Author: naomiorgdesign

Incipient panic
I wake up from a bad dream that my daughter is in great difficulty in a dangerous environment. I know she is in Eritrea. I get an email from her that same morning.

I am locked out of my Yahoo account! I am in a bit of a fix. Can you Western Union me some money? We need about $1000 US. I am in the Intercontinental Asmara Palace Hotel.

My first thoughts a) it's a scam -someone has phished her account. b) she's written this message under duress c) the dream was prescient d) what do I do now? I try not to panic.

Instead I look at the Intercontinental website for the Asmara Palace Hotel phone number. They don't have a hotel in Eritrea. I begin to panic. No, no, no, my voice of calm admonishes me. Breathe, stop, think, dreams are only dreams they are not reality.

Ok – I look up Western Union to find out how to send money.

Momentary calm
As I do this my phone rings "unknown number". It's my daughter. Phew. "Did you get my email? Can you send the money?" She is in a hotel (not the Asmara Palace which is where she was sending the email from, but the Top Five Hotel. Note: the Asmara Palace does exist but is not now owned by Intercontinental).

She has no money but has persuaded the Top Five people to let her phone me and put the charge on her bill – which she'll pay once I've sent her the money.

While she's talking I'm scanning the Western Union website. I find out I can send money via Western Union on-line. So thankfully there's no need to put today on hold and walk off to find the nearest Western Union office. But I haven't used the system before.

Irritation
I enter: a user name for me (the first one I chose was taken which seemed odd), followed by my mother's maiden name, my favorite dog's name, my best friend's name. Finally all names entered. Now comes a quiz: which of the following five streets did you live on? Which of the following are the last four digits of your bank account (search for check book to answer that one), which mortgage society did you have your last mortgage with? Which of the following was your employer in 2005? Finally I manage to register as a first time user. Now have to wait for 'one time only' code to be sent to my email in order to confirm it is me. 30 mins from start I am ready to send money online. I complete all fields on the 'send money on-line form' and triumphantly press 'send'. Immediate response – "your bank has refused your request".

Contained anger
I log on through several layers of security to my bank account and see if I have inadvertently stepped over my credit card limit (no I am well below it). However to make sure I transfer money from my current account to my credit card. I log off that and re-log onto Western Union and for a second time go through the process of completing all fields to send money online.

I reduce the amount I want to send to $800 in case there was some unknown upper limit for sending money via Western Union from my credit card.

Again the transaction is refused by my bank. I start conscious breathing as I call my bank's customer service and finally via several menu options and canned music finally hear "My name is Daria. I am here to help you." But before she starts helping me she wants to know "what are the last four letters of your social security number, what is your date of birth, what is your mother's maiden name, and what town were you born in". I get through this.

Finally, Daria can see no reason why my transaction was refused and transfers me via canned music to 'authorization'. Authorization is 'Charles' who asks me, what is my mother's maiden name, what street was I born on, and what is my favorite color. Then he tells me I've had my credit card since 2003. "Thank you for your valued custom Miss Stanford." Contained anger threatens to bubble over with this useless piece of information. I find out that they have indeed halted the transaction because it was 'unusual activity' on my account. Good in one way, but I cannot see it at that point. He authorizes the transaction. Another 20 minutes gone. The phone rings again. My daughter wants to know how I'm doing.

Screaming swear words at computer
I log back onto Western Union, confident that I am a registered Western Union user, I have my transaction authorized, and am good to go. I complete all fields for the third time on the Western Union form and press 'send'. 'Your transaction is denied. Ring customer service for more information.'

I hurl abuse at the computer. I ring Western Union customer service. I press the right menu options, I listen to canned music. I get through to Jean. "What is your mother's maiden name, what is your favorite dog's name, what is your best friend's name? I find out that my phone number is at fault. She doesn't know why or why my transaction is refused because of my phone number. Can I give her another phone number? I give her my work one. No that won't work either she tells me. I ask to speak to her manager. Simultaneously I am completing the on-line transmittal form for the fourth time. She says 'of course but my manager will say the same thing. You'll have to go to the Western Union office on Corcoran Street.' I hurl abuse at her (but she doesn't know as it stays in my head).

Return to normal
As I'm speaking with Jean and without any hope I press 'send' for the fourth time. But suddenly the screen has a big green check mark on it and proclaims: 'Your transaction is confirmed. Make a note of this number and give it to the recipient.' I tell Jean. I remember to say 'thank you' and wish her a nice day and hang up. Blood pressure begins to drop but another 30 minutes gone.

