some leave – overwhelmed by the cognitive dissonance.

My PhD thesis was on executive level newcomers joining organizations and from this I wrote a series of ten checklists (See April tool of the month for a draft of one of them) to develop newcomer success. I dug these out to see if I could (re)learn anything from them. They were published by the Chartered Management Institute and I see they are still available (here's an example of another one) so maybe the experience of joining a new organization is timeless. I did discover some nuggets in the Fitting in and Getting on checklist that I would do well to heed:

'To fit in and get on effectively in your new role you must gain knowledge, skill, and expertise in five 'domains':

• First, the organisational domain – the politics, power, and value premises of the organisation, its mission, leadership style, special languages, wider context and so forth.
• Second, the work role domain – the boundaries of authority and responsibility, expectations and appropriate behaviours for the position, the systems, structures and processes that it operates with and within.
• Third, the group processes domain – team member and co-worker interaction, group norms and values and the workgroup's culture and structure.
• Fourth, the task domain – the tasks, duties, assignments, priorities associated with the role, how to use equipment, how to handle routine problems and so forth.
• Fifth the industry domain – the structure, technicalities, competitors, suppliers, language, thought leaders/commentators in the field.

As well as this I asked the team I'm a part of what would be career suicide in the organization and got some great (and helpful) answers: look for infiltration points, cover all the bases and keep going round them, follow the power, learn then scale, challenge carefully, work with one-pagers and word clouds not hefty documents.

And then I took a look at the 'first 100 days' literature. It's clearly a topic of interest. I got 416,000,000 returns to the inquiry 'first 100 days in new role'. I found companies, tipsheets, videos , and books devoted to helping people successfully through their first hundred days. The book I like most and have dipped into many times is by Michael Watkins, The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter, Updated and Expanded. It is practical and sensible the downside is that he allows ten days less than the norm for proving your worth.

So there's no shortage of advice and support which is good – if only to show that the challenge is common and recognized. For me it's a bit more pointed – I've studied the process, and joined several organizations but what I've found is that the theory can only go so far. In the end it's down to me and the interactions I have with new colleagues that will make or break my success in designing the job I've been employed to do. I'm 15 days in so far.

What one tip would you give to someone starting a new role? Let me know.

'Digital transformation' has been a recurring phrase in conversations I've been having during the past week. What does it mean? Well apparently there's no real consensus. MIT I think has a good general definition 'the use of new digital technologies (social media, mobile, analytics or embedded devices) to enable major business improvements (such as enhancing customer experience, streamlining operations or creating new business models)'

Howard King writing in The Guardian has a well-reasoned piece on the subject with a definition of digital transformation as 'a visible wholesale restructure to avoid a tipping point caused by digital technologies and downstream market effects.'

Accenture neatly avoids defining 'digital transformation' instead saying that each organization's digital journey will be different but that broadly the journey requires five elements: integrated services to allow personalization of customer experience, analytics and intelligence, data management, content management, and omni-channel experience. These five strands built on a platform of an ecosystem that addresses organisation structure, culture and partners.

There's merit in having an organization specific definition if it clarifies the design focus and direction. For example, depending on the organizational definition, all resources could be put into the 'digital' aspect – converting customer interaction channels from face to face to online. Or effort could focus on a business 'transformation' where the digital was simply one of many delivery channels and the transformation lay in say, outsourcing services and/or acting as a commissioning body or holding company, or the definition could facilitate something that combined a very high focus on digital 'digital' with an obvious 'transformation'.

Each of the three possibilities mentioned above (and there will be others depending on the definition arrived at) demands different resourcing, organizational and individual capability, measurement and so on. Different definitions mean different strategies and thus organization designs that take the concept of 'digital transformation' to different end-points.

Defining the terms carefully, with the end-game or ideal state in mind, set expectations that make reaching the desired outcome more likely. Further, identifying measures or objectives against the agreed definition provides the necessary tracking towards target. A job I once had asked that I 'convert one third of the organization's face to face training to high quality computer based training (CBT) within 18 months.' This sounds clear-cut but we had some discussion around what we meant by CBT – for example, were accompanying texts allowed, or telephone coaching, or occasional participant meetings or was it specifically only computer based?

