Organisational and cultural transformation in Business Agility

The UX, UCD and HCD code explained

User Experience has become the solution focused end of User Centred Design, being based in normal practice on usability, accessibility and user research over time.

The Term User Experience/User Centred Design and Human Centered Design are interchangeable because the International Standard changed from being User Centred Design to Human Centered Design.

Some Background

In my other posts it should be clear by now that I have been involved in what now called UX for some considerable time. I have previously mentioned how UX moved from the strategic and its equal status to enterprise architecture into software development and becoming visual design for a time. Well it’s on the move again, just as UX incorporated marketing components with repeatable science at its outset and seeded Agile with user stories and human context, so now it has moved into organisational and cultural transformation.

Organisational and Cultural Transformation

There are now in 2019 many people talking about organisational and cultural transformation and change however it is clear that what they mean is everyone below the C-suite needs to change. However organisational and cultural transformation is the whole organisation otherwise it is just a rebrand without actual change. More especially culture is born from action not just intent and this is what organisations who want to change are discovering. They want to take their staff on a transformation journey and to evolve their engagement not simply recasting them with new role titles and responsibilities. They also expect to evolve the transformation in flight gaining a true understanding of what already works well and folding it into the new culture. This kind of transformation takes a highly adaptive and pragmatic mindset in its leadership and enablement.

Organisational Design

The historical focus of organisational design has been to establish one standard structure across a whole organisation. The value of this is to standardize command and control mechanisms which is supposed to simplify reporting and oversight. It forces all work through it regardless of its priority or type of work it is.

The old four types of organizational structures are;

  1. Functional Top-Down
  2. Divisional Structure
  3. Matrix Organizational Chart
  4. Flat Organizational Chart

However the New Ways of Working in adoption of HCD, Agile, Lean and DevOps don’t utilize these structures. In fact instead of starting with organizational structures it focuses on work to define the structures needed to deliver it. This is very intensive consulting activity and often led by external consultants not vested in internal politics and previous alliances.

And this explains why most new organisational transformations will fail before they start because they are focused on hierarchies not getting work done efficiently with a culture that rewards and honours people who deliver.

Karl Smith

Work Formats

The common structure of work is linear and directional often following the concepts of grouped specialisations handing work to each other having completed their activities. This creates a slow flow of work with bottlenecks around capacity. When unexpected work arrives and depending upon its priority it can destroys the whole flow of work and create ripples impacting the whole organisation. This behaviour with work is derived from industrial production techniques often related to the Ford production model of manufacturing.

In adoption of HCD, Agile, Lean and DevOps, work types are defined first and then the organisational structure is derived from the work types. The consultancy around the organisational design should be unique to each organisation in order to both facilitate taking porfilio work into viable and validated and measured delivery.

Psychology of Transformation

In large organisations there have been lots of transformations and people are used to dealing with them, adept at absorbing language and funds without actual transformation or the derivative cultural change. So as far as possible the psychology of transformation is defensive for the mainstream of organisations. Delivering long term cultural change therefore requires a top down adoption in order to establish an authoritative perspective of We Change rather than You Change.

In new ways of working YOU change is not the way to succeed it must be WE change together

Karl Smith

Human Centred Organisational Design TOM

At this point I’d normally publish the exactly how to do it, but to be honest in the wrong hands it’s a stick of dynamite, so I won’t just hand it out. Below is the Portfolio Planning for Business Agility for an Organisation focused on a Work Type Taxonomy rather than hierarchies.

Business Agile activities at Portfolio Level

If you’d like like to find out how to do this from someone who’s done it in an organisation with 80,000 staff contact me.

Tagged : / / / / / /

Five most #common #failures of business #change and #transformation projects

Ever since transformation and change were linked to technology some of the worst parts of both have been combined on a national level and within major companies.

Giving users less functionality than they currently have and telling them it’s a great leap forward.

It is astonishing but this is the most common failing in projects, for some reason senior stakeholders appear to be convinced that technology is good and experience is bad. And if they concentrate on a new end state, all that is bad will go away. In a sad way all that is experience and knowledge are the things that go away often taking competitive advantage with them.

Asking stakeholders how things work even thought they only ever watch the outcomes and have no idea how things really work now.

Stakeholders by their very name determine that they are involved in the politics of a project, but they are considerably distanced from how thing work as they tend to represent management. This is less about the structure of projects in companies than how consultancies fail to ask questions about the current state, transition and opportunities into a project from a workers perspective and for service users.

Changing the requirements without understanding the long term debilitating impact of these changes.

There is without fail a point in all projects where the requirements will need to be changed due to cost, time or other constraint. At this critical point uniformly the future impact is relegated either to a later phase or someone else’s problem. While this at first sight is simply avoidance the impact in change, transformation and technology is significant often turning the current solution from strategic into nothing more than another tactical change that will need to be replaced.

Conducting due diligence on the project as a whole instead of across every aspect of the project at each stage and to the same consistent standard.

This may seem just a simple process but it is so often badly applied or not applied at all. There is naturally excitement when a project is in full flight but this some might say boring exercise often defines success or failure and will absolutely manage cost overruns which are often hidden by changing the requirements.

Not properly estimating and often severely underestimating the time it takes to create, refine, model, build and test solutions.

The reason that estimates are not correct is that translating requirements is not included in project planning. Project requirements must be translated into technical business requirements and user requirement both of which require testing and validation at a concept level before a solution can be considered to reliable, this is why so many project fail to deliver.

A brief note on requirements: Wish lists that make up an end state are not requirements these are just goals, requirements are what you get when you translate them into each delivery channel. For example the requirements to offer services to clients are different in mobile, desktop, telephony, marketing, pr etc. and they do not translate in the detail required to deliver. This is a highly common experience that no amount of lean and agile methodologies can make up or user experience cover up for the fact that most requirements given to technology as the bases of solutions are not fit for purpose.

Author Links;

Blog: user experience architecture
LinkedIn: profile
Twitter: userexperienceu

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / /

#Strategic and #lean #thinking in private investment and asset portfolio management, part 1

This article is intended to review the current process problems that many investment and wealth management companies are attempting to solve. For many years these businesses have been wreathed in secrecy regarding how they do, what they do, often this has not been by choice but merely a by product of business processes that have not fundamentally changed in fifty years and in environments where technology is not considered as an enabler.

The creation and management of investments have evolved into a complex time consuming and inefficient practice due to many complexities not only within financial advisory companies and people but also management services, financial product offerings and regulatory structures and the various platforms they use. However by mapping the basic interactions between these groups and investors it is possible to not only determine quick wins but also radical time and cost saving leading to increased transactions with existing clients deeper market penetration and capture with new clients.

There are five basic interactions I will be mapping as part of this paper;

  • On boarding (including Fact Find, AML etc.)
  • Financial Review
  • Advised Financial Modelling / Portfolio Construction
  • Self Service Financial Modelling / Portfolio Construction (including Self Service Trading)
  • Regulatory Reporting

There is a lot to pull together to do this, it is very insightful if you have not been involved in financial services or you are involved but have not kicked off your financial services transformation project yet.

Author Links

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /