Organisational model: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Organisational model (view source)

Revision as of 15:49, 23 December 2021

4,076 bytes added , 23 December 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,451

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|devil|}}
+{{a|gsv|}}===Organisational complexity can become self-perpetuating===
+When organisation, org chart, structure, policies and orthodox ways of doing things are so rigid that fixing them is “too hard”. The pragmatic response is to work around these structures rather than making the difficult decisions required to dismantle them. But the workarounds create ''yet more interdependence and complexity'' justifying yet more policy, more confusion, more rigidity.
+*'''Overwrought policy''': All policies should be open to review at all times. Avoid truncated timelines and arbitrary review periods which force people in to suboptimal behaviour (to leave well alone). Be aware of convenient attempts to circumvent reduction (amalgamating polices to reduce the absolute number etc).
+*'''system over-engineering''': Look out for over-engineered and badly data-designed systems that require too much data that is then not properly used, and which users will then workaround or complete imperfectly, creating bad static data.
+*'''Static data issues''': address these as root cause problems, and redesign systems to ensure we have good data, and no more than we need (there is a maintenance cost to every data point).
+===Programme management as a problem not a solution===
+Beware of senior executives “setting the course”, deciding the issues and then handing off execution to a [[steering committee]], which appoints a programme management team who then designates [[workstream]]s which appoints [[operating committee]]s, thus putting impenetrable hierarchy between the executive and the subject matter experts such that the SMEs are not empowered to challenge the “course” and bring their actual real world experience to bear on it. Instead, substantive compliance is more or less taken as read. Programme management is therefore focussed on meeting deadlines and evidencing adherence with identified formal steps over “big picture” assessment of risk management, which is presumed to take place out of sight amongst [[subject matter expert]]s.
+*The intermediate governance of the structure creates additional bureaucracy which in itself is wasteful.
+*Due to the complexity of the coordination task of making sure everything is done on time and nothing is missed, programme management teams are focus on completion of formal tasks by arbitrary pre-determined deadlines rather than addressing matters of substance.
+This leads to a risk management philosophy:
+*'''Favours policy expansion''': it is easy to set and forget rules, procedures and parameters at a senior level rather than trusting the expertise “at the coal face”, empowering expert individuals to monitor business risks, adapting and adjusting their approach to manage risk as they see fit.
+*'''Tends to be backward looking''': It emphasises ''past'' stress situations as a framework for managing ''future'' ones notwithstanding that by nature, emerging risks tend to come from unexpected quarters and arise from unplanned interactions between different system components. The giveaway is the effort devoted annually to updating and adjusting “[[Risk taxonomy|risk taxonomies]]” to reflect ''emerging'' risk developments in the year. Hello!
+*'''By syndication''': that syndicates responsibility for programme execution and risk management across the firm, thereby diffusing responsibility for the overall programme/risk by atomising it into specific, historic categories of risk managed by specific stakeholders, each of whom are encouraged (and incentivised) to keep “within their lanes”, which in turn underemphasises emergent risks arising as a result of intersection of factors controlled by different functions.
+*'''Less accountability''': another result of atomised approval is that overall accountability comes “by consensus” and therefore disappears into the grain of the orgnanisation when you most need it. Those responsible at the steering group can point to the discharge of the process; those in the segregated functions accept their responsibility “within their lane” meaning that there is no real ownership of the substance of emergent risks.
 ===[[Executive]]===
-What is the role of the executive:
-*[[Strategy]]
-*[[Policy]]
 What are the [[Executive failure|failure modes for the executive]]. Not necessarily just failures of strategy.
 *When are risks of [[executive failure]] heightened.