I call the Top Five Hotel, number unavailable. Undaunted I try twice more and finally get through. I ask to speak to my daughter. Just in case, I have answers to every possible question that the receptionist might ask at the ready. What is your daughter's bicycle frame number? What is her favorite Lush product? What brand of hummus does she buy most often? But I don't get asked any real or imagined security questions.
Instead the next thing I hear is "Mum, how's it going?" I have the answer to that. I tell her I have sent the money and give her the collection number.

I make it to my 9:00 a.m. meeting with seconds to spare. Why did she need the money? That's another story. POSTSCRIPT: She was never able to collect the money because the Western Union office in Asmara had no internet connection. See the Economist article on internet access in some African countries, Eritrea among them.

This week has been one of discussions on value propositions. In the first we were working out what we were offering various stakeholders in returning for investing time, effort, and obvious commitment into supporting the development of 'living labs'. On this project we are planning intentional experimentation on the interactions between people and workspace. So, for example, if we invite people to work in open bench style workspace rather than the current individual high walled cubicles and they accept the invitation what impact does it have on things including their work practices, the work flow, and their productivity?

Clearly inviting people to work in a different space layout will incur various costs e.g. in new layouts, perhaps new furniture, risks to productivity and business continuity, etc. But there may be benefits – more collaboration resulting in higher customer satisfaction, higher productivity, swifter decision making because people are communicating more effectively and so on. But we don't know and this is the 'lab' part of the project. Thus the value proposition discussion.

But what exactly is a value proposition? There are many definitions. Alex Osterwalder defines it as "the bundles of products and services that satisfy our customer segments' needs", an alternative definition of working definition of his is "a customer value proposition gives an overall view of a company's bundle of products, services and client advice. It is the sum of the total benefits a customer is promised to receive in return for a payment (or other value transfer)"

Investopedia explains that it is a business or marketing statement that summarizes why a consumer should buy a product or use a service. This statement should convince a potential consumer that one particular product or service will add more value or better solve a problem than other similar offerings.

Our discussion on the value proposition around "living labs" centered on determining whether each stakeholder group i.e. customer segment needed a different value proposition. We rather thought it did. Because the value we are offering employees, for example, to give up their comfortable office or cubicle in return for an unknown is different from the value we are offering the leadership team in return for their support of the 'living labs'? It seemed easier to show the value to leaders in terms of savings on real estate, than to employees although for them we could 'exchange' personal office space for more telecommuting and flexible work arrangements.

The second discussion came at a conference session at the Association of Professional Design Firms (APDF) I was facilitating on "Why Business Models Matter." The questions on the topic were useful and challenging – for example: Can you have a hierarchy of value proposition? Can a value proposition be a value like 'trust'? Do value propositions change over time, and if so, why? How do you educate your customers about the value proposition you are offering if they don't know they want it? Can you have a 'great idea' and then convert it into a value proposition? What comes first – the customer segment or the value propositions?

You'll guess that this was a fairly lively 90 minutes as we all wrestled with these in the context of a business model. The background reading for the session was two articles. One, Groupon Anxiety, was clear about the tightrope Groupon is walking in relation to its value proposition. It is a company at the crossroads of live or die. There are now many copies and the value proposition Groupon offers is no different from the value proposition of its competitors, so it is struggling. As the article author points out:

"Yet amid all the excitement over the "world's fastest-growing company ever", as some have breathlessly described Groupon, words of caution can increasingly be heard. Even Andrew Mason, the firm's habitually cheerful boss, seems to harbour doubts. "By this time next year, we will either be on our way to becoming one of the great technology brands", he recently wrote in an internal memo, "or a cool idea by people who were out-executed and out-innovated by others." More fundamentally, the whole idea of "daily deals" may have serious flaws."

The other How to Design a Winning Business Model, Harvard Business Review, January-February, comments that:

"The ways by which companies create and capture value through their business models in undergoing radical transformation world wide … seven out of 10 companies are engaging in business model innovation, and an incredible 98% are modifying their business models to some extent."

This article poses three questions to ask about your business model: Is it aligned with company goals. Is it self-reinforcing? Is it robust? Discussion on each of these questions touch on the choices and consequences make in relation to a value proposition. For example threats to robustness included 'substitution' a new product/service from a competitor could decrease the value customers perceive in your products/services. A recent example is of Flip video which, in April 2011 Cisco (who bought the company in 2009) closed down. Read the article NY Times article on this headed For Flip Video Camera, Four Years From Hot Start-Up to Obsolete. It makes the point that:

Just as the Flip was reaching its zenith, the smartphone was gaining traction among consumers. With its versatility in recording video and still images, as well as its ability to perform myriad other functions, the smartphone has since proved to be a far more desirable product than a single-function device like the Flip.

