Category: Uncategorized

Richard Seymour, of SeymourPowell speaking on Day Two of the Big Rethink Conference (The Redesigning Business Summit) was interesting on the connection between anthropology and design. He made the point that 'what we say and what we do are often different', a fairly obvious fact, but he noted that it is observing these disconnects that make for good design information. He is of the view that taking the stance of an anthropologist and closely watching what is going on is the way to approach design. "Anthropology is before technology" is one of the phrases he used. Another sound bite of his that caught my attention is that "the future is in emergent behavior" (relating back to the anthropology). I'm not sure what 'emergent behavior' is. How does it differ from behavior?

He showed a video clip of people trying to open a packet of frozen peas – ultimately attacking the poorly designed packaging with a pair of scissors. The mantra around this: "Fix things that are bust." This seems obvious when you watch the packet of peas scenario – and these actions that he mentioned: watching for disconnects, looking at behaviors, and fixing things that are bust, used in his case in relation to product design – are also applicable to organization design.

If organization design consultants were able to take that approach it might stop the unthought through changes made to the structure of the enterprise, and limit the 'workarounds' people use to get the job done in spite of the structures, systems or processes that exist.

Eddie Obeng of Pentacle, The Virtual Business School gave a lively presentation on innovation. He opened with the statement that "innovation is the process for turning new ideas into benefits" and being able to do this means being more interested in big patterns than events. It may have been Eddie who said that "The future belongs to those with wit and balls" – another soundbite that caught my attention. I wondered if those qualities had to be in one person or if it was ok to have either wit or balls, and whether they were mutually exclusive or complementary qualities- but that was idle reflection coming up to the break.

Somewhere in the day there was a wonderful case study of Serious** , a waste management company. It was a good illustration of how to design an organization's branding to be compelling and the execute it well. Out of this case study came the point that small businesses are bigger risk takers than well established large businesses – though I suggest that it is privately owned business that are often bigger risk takers than shareholder owned.

Anna Rafferty of Penguin talked about a new venture Spinebreakers – a book site aimed at teenagers who are collaborators in its design and content. That organization has been very carefully designed – and is, as she said, still evolving. It has a number of innovative touches – the way the book panels are staffed, how choices are made on what goes on the website and so on, that make it an experiment worth watching.

David Kester's, Design Council, account of using design to halt the spread of MRSA in hospitals was a great example of design application working to solve some mega problems. It was a well told case about the design process, involving collaboration, seed funding, encouragement of innovation, development of new IP protocols and so on. As part of the discussion Kester presented a slide showing the four phases of the project: discover, define, develop, deliver. And there it stopped – nothing about how to diffuse the new designs throughout the organization – scale them, use them to change medical and other staff behavior on their attitudes and responsibilities to MRSA, nothing about evaluating the success of them, or the follow up that needs to follow delivery if things are going to stick. So I think a missed opportunity for them to learn from the experience and/or help others learn from it.

The day finished with Craig Sams, the co-founder and executive Chairman of Green & Black's talking about the history of the company. He omitted to mention that it was bought by Cadbury in May 2005, which might have given some bite and insight into aquisition decisions (unless it was all about the money, in which case it would have been a one-liner and maybe why he didn't mention it) and I wondered what will become of the company now that Kraft has bought Cadbury.

This was written while traveling in to Day 2 of the conference. Having just read an article on sleep and memory it was fun to see what stuck in mind in since writing about it traveling back on from Day 1.

Will Hutton, of the Work Foundation, getting impassioned about the relatives merits of China v Korea on where new business models and innovative ideas would generate. He had an impressive array of facts and figures at his disposal to back up his views that South Korea is the place to watch. He also put forward a concept of "manu-services – manufacturing companies offering both services and products." See the Work Foundation's report Manufacturing and the Knowledge Economy on this topic.

Ideo's Paul Bennett putting forward their ideas on the four pillars of a new business model. Purpose, talent, something I don't remember and money. The focus throughout Ideo's presentation on money was a jarring note – no mention from them of sustainability, ethics, climate change, social concerns, triple bottom line, and so on that informed most of the other presentations, that combined with presentations of distinctly uninnovative business models made this segment much less than expected.

