Skip to main content

Scrum

Written by Sven von Osten on . Posted in Glossary, S.

Scrum is a framework within which people can address complex adaptive problems, while productively and creatively delivering products of the highest possible value. It is a lightweight framework that helps people, teams and organisations generate value through adaptive solutions for complex problems. 

Scrum is simple.  It is the opposite of a big collection of interwoven mandatory components. Scrum is not a methodology. Scrum implements the scientific method of empiricism. Scrum replaces a programmed algorithmic approach with a heuristic one, with respect for people and self-organisation to deal with unpredictability and solving complex problems.  

The fundamental unit of Scrum is a small team of people, a Scrum Team. The Scrum Team consists of one Scrum Master, one Product Owner, and Developers. Within a Scrum Team, there are no sub-teams or hierarchies. It’s a cohesive unit of professionals focused on one objective at a time, the Product Goal.

From the perspective or organisational transformation, it is worth considering if your existing structures and culture will allow for the relatively low-governance approach required for this method to be applied effectively.

Pros

  • By involving customers, Scrum ensures the best results.
  • It is a lightweight and highly adaptable approach.
  • It is cost-effective and delivers fast results.

Cons

  • With no deadlines to deliver it can lead to scope creep and make budgeting difficult.
  • Requires a highly cohesive team culture and strong commitment from all team members.

Recommended resources:

Scrum.org™

SAFe® (Scaled Agile Framework®)

Written by Sven von Osten on . Posted in Glossary, S.

The Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®) is a set of organisational and workflow patterns for implementing agile practices at an enterprise scale. The framework is a body of knowledge that includes structured guidance on roles and responsibilities, how to plan and manage the work, and values to uphold. SAFe promotes alignment, collaboration, and delivery across large numbers of agile teams. As businesses grow in size, SAFe provides a structured approach for scaling agile.

Dean Leffingwell and Drew Jemilo released SAFe in 2011 to help organisations design better systems and software that better meet customers’ changing needs. At that time, teams used traditional project management processes  to deliver software. But as the need to rapidly respond to changing market conditions increased, new frameworks emerged to help businesses improve solution delivery across their enterprises, and SAFe was born. Today, SAFe is one of the most popular scaled agile delivery frameworks, and SAFe’s worldwide community of practitioners continue to evolve it.

From the perspective of organisational transformation, it is worthwhile considering whether the agile mindset is sufficiently developed in order to implement SAFe®. If yes, it can provide a customer centric framework that helps in offering both efficiency and stability served with a hint of innovation. 

Pros

  • Scalability at all levels of the organisation from project teams to executives.
  • Clear vision of program increment, cross-team dependencies and cultural sustainability.
  • Alignment of business and IT strategy with enterprise goals.

Cons

  • It can appear to have a more top-down approach due to the multiple layers of administration and coordination.
  • The framework is considered by some to be anti-agile as they view it as too complete to help an agile company culture thrive.

Recommended resources:

Scaled Agile®

Organisational Coaching

Written by Sven von Osten on . Posted in Glossary, O.

Coaching is one form of development in which an experienced a coach, supports a learner or client in achieving a specific personal or professional goal by providing training and guidance. The learner is sometimes called a coachee. Coaches use a range of communication skills (such as listening, questioning, reflecting, etc.) to help their coachee shift their perspectives, thereby discovering different approaches to achieve their goals.

Organisational coaching focuses on supporting individuals to improve their skills, performance and capabilities, therefore their growth, within the context of their organisation. It is frequently used to help organisations achieve strategic objectives, enhance leadership capability, and create culture change. Broader organisational needs are placed front and centre, and the coaching is used to scale-up change across the enterprise. While there is overlap, this broader focus is in contrast to executive or leadership coaching which targets the individual’s development needs and more typically comprises standalone engagements.

From the perspective of organisational transformation, supporting leaders and key stakeholders with organisational coaching helps to align their personal development with the desired future state of the organisation, and enables them to lead themselves and others through transformation more effectively.

Pros

  • Unlike stand-alone coaching engagements, it ensures development in direct connection to the transformation.
  • Leadership capabilities are rapidly developed to engage and lead others through the transformation authentically.

Cons

  • Some organisations may be resistant to the concept of coaching due to previous experiences.
  • The organisation’s existing culture may not support changes in leadership behaviour achieved through the coaching.

Source: Institute of organisational Coaching

Organisational Development

Written by Sven von Osten on . Posted in Glossary, O.

Organisational development (OD) as a practice involves an ongoing, systematic process of implementing effective organisational change. OD is both a field of applied science focused on understanding and managing organisational change and a field of scientific study and inquiry. It is interdisciplinary in nature and draws on sociology, psychology, particularly industrial and organisational psychology, and theories of motivation, learning, and personality. Although behavioural science has provided the basic foundation for the study and practice of OD, new and emerging fields of study have made their presence felt. Experts in systems thinking, in organisational learning, in the structure of intuition in decision-making, and in coaching whose perspective is not steeped in just the behavioural sciences, but in a much more multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approach have emerged as OD catalysts or tools.

The objectives of OD are to increase the level of inter-personal trust, cooperation and collaboration among employees, and to confront problems by increasing organisational problem-solving and reducing conflict.

From the perspective of organisational transformation, it is worth considering whether a dedicated OD function could be an enabler to continually improve processes and offerings by helping to make strategic choices in all activities of the organisation.

Pros

  • The process forces introspection, which can be revealing, reinforcing things you suspected and exposing things you didn’t know existed.
  • It can point to better outcomes, often by showing how to make the most of existing resources and also how to take advantage of new strategies and tactics.
  • It can reduce business expenses. From getting a firmer handle on your budget to reducing waste and duplicity, organisationaldevelopment should influence your bottom line.

Cons

  • It can unleash a swift culture clash, especially if there is a lack of employee buy-in.
  • It can be easily foiled by weak communication. Employees must be kept in the loop about all phases of an organisationaldevelopment initiative, no matter how mundane the details.
  • It requires considerable investment of time and budget.

Recommended resources: What is Organisational Development, CIPD

Objectives & Key Results (OKR)

Written by Sven von Osten on . Posted in Glossary, O.

OKR is a goal setting framework used by individuals, teams, and organisations to define measurable goals and track their outcomes.

OKRs comprise an objective (a significant, concrete, clearly defined goal) and 3-5 key results (measurable success criteria used to track the achievement of that goal).

Not only should objectives be significant, concrete, and clearly defined, they should also be inspirational for the individual, team, or organisation that is working towards them. Objectives can also be supported by initiatives, which are the plans and activities that help to move forward the key results and achieve the objective.

Key results should be measurable, either on a 0–100% scale or with any numerical value (e.g. dollar amount or percentage) that can be used by planners and decision makers to determine whether those involved in working towards the key result have been successful. There should be no opportunity for “gray area” when defining a key result.

From the perspective of organisational transformation, it is worth considering, whether the implementation of an OKR approach to managing the change could support the definition of the new priorities and to reinforce new routines.

Pros

  • They focus individuals, teams and the organisation on goals that deliver business impact.
  • They encourage regular follow-ups and progress checks.
  • They are measurable.
  • They align everyone to shared objectives.

Cons

  • If OKR’s are added at an individual level they can increase complexity.
  • Updating and tracking can result in increased workload or the need to implement special software.
  • Organisations tend to set too many OKR’s, which negatively impacts the intended effect of alignment and focus.

Recommended resources:

Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs; Doerr John, 2018, ISBN 0525536221

Obeya

Written by Sven von Osten on . Posted in Glossary, O.

The Japanese term Obeya (great room) originated in the 1990’s and is considered a component of the Toyota Production System. The Obeya was instituted during the product and process development, where all individuals involved in managerial planning met in a ‘great room’ to speed communication and decision-making.

Conceptually akin to traditional ‘war rooms’, an Obeya will contain visually engaging charts and graphs depicting such information as program timing, milestones and progress-to-date, and countermeasures to existing technical or scheduling issues. An Obeya room can also be a place for software development, a command center, managing new business strategy, workflow and project management. This tool forces people to work together without distractions and creates a great atmosphere to generate new ideas.

From the perspective of organisational transformation, it is worthwhile for senior leaders to consider implementing their own version of Obeya, in order to achieve and maintain efforts towards the desired future state.

Pros

  • An Obeya (or War Room) aids communication between the key stakeholders of the transformation.
  • It can reinforce a shared understanding of the current status and where efforts need to be focused to ensure progress.
  • It allows for prioritisation and effective workload distribution.

Cons

  • Access to the visual components and information storage can be challenging for geographically scattered teams.
  • It carries with it the risk of placing too much focus on resolving issues and deflecting attention from causal links.

Recommended resources:

iObeya

Navigation

Written by Sven von Osten on . Posted in Glossary, N.

Navigating is an increasingly popular term in business given the constantly changing internal and external environment of organisations. This requires them to do more than just setting their compass to navigate from A to B; they must be able to constantly adjust their course to meet the shifting tides around them.

This means that leaders need to be able to navigate themselves and their organisation. They need to be clear on where the organisation is and where it wants to go. They should understand why it wants to go there, and what could stop it from getting there. And leaders must be able to give the direction and create the conditions for the people and the organisation to have the focus and the discipline to get to the desired future state successfully.

From the perspective of organisational transformation, it is worth considering to what extent your existing structures and processes will allow the necessary agility to navigate, and whether your leaders have the capabilities required.

Pros

  • Navigation allows organisations to constantly adjust during the transformation process, which is generally non-linear.
  • It encourages leaders and teams to adopt an agile mindset with short-term planning, sprints and rapid delivery.
  • It encourages leaders and teams to maintain a bi-focal view on short-term wins and long-term outcomes.

