I'm starting to think about the curriculum for the 'Business Models and Stakeholders' course that I'm going to lead on the new CCA Design Strategy MBA. My module does not run until spring 2009 so there's planning time available. I'm thinking of having one session on the business models architectural firms use. On the basis that they are also designers. Philips might be another good business model to look at as they have a whole strategy around design of their products. It would be interesting to see if design, and design related companies have distinctive business models, and whether they approach their stakeholders in an identifiable way that's different from non-design oriented organizations.
It's an odd series of coincidences that yesterday I spoke with a friend, Emily, whose beloved singing teacher aged 80 died earlier this week of pancreatic cancer. Emily's response to this is to plan take up singing again – a passion that she's let lie fallow for several years. I then turned on a video someone had sent me on Randy Rausch http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=ithct48cqw and discovered that he too has pancreatic cancer, and is living life to the fullest while he can. Just now, I got an email from another friend which told me her aunt has pancreatic cancer. Paula's now with her aunt arranging medical care in a situation where. "There are NO skilled beds at any price in the town where she lives". Out of curiosity I looked on the web to find out if the incidence of pancreatic cancer is increasing and came across the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network http://www.pancan.org/ and lo and behold, March 9 – 11 is pancreatic cancer advocacy weekend.
The stretch to an organization design slant on this might be a bit much but certainly there's a connection between having a change thrust upon one and doing something positive (with a resilient, resourceful, and adaptive mindset) to make the best of the situation.
Organizations that develop these types of cultural attributes are front runners e.g. Philips, IBM, GE.
At a client dinner last week someone asked me how he could 'make change stick'. I gave him a few answers like making sure all the organization elements were aligned and supporting the change, and that there were carrots and sticks in place. Then I started to think more about the question. Now it seems a tautology. Change cannot stick because it is changing. If change 'sticks' then it's not change. I think what he meant was how can he make sure that the organization doesn't revert to a previous state (though it wouldn't be exactly the same). I guess my more thought through answer would be by designing the organization so that change doesn't stick. To design in characteristics that keep it constantly alert, responsive, and adaptable – much more of the organic design approach than the mechanistic systems approach.
Today I got embroiled in a recurring conversation. One where my colleagues equate 'organization design' with 'structure' i.e. in most cases what is depicted on an organization chart. The message of all my writing and thinking is that 'structure' is only one element of an organization design. A well designed organization is th conscious harmonization of all the elements to produce the desired performance outcome. In my experience focusing on just one element rarely has the desired outcome effect.
Schipol Airport has a very effective design of its security screening. Travelers are asked to show their boarding passes and ID as they enter the airside area of the terminal – a very swift checking procedure.
When they reach the gate for their flight departure they are security screened there. Each gate has its own screen equipment and screeners. The line moves quickly and no-one is in danger of missing the flight because they are being screened as they line up to board.
Experiencing this approach recently it seemed a significantly more effective design than the one used at all other airports I've been to where the security screening is part of the process of getting into the airside area.
The people at the happy hour drink on Friday started discussing Facebook. What was fascinating was that the group of Millenials: those born between 1980 and 2000 (who all have a Facebook presence) were talking about the differences in the way they interact with it compared with the way their younger siblings do.
Among other things, they use it to find out more about people they are interviewing for potential positions within our company, and are relatively circumspect about what they post about themselves.
It’s time I conquered my fear of Facebook and signed on/up/in. At a fund raising party I went to this evening (for one contingent of the San Francisco Carnaval) I discovered that the contingent uses Facebook for all its non face-to-face communication having set up a private community within Facebook (as I understand it – but I may be wrong on this).
I wonder how Facebook will impact the design of organizations? What value could it add if organizations embraced it rather than blocking access (as my own company did until forced to concede to the outrage).
Joining a new company means being alert to (and maybe embracing) any cultural conventions that are specific to that organisation. Over many year I have worked in companies where no-one has commented on the fact that I reply to emails without including the original (the one I am replying to) in my message. In my new company I've been asked by several people why my emails do not contain the message I am replying to. Today (four months in) I have bowed to convention (or pressure) and will start to include the original in my reply. My preference is not to do this as I like a clean page but maybe in order to fit in and get on I need to over-ride this particular preference of mine.