Yesterday I had a wonderful experience leading a retrospective for 25 people.
I would like to share an activity we used to study the timeline. Going through every note is passive for most, and often reduces energy. Creating narratives of it is consolidating the mass of notes, and often adding new details. And narratives create meaning.
We had unusually long timeline, starting from 1970. No-one of those who started the company was anymore present, but stories were remembered.
First we created a standard history timeline. People swarmed around it and talked. I overheard people telling fragments of stories, and decided to use that idea.
Next smallish groups brainstormed the question: “What is the story that I would like to hear about this history?” The groups provided themes like “Personnel policy”, “Organizational culture”, “Market development”, “Evolving of the production work” or “Evolving of the IT-system”. If there are too many themes, you can prioritize by for example dot voting. Please improvise as needed.
Next I let people to self-organize around their favorite theme. I prefer to let people use their full body in the selection process. We assigned a place for each theme and people physically walked to their preferred theme. If no-one goes around a title, there will not be a story. It is OK, and potential observation material.
I gave a quite loose assignment to create a few minutes story in about 20 minutes. The groups were free to adjust the title if needed. Each story plus discussion lasted about ten minutes.
The stories were appreciated in the reflection in the end of the retrospective.
Finally I got the energy to publish this project. Quite impressive even after 10 years: 1000 people, 4 years, 100+ coaches. Unfortunately we did not know Agile back then, adding the technology and process perspectives would have made it a revolution. I hope you find this as an encouraging example.
- Long term
- Intensive co-work of the internal owner and the external consultant
- Own your own change – tailor the approach in a core team
- Work with individual, group and organizational levels
- Empowerment – reflection and freedom of choice. And coahcing support.
- A tailored training program for change agents
- Experiential learning sticks
- Adapt – work in the speed of the organization
Following is the abstract, 9 pages is downloadable at aritikka.com.
This report describes a large successful case of a goal oriented managed change, based on empowerment and reflection. The organizational culture and emergent nature of the change were respected by a continuously adaptive approach.
Significant improvement was reported in the atmosphere and work of teams, departments and leadership teams, and from personal perspectives.
Lately retrospectives have become popular as the reflective learning practice along the Agile SW development movement. I hope this report encourages to invest in a learning culture, let it be called Kaizen, learning organization or retrospectives.
The organization in question was Switching Platforms, Nokia Networks,about 1000 people in matrix organization, developing a distributed operating system for telecom switches. The change program was initiated bottom-up and sponsored by the strong management team of the SWP.
The program continuously adapted to the real conditions and capability. It was continuing to add value from 1998 to 2002 until ended with a radical organizational change. The following was achieved:
- An adaptive organization-wide development process lasting for 4 years
- A tailored approach, fit to the organization and situation, including tools, communication
- material, coach pool and the structure to lead and develop the change.
- A tailored training program for change agents/coaches. It was based on experiential learning, and eventually became a leadership training.
- 11 groups of 12 participants in the basic training of 1+2+2+1 days. Value for oneself 5.6/6, value for own development project 5/6.
- 3 groups of 8 people in the advanced training program of 1+2+1+2+1 days
- 3 internal coaches of coaches consulted the managers, facilitated workshops and supported the team level local development projects
- 150 recorded local projects, covering about 75% or the organization
- Coach network with meetings, reading circle, peer consultation
- Clear change in the culture, knowledge, personal growth, change resilience
Kati Vilkki main organizer and coach, Soile Aho consultant, Ari Tikka coach, Antti Heimonen, Seppo Taanila, Aila Laisi, Lauri Närhi, Leea afHeurlin, Kirsi Lagus, Jyrki Innanen, Sami Lilja, Raija Tamminen and dozens of other activists. Please notify me when you wish to have your name here.
I have seen product development projects used as tool to extract results from the organization. It has been chosen to solve an organizational problem. It worked in certain conditions, but when the organization grew and outside competition became harder yesterday’s solution became today’s problem.
I try to explain my point with a lifecycle of an imaginary organization. My real life example companies vary from 15 people to thousands.
Once upon a day a group of engineers started to develop a product. In the beginning everyone knew each other and there was fluent informal communication. The techno-cultural foundation was laid. The business started to grow.
Growth and the first coordination crisis
Money comes in and the organization grows. There is more coordination work, so some developers become managers. The organization develops “naturally”, creating specialized roles and competences. There are more customers and releases. Ownership of the product gradually becomes scattered. There are bottleneck resources.
At some point the “professional project management” steps in. It is solving the coordination problem, one project at a time. The project manager has permission (by role) to demand results. She becomes powerful member of the organization, getting credit for creating order and bringing money in. Often the personality of the project managers support this specialization. Portfolio management still works or is less important. Business does well.
This is a critical bifurcation point, a leadership crisis of unrealized significance . There is still an opportunity to start a Lean evolution. My example goes to the mainstream way. From the psychological perspective this is the easiest solution. It requires least personal change from the most of the people.
Gradual Scattering of the organization
Eventually there are several parallel and sequential programs going on at the same time. Each project is re-built and re-learned every time, because they surprisingly are different from the previous one. The projects becomes a separate powerful dimension of the organization.
The projects become a kind of device extracting money out of the complex and uncontrollable organization. The business management alienates from the R&D, because the real value seems to come from the project device – the development can be replaced, off-shored, outsourced. Long term development of the R&D is seen risky and difficult. Frustration and distrust grows at both sides.
You may recognize one or more of the following characteristics:
Short term rules. Quick fix. Avoid conflict. Nonproductive feedback. Gap between business, customer and development. Continuous reorg. Exploit development. Specialization and separation of responsibility. Cling to nonfunctional ERP. Clear social classes within the organization. Big power differences. Command and control. Waiting. Big plans. Wish for predictability. Slow and vague feedback. Learning and improvement don’t work. Projects compete of resources. Cost management. Number management. Measure hours. Maximize resource utilization. Knowledge and power seems always to be elsewhere.
Market saturation and the productivity crisis
Now the product (family) is growing old. And there is competition. The business management is facing a situation where the portfolio management is very difficult because of the complicated product and organization; lack of transparency and flexibility.
Even in this situation, I have seen the management to grab the tool that used to work, trying desperately to improve the project management. This is very painful for the project managers.
My point here is, that in product development you may do excellent “conventional” projects, and fail. Even fail because the projects have been successful.
My vote for the one word root cause would be overspecialization.
Please comment and share experiences, I have not emptied this subject.