We ended up with a definition of CBT that we all subscribed to. Simultaneously we explored why the decision had been made to convert training from face to face to CBT: was it to save travel or other costs, improve quality, decrease the amount of time off the job, offer flexibility, reach more trainees, provide consistency etc?

Getting a level of specificity on the definitions, expectations and intended outcomes steered the design direction. Working within the definition and the outcome criteria we were able to come up with an innovative approach that, among other things, supported and tracked the trainees, converted CBT sceptics, and allowed for a proportion of employees who could not handle CBT for various reasons, for example, lack of access to equipment, visual impairment, or whatever.

That was one of my early learnings that defining terms, agreeing expectations, setting the design scope and criteria, and determining outcome measures are not wasting time when we could be acting but valuable discussions in progressing the right actions to take. (Another learning was remembering to take stock at points to check that the ground hasn't shifted as the work is done).

Back to the digital transformation: if we go for the notion (from Accenture) that 'Becoming a digital business is no longer simply about how we incorporate technology into our organizations; it's about how we use technology to reinvent [i.e. transform] those organizations to get out in front of the dramatic changes that technology is creating' then what is the path for doing that?

MIT Sloan Management Review, bucking the traditional 5 or 7 steps to success, comes up with 8 steps to digital transformation and accompanies these with a 44 minute video discussion . I recommend listening to it – it's worth the 44 minutes.

For organization designers four themes emerge from it that complement the 8 steps:

It's not the technology that is king it's the way it's used.
There's a common talking point amongst the four panelists (and other stuff that I've come across) that digital transformation is less about the technology and more about the business, its customers, and its employees with a strong focus on using technologies to transform processes in order to improve the customer experience.
Customers are the drivers of digital transformation
Mark Norman of Avis (rental cars) for example, talks about digital technology in relation to the customer experience asking what is it that we're trying to solve? He gives some examples around making the driving experience easier. He illustrates the use that can be made of it to improve customer experiences and solve their perhaps unrecognized 'problem' or 'need' asking first 'what do we need to accomplish here?' Others note that often what is driving changes in organizations like Avis is the fact that customers are putting pressure on organizations to change – social media amplifies the customer voice.
Hierarchies work against digital transformation
Hierarchical structures and competitive cultures are not going to work in digital transformations. Panelists talk about swarm work – coming together for a work project and then disbanding, experimentation, social collaboration in real time (less email), having a transformation leader in each business area, adjusting performance and reward systems to reduce 'silo mentality', and making physical space changes to change the established hierarchical patterns/behaviours. The view is that changing the way people work changes the culture.
Technology innovations are going to keep piling on
The other common point is that this is not going to stop – the technologies are going to keep on rolling and big project approaches need to give way to experimentation, having people scanning the horizon for new technologies, avoiding 'moonshots' instead using data, scenario planning and quick turnaround analysis to make swift decisions and keep the organization transforming.

All this might seem scary. Talk of 'transformation' to employees and you can see the eye-rolling and then the anxiety. But couch it in a different way. I came across a graphic that shows that the digital transformation has been going on since the 1950s which puts the whole thing into context. People have coped with the evolution and have integrated it into doing work differently.

Our organization design challenge I think is three fold. We have to act to

• Speed up/change our own design processes for example, keeping the pace on redesigning constantly as the technologies evolve
• Present 'digital transformation' as less about technology and more about changing the customer experiences for the better with technology,
• Dismantle established infrastructure elements – policies, reward systems, etc – that interfere with the digital transformation direction

What's your view on designing for digital transformation? Let me know.

Imagine interacting simultaneously with utility/telecoms companies, realtors (estate agents), airlines, hotels, and cleaning companies. It's not a difficult thing to imagine if you've relocated across continents as I just have. In the last few weeks I've shut down accounts with Comcast (US telecoms), T-mobile US (ditto), Pepco (utilities), O2 (UK), and opened accounts with Spark Energy, and T-mobile UK. Simultaneously I've rented out one apartment (US) and rented another (UK) – with all the interactions with agents that entails, including the cleaning companies. I've crossed the Atlantic 3 times in one week and that same week stayed in 3 different hotels. I've also notified numerous organizations about a change of address, ordered stuff online for delivery, and (now) completed the first week at work in the new place –including getting equipped with swipe card, laptop, etc.