Jeff Denby, referred to by others, as 'the underwear guy' from PACT telling us about their designer, Yves Bihar, who says:

"Designs bring stories to life, stories bring designs to life, life brings design to stories" – a colorful set of images to work with when designing organizations (or anything else).

Jeff also offered some principles of design:

• Design by thematic, e.g guilt free luxury. (Pact's underwear is high quality and price but ethically sourced and produced). This principle was also illustrated in M&S's hook-up with Oxfam that another speaker referred to.
• Invite consumer participation in the design and sales process. (His customers submit photos of themselves wearing the underwear, showing to what uses they put the cotton bags in which the knickers come)
• Remember that consumers trust consumers – not suppliers – listen to what they are saying.

The statement attributed to Ravi Sawhney and Deepa Pralahad that "customer choices are made by balancing the need for evolution with the force of habit" which was reported in a Business Week article The Role of Design in Business (February 1 2010)

Hugo Spowers, from Riversimple telling us, (in direct contradiction to Ideo's views) that "a sustainable industrial society is NOT based on the sale of product" and that "cultural attitudes change quickly". I thought this latter point was interesting. He was making it in relation to attitudes to vehicles e.g. Hummers, once cultural icons, are now viewed as beyond the pale in terms of what they represent. I'm not sure that is a "cultural attitude" more a change of mind on a specific item. Powered vehicles are still considered an absolute necessity by most people. One of the partners in Riversimple – Steve Evans – made the point (accurately in my view) that "future business models need to be designed as part of a deliberate design activity."

Nick Jankel from wecreate suggested that we are in an era of 'frugal engineering that comes as a response to resource scarcity', and need to innovate and design businesses from that perspective.

Roberto Verganti talked about the meaning that people attach to banks or to phone companies. Banks being associated with money, by changing the meaning one can change the company. On this he gave the example of safaricom http://www.safaricom.co.ke/ a telecoms company in Kenya that is now additionally a banking company.

Other company names that came up in the course of the day for various forms of innovation/disruption or new business model:
Muji's (retailer) philosophy of 'no brand quality goods'
Riverford Organic's (home delivery of seasonal fruit, and veg) celebration with their customers of a mystery box of seasonal fruit and veg.
Monocle (a global briefing covering international affairs, business, culture and design)
Zappos (online retailer) for their collaborative business culture
Ikea (home furnishings) for their bridging of national cultures through the concepts of 'hom'

Additionally Jonathan Zittrain's blog came up. He is author of "The future of the internet and how to stop it", Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and faculty co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

Thinking back through the presentations I noticed that although all (bar one) had PowerPoint slides the majority of these were pictures only – few bulleted list of words to be seen. (Ideo was the exception here, but the words were writ large so there weren't many on each slide). Edward Tufte may be getting somewhere.

Thursday March 11 was day one of the Economist Conference The Big Rethink: The Redesigning Business Summit and, having spent the day there I'm wondering a) what I learned, and b) was it worth the time and money investment? It's a bit early in the process to make any judgment on either. I've found that on this type of learning event it's what sticks in my mind several weeks later that gives some indication. At this stage I'm guessing about what might stick in my mind.

On immediate recall – I was not very happy on two housekeeping accounts a) there was no postal address for the venue on the program. King's Place, London is not easy to track down. b) when I got there I didn't appear in their register of attendees, and having given my name I was asked "Are you sure that's your name?" Fortunately, I have the receipt and the name on it is my name. But not being listed may explain why I didn't get any venue or other details (beyond the receipt). UPDATE on this. Day 2 the same thing happened but was sorted out by the conference Logistics Manager who apologized for the error and offered me free attendance at any future Economist Conference.

So, onto the content. Speakers tended to focus on either innovation or business models. Roberto Verganti, author of Design Driven Innovation, was interesting on his model of interpreters – people who "step back from users and take a broader perspective" asking the question "how could people give meaning to things in this evolving life context?" He suggests that many actors are asking the same question in relation to the same set of circumstances. So, for example, how do different companies answer the question 'what meanings could family members search for when they home and are going to have dinner?' A food production company might answer differently from a cooking stove producing company, from a tableware producing company" but how each answers the question informs the types of products or services they produce.