The outcome of these discussions? I'll continue recommending that managers/leaders regularly and intentionally review their business model and value proposition, and then adapt it to reflect the different customer segments changing perceptions of the value you offer them.

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.

Four times this week I went to Timpson's – a UK shoe repairer and key cutting retailer. Each time was about a mailbox key. The first outlet I went to in Cornmarket, Oxford the assistant first said the key would be a special order and it would take a week to come in. When I told him I was leaving within a week he spent several minutes looking for an appropriate blank and found one that he thought would do the job.
I watched him cutting it. Splinters of metal were showering off the equipment and, out of interest, I asked him if he had eye protecting goggles. "Oh yes", he said. "They're in my apron pocket." He pulled them out to show me. "Why aren't you wearing them? Aren't you worried about your eyes?" I asked. "No", he said, "I just look away."

I knew a bit about Timpson as I'd done some research about it and included it as an example of a well run organization in my book Organization Culture: getting it right .

It's a long-established private family owned company, and the current CEO, John Timpson, is proud of his organization – take a look at his management column in The Daily Telegraph. The company is determinedly employee centered. Not that I always believe what's on the company website , in this case, "Our culture is unique, with the colleagues driving the business being the ones that serve the customers. This is what we call upside down management"

I looked around the shop. It had a number of cheerful posters proclaiming the high caliber of the employees, the benefits they get, the selection processes and so on. I noticed that the clock was showing the wrong time and asked what had happened. "Oh", said the same guy who cut my key, "the hour hand doesn't work. We just go by the minute hand and guess the hour." The other guy was busy serving another customer, and I listened to the exchange. The customer wanted a tag engraved for his dog's collar. It was 5:20 p.m. the store shut at 5:30 p.m. The assistant said "It'll take more than 10 minutes to engrave the tag. We're shutting now. You'll have to come back tomorrow." Hmm – not what I'd expect from a high caliber employee.

I tried out the key when I got home. It was stiff but finally worked after a fashion – it opened the mailbox. Then I realized that I needed a second one. The following day I went back to the same store in Cornmarket. I hadn't brought the key he'd cut the day before but just the original. The same guy who cut the first key was the one I explained to that he'd cut one the day before and it worked ok and I needed another. He glanced at my key "Oh, I don't know which blank I used. Bring back the one I cut and then I'll know." OK – I'm used to English style "customer service" so I went back later in the day with the one he'd cut the previous day.

This turned into a big production. He found the right blank. I suggested that he cut from my original but he said no and then "if it doesn't work you can bring it back." Still no goggles on, and then he couldn't get the clamp to work. The second guy suggested that he take the clamp off a different machine and put it on the one he was working on. This took a bit of time but finally he produced a second key. Guess what? It didn't work.

Back for the third time. Since I needed the key I asked for it to be recut. It turned out that there were no more blanks. "You can try the other shop," the second guy said. I asked for my money back on the second key. He was reluctant to give it to me since he said I could produce my receipt in the other shop and they would cut it for free. Since I had no idea whether the other shop had the blank and this shop didn't offer to call through and find out I pressed for my money (and got it).

Fourth go. I walked over to the other shop in the Covered Market. I produced the duplicate more-or-less working key and the non-working key. I said I wanted a recut of the second key. The assistant looked at it and said "it's been very badly cut." He compared it with the first duplicate key and said "this key hasn't be finished properly either. Give me the original and I'll cut a new one and then finish the other one properly." He wasn't wearing goggles at the time. I watched what happened next. He approached the machine. Pulled out the goggles from his apron pocket and put them on. He cut the key from the original and then took it to a different machine to finish it (this hadn't happened in the first shop). He then compared his duplicate with the other duplicate and took that to finish. "OK – that should do it," he said. "There's no charge. Sorry for your difficulties." I got home to find that both keys worked perfectly. (Oh, and the clock in the shop showed the right time).

So I'm wondering, again, about company culture. How is it that two stores , part of the same organization, in the same city can have such different attitudes, to customers, to safety, to pride in their work? My experience suggests that it's down to employee selection, local management , some tie-up to performance measures, a link to customer feedback and satisfaction, and the right tools to do the job. It seems that Timpson's has some mis-alignment here. It's inconsistent between stores.
I looked for their process for customer feedback. The spiel looks impressive. I'll give it a go and keep you posted.

I've been involved in several change management discussions this week. The project I'm involved in is a large scale change in the way of working. We have a lot of good business reasons to move from what we're calling 'old ways of working' – compartmentalized, individual, space entitled, fixed location, single function – to what we're describing as 'new ways of working' – shared, collaborative, no space entitlement, dynamic, and cross functional.

