Two Strategies For Aligning Means
30. Jul, 2009 
2 Comments
Aligning the means between individuals, project and organization is a Herculean task for any Project Leader. The means are the rules of the project. The way things are done.
Following are two strategies that can be used to align means. To provide you with some ideas. To start the discussion.
Patterning – Going Through The Motions
In essence, with this strategy the project team is told what the means are; the larger organization knows best. This idea originates from Jeff Sutherland in “Shock Therapy: Bootstrapping Hyperproductive Scrum”. If you have a new team that has no experience with Scrum, you will put a very experienced Scum Master in charge and he will set the rules. Relentlessly.
Only a few rules, that make up the basics of Scrum, but they have to be followed with strong discipline. The Scrum Master will make sure this happens.
Set the rules first, than, after a while, let go when it becomes natural. This is called “patterning”.
Continuous Transparent Feedback
A human system always communicates with its environment and based upon the feedback it gets from it, alters its behavior. If a group of animals will drink water from a well and one of the groups dies because of it, they entire group may search for a different well. If a company introduces a new product, and sees its stock plummeting because of it, it might change its strategy.
It is therefor essential that the project members get continuous feedback on their own performance and the environment. This is where the use of analytics, metrics, “in-your-face” information visualization and plain old coaching comes in. By providing feedback to the team on how well they perform under the current project rule set, they will adapt to more effective means if needed.
Dear Bas,
In the excellent paper about “Shock therapy..”
Jeff Sutherland describes the classic “gung-ho” approach.
In my experience, there are big limits to this way to work:
1) It requires a very strong personality and a leadership style based on uniqueness.
2) As stated in the article, the “us-against him” could transform the team into an elite; this can create problem within the company both a personal level and governance.
3) Physical contiguity seems a key value. It could limit relationships with other teams/people involved in the project.
From i/structure people to final users.
Your reply will be highly appreciated.
Best
Eugenio
Hi Eugenio, I agree with the limits you mention. I don’t think it’s a proper scenario in all cases. Although I think point 3, the physical distance, can be solved by current tech.
Especially item 2 is a concern. What happens when the projects is completed? Can special forces go back to normal operations and are they accepted in the business as usual?
I think solution for item 2 can be found in leaving benefits to the larger organization. If the “elite” introduces something new of use for the rest of the org. acceptance can be enhanced.