Verganti made the point that in a cost cutting environment it should be costs that are cut and not meaning, giving as an example a Fiat car where the designers took out the back seat of a small SUV replacing it with a hammock – thus cutting costs but retaining the meaning of an SUV.

Steve Evans, Professor of Life Cycle Engineering at Cranfield University, talking of innovation, gave the example of a manufacturing company trying to save waste – their innovation was to drill a hole in one corner of their recycle skips so water drained out keeping the waste dry and thus recycleable! A good, low tech example of ingenuity.

Thin on the ground were the new business models that I was hoping to have found at the conference. Speakers about Samsung and Microsoft offered very little that was either innovative or re-designed (our host Vijay Vaitheeswaran, introduced them as representing the dinosaur companies, so we'll see what happens to them). However, two speakers from start-ups offered a little more in both business model and innovation terms. Riversimple's purpose is to "To provide a sustainable transport service whilst working systematically towards the elimination of the environmental damage caused by personal transport" the company designs and builds hydrogen fuelled cars. Their business model is elegant and simple, built around seven principles. (These are not shown on their website).

Another startup PACT manufactures underwear and showed fetching pictures of people wearing mult-colored knickers that cost quite a lot. But the point was that the business model is built around telling stories of the wearers, supporting non-profits (10% of every item sold goes to a non-profit), and having items shipped in cotton and compostable bags rather than plastic.

At this point I seem to have learned that startups can be innovative but established companies are ever hamstrung by their legacies. Not a new or startling revelation. But one thing that did surprise me was the fact that every one of the 12 speakers of the day was a white male. I hope that I did not learn that women and other races are not perceived as innovative and also have no capacity to redesign business. My other thought on this was that the speaker line up was a design fault and showed lack of innovation. However, I see that tomorrow there are two women speaking and one black male. So maybe I'll get a different slant on innovation and new business designs.

Here's an interesting turn. The FT recently reported that

"DSM and TNT, the Dutch life sciences group and postal operator respectively, this week join a multiplying band of companies – predominantly from the Netherlands – that link part of the bonuses senior managers receive to sustainability, an all-encompassing term that refers not only to the environment but to issues such as employee satisfaction and safety."

As they rightly point out

"The decision raises questions such as how to measure sustainability as distinct from something more tangible such as a rise or fall in a share price, and whether it makes sense to do it."

This is a particularly thorny issue since 'sustainability' is an ill-defined term. For example, if you take the reasonably well-accepted definition of the Brundtland Declaration "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" and try to apply this to executive pay seems you would be entering a minefield.

Nevertheless, I find the idea of linking pay to sustainability appealing. At least even thinking about making the link draws a little away from a focus on immediate quarterly financial results, and plants the seeds for longer term thinking.

One way companies aremaking this linkage is to use the Dow Jones sustainability index adjusting management pay to the company's ranking on this list.

Walmart is taking a related tack with its suppliers. An article in the Washington Post, February 28 2010, comments on Lutex, a Walmart supplier in China.

"We heard that in the future, to become a Wal-Mart supplier, you have to be an environmentally friendly company," Fung said. "So we switched some of our products and the way we produced them."
Lutex has been paying attention to more efficient light bulbs, better ventilation and less packaging. It switched from Styrofoam to recycled paper and saved enough Styrofoam to cover four football fields. And Lutex, which has been here since 1991, says it treats four tons of wastewater that it used to dump into the municipal sewage line. That water was supposed to be treated by the city, but like three-quarters or more of China's wastewater, it almost certainly wasn't.

"They are the rule setters," said Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, a Beijing-based group. "Before Wal-Mart only cared about price and quality, so that encouraged companies to race to the bottom on environmental standards. They could lose contracts because competition was so fierce on price."

Applying sensible pressure to encourage sustainability seems a reasonable way forward. It addresses what one Aileen Ionescu-Somers and Ulrich Steger in their book "The Business Logic for Sustainability: a Food and Beverage Industry Perspective call "The 'Smart Zone' – the business area in which companies create additional economic value by improving environmental and social performance beyond that required by legislation". However, as they point out it "is thus dependent on whether managers see a business reason for action and whether they are able to build, communicate and implement that business case. Manager's perception of business logic for sustainability is fundamental to the development of a business case for sustainability and also to its successful roll out within companies."