We're struggling with manager incomprehension about the whole thing. As a colleague said, "I think we have a major hill to climb in obtaining management receptiveness to this. I believe they are generally wary of this form of change, this degree of change, and this need for change. They are reluctant through a combination of:

• 'rather leave as is' = 'life would be a lot easier'
• 'I am not sure how to do any of this'
• 'this sort of thing has failed before'
• 'I am very wary of being caught in the middle of something which could turn nasty'
• 'I am convinced the unions and staff will not go for this'
• 'I am not entirely confident about my leadership team and where they are'
• 'What? This as well as everything else?'"

For some reason people at work don't seem to be the same as the people not at work – although they look the same, have the same names, give the same addresses, and have the same family. It's a Jekyll and Hyde life. At work people are 'change averse', in their personal lives they embrace change – and often find it exciting. Out of work they can handle significant change like marriage, divorce, learning to drive, moving house, and less significant things like the bus not showing up, suddenly falling off their bike and breaking a wrist, dropping their i-phone in water, and moving from paper money to debit cards.

At work they find seem to find the thought of hoteling, or mobile working, or digitizing their files too much too bear. It leaves them as another colleague said, "Spinning in various states of confusion ranging from clueless to edging creativity"

So what's to be done? If we're to be competitive, reduce corporate real estate footprint, meet carbon emission goals, attract and retain young people into the organization, encourage people thinking of retiring to stay on with perhaps a more flexible schedule, draw on a wider labor market pool, retain our 'employer of choice label', etc., etc. we have to change our ways of working.

So I seized on an article that dropped into my in-box from Accenture this week. It announced a new white paper "Are you change capable?" which opens with the words "One of the most significant workplace and management challenges is trying to perform and lead as well as we can, knowing all the while that the presumptions by which we're working are likely to change at any moment. The state of constant, profound change casts serious doubt on many of the approaches and tactics by which organizations have conducted what is generally referred to as "change management."

The paper goes on to suggest that "Today, companies can no longer afford to think about organizational change as something separate from everything else they do. Change management must be an internal – and eternal – capability, present within the company at every moment. Organizations now have to be "change capable" all the time." The article follows by outlining five ways of getting to this using Cisco and Nokia as case studies.

1. Create an enterprise wide change network
2. Develop change competency across the organization.
3. Create effective change leaders
4. Measure progress
5. Keep on target

But none of these seem innovative or different from the usual, tried and tested, stuff about change management (see, for example, the Harvard Business Essentials book Managing Change and Transition, or my own Approaches to Change ). They are all programmatic and structured in their approach. This may be ok – at least it's what we're using to doing but I'm now wondering if there are other, more experiential ways of changing.

For example, do we need to announce 'change'? Can't we just do it? I'm reminded of Yoda's advice to Luke Skywalker in Star Wars 'Try not. Do or do not. There is no try' which I came across again today reading Mindfulness Matters and then watched Yoda speak the words in the YouTube clip.

Or could change managers learn from marketers and advertisers? What, for example, makes people want to change from a rotary landline phone to an i-phone? Are advertisers and marketers really change managers in a different garb?

Or are we taking the wrong tack looking at behavior and culture change in relation to change management rather than structure, system, and process change that then changes the behavior. After all people in the UK are behaviorally capable of driving on the right hand side of the road but they don't while they're in the UK because everything is geared to left hand side of the road driving (structures, process, systems). Brits who travel abroad and rent a car have very little difficulty adapting to right hand side of the road driving because they can't do otherwise.

Or should we take the John Kotter line and lobby for change leadership instead of change management?

I'm of the view that we need to do all of the above: just do it, act as advertisers for the new 'product', align the systems, structures, and processes, and have some form of consistent organizational language and toolkit of change, and (somehow) create change leaders.

Finally I think all of us in the change management field need to give up on the notion that people resist change. For the most part they are excited by it. We severely damage our chances of 'managing' change by this belief. Remember Henry Ford's phrase "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right." If we think that people are totally change capable with our without our intervention we'd be in a better place to help them be change capable. We might even get over the hurdle of '75% of change efforts fail'. No one can be a credible 'change manager' if this is the case – who would even want the role?

Your organization is probably like all other organizations. It is continuously searching for ways to add value to its products and services in order to keep growing. Organization development leaders are in a key position to help their executives think through what both 'growth' and 'value' are and how to add them.