During this exercise I've run the gamut of communication channels from the organizations I've been interacting with: email, face-to-face, telephone without any live person just push button, telephone ultimately getting through to a live person, online, on-line chat box, text messages, and twitter.

When I'm not feeling frazzled about the whole thing I'm noting the 'customer journeys' I'm going through. Some of these are not exactly 'journeys' more like colossal on-going obstacle courses with absolutely no inkling of when/where the finish line is. The top designer of such a course is Comcast . If you take a look at their website you'll find that there is no way of closing an account with them on-line. You have to call a phone number.

It took me 3 days and 8 different agents – each promising they would put me through to the right department – to get the account closed. The department dealing with the account closing did not handle the return of the router box – which took another process to book a collection for it. The collector did not turn up and finally a kind neighbor took it to the local depot. This neighbor was the one who found out my account had in fact been closed as I'd got no confirmation of this. The reason for the three days was the length of time it took for getting through the phone system entering the same details each time and then being assured that 'an agent will be with you momentarily', one time I waited 34 minutes before hanging up – other times I hung up sooner.

T-mobile UK's journey started off very well. I went into one of their shops and was attended to instantly, talked through the various options, filled in the paperwork, and left with the immediate kit to get me interacting in the UK and a date for broadband connection – this is the bit that hasn't happened yet. However, I have had several text messages about it and a live agent ringing to explain the delay and give a 50% discount on the connection fee.

The router box for the broadband was delivered to my new address but as I hadn't arrived it was sent back but I have not heard from T-mobile that it will be redelivered. (I had to email the courier company to find out where the package was). I'm expecting that the engineer will arrive to hook everything up but because there's no router he/she won't be able to. I'm going to call tomorrow and attempt to find out the process for redelivering. The downside is I can't track order process on-line, and the whole thing is through EE which adds a layer of confusion.

John Lewis, a UK retailer, has given the best journey so far. And it will meet my expectations for customer experience if they turn up at the stated time next week as promised. They are quick off the mark on responding to queries and have multiple channels – face to face in shop, on-line, email, phone – to interact with fairly easily. They have a good reputation for customer service and I'd go along with that. I hope it works as well when Capita take over their contact centres.

Over the past few weeks on these literal (airline) and metaphorical (services and product acquiring) journeys my approach to keep sane is to repeat a wonderful Alice Walker phrase from a poem of hers 'Expect nothing. Live frugally on surprise'. Some of the surprise is great – like a delightful and attentive flight attendant on United Airlines, and a similarly excellent receptionist at the Premier Inn, Heathrow. Other surprises are a little more disconcerting – like the Comcast router not being collected as scheduled, and the maze of screens to get through on the T-mobile website before finding out that I can't see where my order is. (As I said, I'll have to call tomorrow and find out progress).

Thinking about these experiences I'm in line with the points made in a McKinsey quarterly article The Truth About Customer Experience, by Alex Rawson, Ewan Duncan, and Conor Jones. They suggest that good customer service/experience means that organizations stop thinking in discrete 'touchpoints' but instead, design the end to end journey 'into their operating models in four ways: They must identify the journeys in which they need to excel, understand how they are currently performing in each, build cross-functional processes to redesign and support those journeys, and institute cultural change and continuous improvement to sustain the initiatives at scale.' They recommend a top down and bottom up approach to the design process that involves a lot of data and data analysis as well as qualitative and reflective consideration of what an ideal experience feels like for different types of customers. Additionally they advocate involving customers and front line staff in the design process.

Developing these ideas in a slightly different way an Accenture report Remaking customer markets: unlocking growth with digital is focused on the impact of digital technologies on business models and customer needs. They make the point that ' Successfully navigating this journey [of pursuit of digital innovation opportunities] requires new strategies and capabilities that, for many companies, represent a departure from the norm.'

All of the companies I have interacted with in the last couple of weeks have been what Accenture terms 'incumbents' – those well-established in the space. Those incumbents capable of rapidly redesigning their customer experiences by recognizing the power of digital may survive – those that are not able to will be displaced. (Look at how Airbnb is taking on the hotel industry). Comcast may be big but it's not invulnerable or invincible.

What customer journeys have you been part of recently? How did they measure up? Let me know.

See also my related blogs: Extraordinary customer service, Designing customer value, Designing for customer satisfaction, Customer service issues