For individuals or suppliers a compelling business reason for action could well be the thought of as a performance bonus or the continuation of a contract. But the monetary award alone is unlikely to be to get to a sustainability mindset. The authors of a report "A new mindset for corporate sustainability" offer a ten-point prescription that will take companies beyond shareholder value, as a success indicator enabling them to add value by including social and environmental impacts, as well:

1. Make innovating for sustainability a part of your company's vision
2. Formulate a strategy with sustainability at its heart
3. Embed sustainability in every part of your business
4. Walk the talk: emphasise actions, not words
5. Set up a body at board level with the power to make sustainability matter
6. Set firm rules
7. Bring your stakeholders on board
8. Use people power
9. Join the networks
10. Think beyond reporting: align all business systems with the company's vision of sustainability

These points are not staggeringly new (or new at all) but the point about alignment is one that touches on the holistic design of the organization. Indeed if the company only managed point 10 – the other 9 items should fall into line behind it.

There have been three pieces of information in the last couple of weeks on the push for citizen access to government data. They caught my eye because I am doing some work with some government departments. Taken together they make three points about this drive for data transparency:

• It "forces bureaucrats and creative types to interact in new ways'' (see: February 4 the Economist printed an article 'Of governments and geeks')

• It seeks "to merge two cultures: the risk-averse ethos of the civil service, and the free-wheeling spirit of open-source developers, who seek continuous incremental change and see failure as a step to improvement" (Same article)

• It accelerates the requirement to "figure out how we change our operations." He [Chris Vein, San Francisco's CIO] insists that providing more information can make government more efficient, necessary for all government agencies who with budget shortfalls. (See:the Economist, February 27, on The Open Society) .

• It allows "site visitors to track government performance" (see: February 9. Government Accountability Web Site ). This piece draws attention to the website TrackDC which the writer claims "Both substance wise and technically, … out-athletes the White House's Open Government dashboard." (Side-note: I haven't come across 'out-athletes' before – another entry for the management jargon competition).

Focusing on the benefits of data access to citizens is good – but what is less discussed is how exactly the design of governments will have to change to offer this form of (to them) service innovation. It seems relatively straightforward to pump out data, but less straightforward to organize behind it to give the users of the data a positive experience in accessing and using it.

To get to a positive user experience means that governments, local, and national need to systematically think through the designs of their organizations and adapt them to meet the conditions of different ways of interacting, changing the culture, making their operations more efficient and cost effective, and taking accountability for performance.

So, in tandem with launching data streams government managers need to ask (and, more importantly, answer) such questions as:

• Who are the key customers/users of our service and how what can we offer to make life easier for them?
• What 'bundles' of services are we offering the users? How do these 'bundles' relate to each other – who are the stakeholders in each?
• What do we need to have in place in terms of practices, processes, people, systems, and structures, and measures to make life as easy as possible for our users and ourselves?
• What 'look and feel' do we want our users to experience as they 'buy' our services?
• How can we develop and offer transparent services in a way that cuts costs and gives better service to the citizens

This is, in fact, taking the approach of treating services as if they were products. Product design goes through a well-documented life-cycle: design and development, testing and market research, and refinement over time. Oddly, organizations rarely have formal processes, roles and practices for developing, managing or innovating their services as a portfolio. Without this formal, full life-cycle development process for their services, organizations usually fail to maximize return on investment, infuse discipline into the development process and manage expectations and customer needs. Governments, in responding to the data push demand are in a unique position to demonstrate how to do this in systematic and innovative way.

"Zipf's law, named after the Harvard linguistic professor George Kingsley Zipf (1902-1950), is the observation that frequency of occurrence of some event (P), as a function of the rank (i) when the rank is determined by the above frequency of occurrence, is a power-law function Pi (l/ia) with the exponent a close to unity. The famous example of Zipf's law is the frequency of the income of a company."

So starts the abstract of an article called "Zipf's law in assets and income of a company" by
Kon Tadashi, et al. Unfortunately I do not fully, or even partly, understand what the abstract saying but I was alerted to Zipf's Law when I was asking a colleague about tracking web traffic to a site. I was wondering how to encourage people to look at my site. I can't remember the details of the conversation but at one point he mentioned Zipf's Law which I had never heard of.