Effective and healthy organizations see value in more than just meeting the business goals. It is not enough to concentrate on, for example, financial performance, if it is at the expense of employee well-being. Value needs to be fostered and developed in all organizational aspects: people, process, structures, systems, behaviors and governance. 'Growth' is usually equated with size – organizations get bigger, extend their markets, products and services. But growth can be in other dimensions. An organization can, for example, stay small in size but grow its thought leadership so it becomes known for that. Alternatively it can grow its capacity to retain and develop its people, maintain customer loyalty, or introduce environmentally friendly practices – all adding value without becoming bigger in size.

Creating organizational value and growth is done partly through designing and implementing methods of developing workforce capability which Dave Ulrich , Professor of Business as the University of Michigan, defines as the firm's ability to manage people to gain competitive advantage.

As with many researchers and writers in the field Ulrich believes that it's your people that make you the winner or loser in your market. He says

Merely hiring the best people does not guarantee organisational capability. Hiring competent employees and developing those competences through effective HR and OD practices, underpins organisational capability. (Ulrich, D. (1991). Organisational Capability: Creating Competitie Advantage. Academy of Management Executive. Vol 5. No. 1)

Traditionally capability has been developed through formal training programs, coaching, mentoring, and sometimes things like job placements, and project work. Now these traditional methods are not working and are not enough. This for six significant reasons:

1. Technology advances mean that information is easily accessible and does not have to come from an 'expert'.
2. Collaborative technologies mean that knowledge sharing can be achieved in numerous different ways.

3. Organizational relationships with their stakeholders are changing – employees and customers are not passive players but are actively collaborating in creating shared value.

4. People's expectations about how, when, and where to develop their personal capability is changing – there is much more learning from each other and again less reliance on 'experts'.

5. Organizations have to be constantly adaptive and agile. Capability development must drive continuous change not respond to it
.

6. There is increasing understanding that organization development is more than 'training'. "It involves adopting principles and attitudes, which in turn determine and guide behavior. It is a way of thinking as well as acting".

OD leaders need to respond to each one of the six reasons above in a way that develops value and growth capability in their organizations. They can do this by taking the six following actions. Each of the actions listed offers some suggestions in how to do this.

1. Role modeling new personal capability development approaches via self-driven learning
a. Suggestion 1: Take or lead an on-line webinar and then use a technology to tell your colleagues what you learned.
b. Suggestion 2: Use the internet to find out 10 things you didn't know about your organization's industry
c. Suggestion 3: Set up an on-line forum with your workgroup to develop your joint skills on a particular topic. (Make it for a defined period, say six weeks, and then review what you've learned).

2. Equipping managers to engage their people through collaboration, participation, and involvement.
a. Suggestion 1: Ask the manager to pose a problem that needs solving to his workgroup and work with him to involve the whole group in solving it.
b. Suggestion 2: Establish an informal, frequent feedback process where workers can comment on work issues
c. Suggestion 3: Help managers have collaborative conversations with their staff on goal setting and performance standards. (Rather than the managers setting goals and standards for staff)

3. Initiating conversations with business executives on the future of the organization – what it might be and how to prepare for it – using five themes proposed by Dave Ulrich

Talent
Leadership
Agility
Outside-in Connection
Strategic Unity

a. Suggestion 1: Set up webinars on the topics and run a monthly series – following the Google model described above.
b. Suggestion 2: Invite key executives to meet with staff in a collaborative discussion on each of the themes.
c. Suggestion 3: Have key executives meet as a group and assess how the organization could improve capability in each of the themes.

4. Bringing working and learning together in a powerful way, to embed a development culture and to create more value through and with people.
a. Suggestion 1: Encourage managers and staff to have weekly conversations on what they have learned that week
b. Suggestion 2: Allow people to try out new ways of doing their work and capturing what they are learning as they do that.
c. Suggestion 3: Set up a communications channel 'Did you know?' that provides information on what's going on in the organization and asks people to comment on it.

5. Designing adaptive organizations that handle continuous change through resilience and agility
a. Suggestion 1: Assess the design of your organization (or part of it). See if there are misalignments and correct them.
b. Suggestion 2: Review policies and procedures and see if any of them are outdated and/or could be discarded.
c. Suggestion 3: Pay attention to trends and competitive forces operating outside your organization and plan your responses to them.

6. Removing the barriers between individual and organizational goals using powerful virtual feedback software tools. Rypple is one example of these. (see http://www.rypple.com)
a. Teach people how to give and receive performance feedback in a helpful and non-threatening way
b. Examine your career paths and ensure they allow lateral as well as upward mobility – match individual career and development goals with talent and succession planning
c. Publish organizational goals and hold conversations with staff on their individual contributions and accountabilities to achieve these.

As an OD leader, you can add value to your organization by agreeing what growth and value are in your organization, knowing the reasons why traditional approaches to capability development for growth and value won't work now, and taking the actions to develop organizational capability.