Cons

  • Leaders and teams must have a clear picture of  the desired future state in order to navigate. Otherwise they risk to become change fatigued.
  • Navigation implies participative leadership skills requiring leadership development interventions, which can take time to embed into the existing leadership culture.

Recommended resources:

Navigating in Times of Change: The N.E.W.S.® Navigation Journey, Goz Aviad, 2020

Mission Statement

Written by Sven von Osten on . Posted in Glossary, M.

Mission statements are used by companies to explain in simple and concise terms why they exist, or what their contribution to the wider community is. This serves to provide a focus for employees towards what the organisation is trying to achieve, and helps them to work out how they can contribute.

Sometimes the terms ‘mission statement’ and ‘vision statement’ are used interchangeably or even combined into a single statement. But they mean two very different things. A mission statement declares what the company is doing right now, while a vision statement is what the company hopes to achieve in the future. 

From the perspective of organisational transformation, a mission statement provides the context of the bigger picture. It’s an inspiring reminder to everyone of what their collective efforts are contributing to, which is easy to lose sight of in the tornado of daily operations.

Pros

  • Mission statements provide direction and help the people in the organisation to make faster and better decision on where to put their time and energy.
  • Mission statement highlight the company’s core values and helps everybody to immediately understand what the purpose of the company is and how it is different to competitors.
  • A mission statement makes it very clear how a company does business.

Cons

  • A mission statement must be lived, not just pasted on walls.  This requires significant effort from everyone within the organisation.
  • Mission statements can be too focused on internal and/or short term issues, which can result in the company to become obsolete if the external environment changes faster than their mission (think Blockbusters).

Recommended resources:

Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action, Simon Sinek, 2011; ISBN: 9781591846444

McKinsey 7-S Model

Written by Sven von Osten on . Posted in Glossary, M.

The McKinsey 7S Model refers to a tool that analyses a company’s organisational design. The goal of the model is to depict how effectiveness can be achieved in an organisation through the interactions of seven key elements – Structure, Strategy, Skill, System, Shared Values, Style, and Staff.

The focus of the McKinsey 7s Model lies in the interconnectedness of the elements that are categorized by ‘Soft Ss’ and ‘Hard Ss’. It implies that a domino effect exists when changing one element in order to maintain an effective balance.

From the perspective of organisational transformation, it is worthwhile to consider if a predominantly internally focused methodology will meet the organisation’s needs.

Pros

  • It helps in bringing the various departments and processes in sync with each other, especially when mergers or acquisition takes place.
  • It provides a framework to analyse the effects of changing corporate culture, policies, strategies, structure, technology over the organisation.
  • It is a broad approach since it inspects each of the seven elements and their correlation with each other.

Cons

  • The methodology could be considered too internally focused, therefore not allowing for sufficient attention to be placed on external factors affecting the business during it’s transformation.
  • It doesn’t provide a clear roadmap as practical support for the transformation process.
  • It relies on long-term results to provide sufficient input for analysis and therefore may not be sufficiently agile in it’s approach.

Recommended resources:

Enduring Ideas: The 7S-Framework, McKinsey & Company

Management By Objectives (MBO)

Written by Sven von Osten on . Posted in Glossary, M.

The term ‘management by objectives’ was first coined by Peter Drucker in 1954. It is a style of management that prioritizes setting, tracking and achieving goals. By emphasizing planning and personal responsibility it aims to ensure that every employee contributes to company-wide goals through a process of collaboration with their manager. 

It focuses on working ahead towards a common objective, rather than simply reacting to events as they occur. When done well, MBO allows managers to clearly communicate what they expect from employees, and employees to feel involved in the process of setting their own goals.

Following criticism of the original approach, a new formula was introduced in 2016, aimed at revitalizing the process. This is known as the OPTIMAL MBO: Objectives, Outside-in; Profitability related goals; Target Setting; Incentives & Influence; Measurement; Agreement, Accountability, Appraisal, Appreciation; and Leadership Support.

From the perspective of organisational transformation, attention should be placed on a process which takes both short-term operational and longer-term strategic goals into account, which may prove challenging in companies with annual performance cycles.

Pros

  • It can be an effective tool for expectation management.
  • Due to it’s collaborative nature it encourages communication.
  • It increases individual commitment levels.
  • It allows flexibility for individualized plans.

Cons

  • It can be detrimental to overall quality, as it can focus activities too much on only achieving individual specific goals.
  • It increases comparisons between employees, which can have a detrimental effect on a culture of team collaboration.
  • It can’t evaluate everything so may not take into consideration the ‘little things’, which can make a significant difference to team performance.
  • Evaluations can be subject to management bias or incorrect interpretation, and create a mountain of paperwork.

Recommended resources:

Drucker Institute

The Practise of Management, P. Drucker, 2006; ISBN: 0060878975