I duly noted it down in my DayTimer – tagged 'for further investigation' and have now started down that path. It was mainly curiosity that took me in search of more info and more understanding. I was trying to find out it if would be useful for me to know about Zipf's law in the work that I do – would it illuminate anything, or help address 'issues, challenges, and opportunities' to put things in management speak?

I still don't know the answer to that yet and I'm still looking for a beginner's explanation to Zipf's law. but I get an inkling that it would be useful, and that's probably why it came up in the website discussion. Here's another snippet that I found on it.

"An example of where Zipf's law applies is in English texts, to frequency of word occurrence. The commonality of English words follows an exponential distribution, and the nature of communication is such that it is more efficient to place emphasis on using shorter words. Hence the most common words tend to be short and appear often, following Zipf's law."

This observation is developed on yet another website that also has a PDF of the top 50 words in 423 Time magazine articles finding.

"the" as the number one (appearing 15861 times), "of" as number two (appearing 7239 times), "to" as the number three (6331 times), etc. When the number of occurrences is plotted as the function of the rank (1, 2, 3, etc.), the functional form is a power-law function with exponent close to 1."

I'm not sure how useful that is to know but ok.

The person who posted this appears also to have been compiling a Zipf's Law bibliography since 1999. and so far has collected 728 items. I wondered whether there's a name for this activity in the same way that stamp collectors are called philatelists. What is the name for a Zipf's law collector? The bibilography is arranged by years and not by topic area so if I did want to find information on Zipf's law in Web Access Statistics and Internet Traffic or frequency of income of a company (the two that appear most relevant to my interests) they are not easy to find as there is no search function on that site.

However googling Zipf's law in Web Access Statistics and Internet Traffic I found a readable article published in 2007 Zipf's Law and number of hits on the World Wide Web that did start to give me some insight into the impact of the law on "the design and function of the Internet" and the "distribution of words according to their length and the hits they are able to generate" – in this paper's case on Google.

So I still don't know much at all about Zipf's law but I do know enough to know that I need to find out more about it. As I said in another post "Whatever one learns it is never enough".

What is the difficulty with evaluating OD work? There are several reasons that I've come across

• There's very little client or consultant appetite for reviewing and evaluating effectiveness, so that part of the process doesn't get built into the proposal or business case. Without making an ROI case for the evaluation piece why should it happen?

• Designing a rigorous evaluation takes time and specific skills in research methodology, internal auditing, or similar.

• Organisational circumstances move on and the focus switches to the next thing so once an intervention is either designed or implemented it becomes time to lose interest.

• On a trade off basis clients would rather put money into the more visible pieces of work than the behind the scenes pieces of work (like evaluation).

• There are no standards against which to evaluate. So while there are, for example, bodies developing 'sustainability' standards, or 'green building' standards, or 'management' standards I don't know of any bodies developing OD standards.

To sum up the three postings (definition, theory, evaluation)

To my mind if there are no comparative OD frameworks and OD practitioners can't define something, can't consistently theorize on it, can't evaluate effectiveness of interventions, and don't have consistent practitioner standards, then they are vulnerable to budget cuts, derision from managers and analysts, and perhaps being the target of a Fast Company article on the lines of "Why we hate HR". Without the frameworks and the rigor OD can be dismissed as all smoke and mirrors. I think this matters.

Where does one go from this current state of affairs? Well there are many moves from individuals and organizations pushing towards more transparency and quality control (without loss of diverse approaches).

• There is a strong OD Network in the US, with local chapters. It's strapline is 'advancing the theory and practice of OD'.
• The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), UK has recently developed competency standards (part of their HR Profession Map) for OD practitioners.
• The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has an Organizational and Employee Development Newsletter and a selection of books on the topic
• The OD Institute has a suggested Code of Ethics for OD consultants. (This is dated 1991, and 22nd revision, and I'm not sure how widely it has been adopted or disseminated since then).
• Many universities offer degrees in the subject. One of the more widely known US ones at American University

What's lacking is, again, obvious collaboration between and among the key players – not necessarily to force standardization, but to help clarify for clients and potential clients what it is they are buying, the professionalism of the people they are buying it from, and how they will know that they are getting a good return on investment. One way of tackling this would be through an OD intervention like Future Search, or using a collaborative software like Imaginatik's – getting all interested parties in one forum to agree as a starting point, a standard definition and a code of ethics.

