Changing the Metaphor of Work from Machines to Humans

I heard a great talk by Mark Morgan at the monthly meeting of the Northern California Chapter of the Association of Strategic Planning yesterday. He based his talk on the new book, Executing Your Strategy, by Mark, Dr. Raymond E. Levitt, and William A. Malek. Using the Strategic Execution Framework (SEF) diagram he pointed out the interconnections and dependencies between the different imperatives in a company.

He started by pointing out how we talk about the work that goes on in a company. The terms used in the books, classes, and consulting have their roots in the work by F. W. Taylor back in the 1900s. That was the Industrial Revolution. Company management process was put stuff into the machine, make the machine more effective and efficient, and sell the stuff coming out cheaper than the other company does. The major component of work today, especially in the United States, is people.

We can find a number of people that specialize in one or two of the different functional bubbles on the SEF diagram. They have studied, consulted, and written about their functional bubble. Where management at companies gets into trouble is that this is a dynamic continuous system, not a set of hierarchical points. The arrows connecting the bubbles on the SEF diagram, especially across what Mark refers to as the six imperatives, Ideation, Nature, Vision, Engagement, Synthesis, and Transition, often are overlooked. As any experienced software programmer will tell you, the interfaces are the critical problem areas.

The driving force behind activities in companies today, even manufacturing companies, are interactions between people, more than between machines. To succeed, all of the bubble functions have to be in alignment. Communications and actions have to work together. This view of the company as a system is what resonated with me. It is critical for everyone to look at the entire system, the ecosphere, inside the company and the alignment of each of the parts. Looking back, I can see that this was what drew me to get an MS in Systems Management, and to being a Project/Program Manager.

It also explains some of the problems I have encountered on engagements to create systems to move strategy through portfolio, programs, and into projects. Optimizing only one area will not improve the implementation of the strategy. If we do not align all of the parts, we will not move forward.


Technorati tags: project management; program management; management; business strategy;