IT Organization Circa 2017

I’ve recently been asked a couple of questions I used to hear all the time.    The questions are:

1. Doesn’t process discipline add overhead and cost?
2. Doesn’t process discipline stifle creativity?

I thought these questions had been put to rest years ago, but I guess they are still out there floating around in the air.

When Does Process Discipline Make Sense?

Not everything lends itself to process discipline, or to the same degree and rigor.  Back in September 2008, I posted Part 2 to my IT Organization Design series.

In that post, I drew on some theoretical work by Henry Mintzberg that my colleague Roy Youngman and I have been drawing from over many years in our consulting work.  Mintzberg’s Theory on Organizational Forms discusses four “standardization” strategies that can be applied in organizational design:

• Standardization of work processes, which achieves coordination by specifying the work processes of people carrying out interrelated tasks. This is the common model for things that are routine and sequential (e.g., IT operations, data center, telecommunications, IT infrastructure, etc.)
• Standardization of outputs, which achieves coordination by specifying the results of different work. This is the best model for things that are collaborative and perhaps visual. This is perhaps the dominant model for systems development and programming.
• Standardization of skills (as well as knowledge), in which different work is coordinated by virtue of the related training the workers have received. This is the model for things that are complex and exploratory. There is an element of this in all IT roles, but tends to apply mostly in the more technical and operational roles (think Microsoft Certification programs, Project Management Institute, etc.)
• Standardization of norms, in which it is the norms infusing the work that are controlled, usually for the entire organization, so that everyone functions according to the same set of beliefs. I’ve found over the years that IT groups with the most cohesive culture (i.e., they have a shared sense of their destiny, and a passion for fulfilling it) are the most effective in driving performance and leading transformations. For example, at their best, movements such as Total Quality Management and 6 Sigma instill norms of quality management. I’ve also found (though this is unfortunately not the norm) values initiatives such as Johnson & Johnson’s Credo Values, and Google’s Mission to be effective ways to motivate and focus people around important values and norms.

So, process discipline makes the most sense for activities that are routine and sequential – not coincidentally, this is the domain of ITIL v3, as well as the focus for most Lean and 6 Sigma programs.  Note that systems development lends itself better to standardization of outputs, which is what most systems development methodologies achieve.  Disciplines such as Business-IT Relationship Management lend themselves better to standardization of skills – people with the right competencies who know the business, are innovative, good communicators, and so on.  While such roles can be well served by an account management process, for example, the real key is in their knowledge and behaviors.

When Does Process Discipline Add Overhead and Cost?

Now, back to our opening questions.  As long as process discipline is applied to a domain that warrants it – i.e., requires the coordination of multiple people carrying out interrelated tasks that are routine and sequential, I would argue (and the quality literature and research support) that the benefits of consistent, efficient and lean processes save cost and reduce overhead.  This was the intent behind Phillip Crosby‘s book title, Quality is Free.  It’s not actually “free” but a high quality process always ultimately costs less than a low quality one.  As the saying goes, “There’s never time to do it right, but always time to do it over!”

When Does Process Discipline Stifle Creativity?

When I think about this question, I’m reminded of my former colleague Tom Davenport, who was fond of saying, “Process will set you free!”  And I absolutely believe that.  However, it is not automatically or universally so.  As a (very) amateur musician, I have to know the context in which I’m playing when performing with others.  Are we performing a set of defined and familiar classics?  Or are we jamming?  Or are we improvising in more of a jazz sensibility?  For the familiar classics, we’d better stick to the score, play what we practiced, and any deviations (i.e., creativity) better be very skillfully executed or they will sound like mistakes.  If jamming, we probably have an underlying structure, e.g., key, time signature, verse/chorus/verse/bridge (i.e., process) that we will follow, but room to be creative around that process.  If we are playing jazz, then we may have little to no structure, and had better be very talented musicians!

Note here, context is everything, and a decent musician knows when he’s performing a standard, jamming, or creating something new.  I think some of the most insightful work on process discipline, creativity and context came from Joseph Juran many years ago in his classic text Managerial Breakthrough.  Juran argued that you can manage for control (process discipline, incremental and continuous improvement) or you can manage for breakthrough performance (step change, creativity, process reengineering).  He further argues that each require different organization and management approaches, and you had better be clear on which you need and are trying to achieve – control or breakthrough, and then ensure you are managing and motivating appropriately.

So, I believe that process discipline, applied blindly, can indeed stifle creativity – as Juran would say, “prevent bad change.”  Know where you need creativity, and where you don’t, and where the nature of the work lends itself to excellent processes, follow a strong process discipline.  That will ultimately free up resources and management bandwidth to work on those activites where creativity is appropriate – where you are trying to “create good change”.

Picture courtesy of “Our Name Is Blog“

Filed under: IT Management, IT Maturity Tagged: | ITIL v3, six sigma, Total Quality Management