Continuing from yesterday's theme one reason why there is confusion around organization development (OD) definition is that there is a lack of an underpinning theory that would give rise to a consistent, coherent, bounded, but perhaps 'agile' or 'adaptive' one. Linda Holbeche calls OD "a 'scavenger' discipline". Going on to say, "It is an eclectic field that borrows from many other disciplines and theories". (Impact, Issue 26).

So, is it an issue that there are no rigorous or unifying theories of OD – as there are theories of philosophy, religion, or medicine? Well yes, if there were a body of work that formed the basis of yardsticks for judgment and comparison, it would make for easier distinction between the types of practitioners – in the same way that, say, once someone with a medical issue is clear that they are interested in acupuncture over homeopathy, they can select the practitioner based on other factors (location, price, 'chemistry', reputation, etc). Alternatively it may not be an issue if the OD practitioner him or herself can be specific about what his/her form of OD looks and feels like in practice – in order to give potential clients accurate information on whether, to continue the analogy, they are getting a homeopathic practitioner or an acupuncturist to cure their headaches.

Can individual OD consultants give this clarity? Well, possibly but it is unlikely to be in a way that benefits the client because without the common background in an underpinning theory, an accepted 'language', and a track record in achievement of one approach over another, it is difficult for a client to comparison shop. This inability to compare is, I think, compounded because in the words of the Oregon OD Network "OD consultants come from varied backgrounds with experience and training in applied behavioral science, cultural anthropology, organization development, organization behavior, psychology, adult education, social work, management and/or human resources". I'm not arguing against diversity and richness of difference but I do wonder whether the doors are open for anyone to set up an OD shop shielded from the disciplines of a collective professionalism.

Does this matter? Not necessarily, because, in my experience, OD consultants have a 'tool kit' of approaches often derived from a training course here, or a book there. (Think Appreciative Inquiry, NLP, Family Constellations, Open Space, Future Conference, etc) and deploy the ones they feel most comfortable with. Many of these programs have their own certifications and attract people with high personal standards and ethics. Practitioners in these various approaches can be apparently very successful and make good incomes – although as we know it is a difficult task to evaluate the effectiveness of their outcomes.

However, I don't think this is enough. Before there are howls of indignation let me state firmly that I am not decrying this toolkit approach. I have an extensive toolkit myself derived in just the way I've said. And for each individual consultant it is usually a sufficient toolkit and experience to be convincing, and professional. But is it enough to be collectively convincing and professional? No, I don't think so. Why? Because, like it or not, businesses require measurable standards, codes of ethics, and other paraphernalia of 'professional standing' against which to evaluate performance or promised results from the professionals in the discipline that they are hiring.

I still can't answer the question 'What is organisation development?" and it's a question that I am asked a lot, particularly in terms of the relationship and distinction between organisation design and organisation development – but let's just stick with talking about the latter.

This bafflement was brought into focus again yesterday when I was asked to comment on a discussion paper "HR's role in developing OD solutions to manage change" and then complete a survey on OD. (This is open for anyone to do).

There are some reasons why I can't answer the question partly because as a researcher pointed out "It is a complicated topic … in which there appear to be some strong and opposing views."

Looking at this more closely there are three reasons why this is the case:

• There are too many definitions, they are too different and they are not pointed enough.
• There is no coherent or unified underpinning OD theory.
• There is no method of rigorously evaluating the outcomes of an OD 'intervention'.

I'll cover each of these in three different posts. Starting today with the definition.

The current standard definition appears to be:

"Organization development is a system-wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, and processes fthat lead to organization effectiveness." Cummings, T.G, and Worley, C.G. (2008) Organization development and change.

But this is an all things to all people definition. What would a client make of it? How does it adequately describe being able to solve an organizational problem quickly, simply, cheaply? A more straightforward definition appears in the Roffey Park Institute's report Best Practice in OD Evaluation.

OD describes activities engaged in by stakeholders in order to build and maintain the health of an organisation as a total system. It is characterised by a focus on behavioural processes and humanistic values. It seeks to develop problem solving ability and explore opportunities for growth.

The UK's Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) struggling with a definition of OD has a useful paper that "seeks to clarify confusion around the term [OD]" suggesting themes common to most definitions:

OD applies to changes in the strategy, structure, and/or processes of an entire system, such as an organisation, a single plant of a multi-plant firm, a department or work group, or individual role or job.

• OD is based on the application and transfer of behavioural science knowledge and practice (such as leadership, group dynamics and work design), and is distinguished by its ability to transfer such knowledge and skill so that the system is capable of carrying out more planned change in the future.
• OD is concerned with managing planned change, in a flexible manner that can be revised as new information is gathered.
• OD involves both the creation and the subsequent reinforcement of change by institutionalising change. OD is orientated to improving organisational effectiveness by: helping members of the organisation to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to solve problems by involving them in the change process, and by promoting high performance including financial returns, high quality products and services, high productivity, continuous improvement and a high quality of working life.

Lack of definition makes it difficult for Organization Development consultants to say precisely what they do in a way that lends itself to what clients are interested in – ROI discussions, cost/benefit analysis, defense by rigorous quantitative analytics, and any of the other data driven, numeric metrics beloved by the Chief Financial Officer, or line managers determining how to apportion their budgets? (See Davenport, T. H. (2006).Competing on Analytics, Harvard Business Review, January)

A friend sent an enquiry to me and a couple of others yesterday which set me thinking. Here's what she asked:

I'm trying to think of an article or book chapter to give to a group of Arts students that would provide the "classic" background on what an organization is – the basic theory piece.

I'm hoping to give them something that will help frame a discussion around what an organization really is – sort of the classic thinking. There must be a chapter or article – perhaps from an org. textbook. What would you give a group of "beginners" about how to think about organizations?

What I liked about the question (apart from the opportunity to delve into my folder "Articles" on my computer and wonder why I had the same article under different titles in more than one case) was that it's a challenging one to answer. Like her I have hundreds of articles on various aspects of organization theory, design, psychology, behavior, and so on but none that tackled head on the discussion of 'what is an organization?'

So my response back to her read "I haven't got anything that defines what an organisation "is". When I start off an organization design program I do an exercise with the group that runs as follows.

There are five questions (below). I reveal the questions one at a time asking the group, (or small groups) to answer them. This enables the participants to work out what an organization is. Usually, in answer to question 1 they come up with lists that include: a group of people, common purpose, delivering a product or service, sets of systems, and so on. Then you ask question 2 and generally they come up with rules, policies, governance structures, codes of ethics, regulatory frameworks, and so on.

Putting the answers of questions 1 and 2 together you get a good feel for what an organization 'is' and can arrive at a common understanding for all practical purposes. I then go into the next three questions to start the design thinking.

1. What is an organisation?
2. What is an organised organisation?
3. What is design?
4. What is an organisation design model?
5. How useful is a model?

However, I have combed through what I have in the way of articles and think that these might be useful.

Anand, N. and Daft, R. (2007) What is the right organization design? Organizational Dynamics, Vol 36. No. 4.

Osterwalder, A. (2006). How to Describe and Improve Your Business Model to Compete Better. Arvetica (see the overview on slideshare )

Child, J. and McGrath, R. (2001) Organizations Unfettered: Organizational Form in an Information Intensive Economy. Academy of Management Journal. Vol 44. No. 6.

Additionally Mary Jo Hatch is co-author of a book used on the Capella program on organization theory that I teach on Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives and she writes extensively on organizations. For the most part it is very readable and gives a good insight into various aspects of organization/organizing."

The others chipped in with various suggestions – only one of which (the Gareth Morgan) I knew about. So this whole exchange was very productive in terms of my own learning. Here are their suggestions:

Wertheim, Edward, G. (undated) A Historical Background of Organization Behavior
Kurshner, T. (2007) Angels in America. Nick Hern Books.
Wilson, E. (1998). Back From Chaos. The Atlantic Monthly, Part 1 March pp. 41-62 and Part 2
McNamara, C. (undated) Basic Definition of Organization. Free management library.
Kleiner. A. (2008) The Age of Heretics: a history of the radical thinkers who reinvented corporate management. Jossey Bass
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. Sage Publications

Yesterday I also came across a quote "Whatever you learn it is never enough" amply proved in the email exchange above!