Technology and Organizations

What critical innovation activities must be supported by an innovation infrastructure? Short answer is that innovation infrastructure must keep the project’s top goals… top of mind, through…. TOP Management. Whether you’re working with a group of enthusiasts or a formal network of company partners, keeping the team moving in the same direction is key. (I’ll take on the longer answer in Part 2.)

Wednesday I have the privilege of speaking at a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The workshop’s goal is to develop projects related to reducing time and cost overruns in large innovation systems (space, aviation, etc.). The audience includes engineers, systems designers, and academics from across engineering, economics, and organization science. My 15 minutes of fame will be focused on the role of innovation infrastructure — built with technology support and organizational practice — to help make large efforts feel small. This post is my trial run.

I went into the project thinking about how, whether, the needs of community-based innovations were different than those of large formal projects. My conclusion is that even though the community/enthusiast-based projects may be smaller in terms of investment, they are likely to be larger in terms of perspective. This breadth is both a benefit and a burden.

Breadth is a benefit in that innovation needs breadth to help us find new ways to put together solutions. Breadth is a burden in that our focus must be narrow to succeed. Informal communities of enthusiasts are likely to have more varied goals and less oversight to keep them on a particular path.

NASA’s Mark Moore helped me understand the innovation importance of focus on top goals. I had contacted Mark (thanks Bob!) as he was the lead on NASA’s Puffin single-person vertical take-off and landing project. The Puffin project is a great innovation example as it moved quickly and so far is tracking on its design goals. Contrast this with the many delays we see in larger space and aviation projects.

Mark’s says it is critical to keep the top goals on the table throughout the project. The tension here is that an innovation project is likely to be made up of experts from a variety of different areas. (Recall that breadth is good for innovation… but also recall that breadth means people may bring differing goals to the project.) Each area of engineering wants to do its best, though what the project may need is trade-offs across the best possible outcomes. Mark’s phrase: “Every optimal aircraft is filled with non-optimal tradeoffs.”

Both formal and informal innovation projects need to focus on their top goals:

..don’t confuse collaborative innovation with a headless organization. Leadership still plays a critical role in mobilizing and aligning any organization. But the role of the leader is not to create the innovation but to create the environment in which it will thrive (p. 17, The Innovation Zone).

People need to understand the ultimate design goals and how the innovation as a whole must support those goals.

How can TOP Management support our ability to keep top goals, top of mind? TOP Management is the intertwining of technology, organizational practice, and people. In the Puffin case there was an understanding of the human desire to optimize around one’s area of expertise -- and how to manage that tendency via particular practices and simple technologies:

We did not use any advanced collaboration tools, but simply email and WebEx conferencing. The key to our successful collaboration was to keep a small core team that had very clear objectives, with the detailed discipline efforts tied together by a top-down systems analysis understanding of the design problem.

Technology played a supporting role, using tech to support the focus on the top goal. Email served to document decisions and keep track of the trade-offs. (Value of documentation, even in face-to-face meetings.)

While the O and the P of TOP management were highlights of Puffin’s success, I expect that technology could play a stronger role, especially in larger projects. Project communications and workspaces can be designed to highlight the top goals both formally and informally (for no clear reason I keep thinking of Google’s changing logos). Technology could also support the organizational practice of evaluating trade-offs vis a vis the top goals. As ideas role in, the “crowd” can give electronic thumbs up or down similar to the voting possible in some innovation platforms (e.g., Spigit), “liking” on Facebook, or Digg. Puffin was a small project and so I doubt if hardwiring practice would have added much, but for larger projects hardwiring the systems focus on the top goals may be necessary to keep goals from diffusing as you move away from top leadership.

Key to innovation infrastructure is the development, focus, and support of overarching system goals.

“First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth” (John F. Kennedy). This was a clear goal statement and ran counter to what many of his advisers thought was prudent (audio track from a meeting where the issues are debated). Many of the advisers wanted to take a building block approach. They wanted to know more about things like the the surface of the moon (would the lander sink) and the implications of weightlessness. Kennedy, however, had a better understanding of political and human needs. You need a clear goal and a clear metric of success. We went to the moon, on time.

Tweet This Post

In August 2009 Stewart Mader wrote a blog post focused on expanding our thinking of enterprise wikis beyond wikipedia-style documents. As I think about many of the E2.0 projects my organizational design students are taking on this quarter, I’d like to share Stewart’s 8 ideas here and see if we can’t add a couple.

Here are Stewart’s 8 (please see his full post for his explanations. Comments and links here are my own):

• 1. Meeting Agendas
• 2. Meeting Minutes & Action Items
• 3. Project Management

These top three are my top three as well. A wiki is “a website that allows the easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser….” They are my top three partially because the use is so straight-forward. We all know what the task is; this is just expansion of how the task gets done. They are also my top three because they are so important — and yet often overlooked in organizational practice. No agenda means that it’s impossible to come prepared to the meeting, yet agendas are left out every day. A wiki approach is emergent and social (and thus at the heart of Enterprise 2.0) and intertwines a simple technology into the critical organizational practices of good project management. Please see an earlier post for some basic examples.

• 4. Gather Input — Keep in mind that wikis are all editable websites/documents. This means Google Docs and Google Spreadsheets are in the mix (as well as other web-based document tools provided by other companies). I see at least two dimensions here: gathering input from a group of people (Stewart’s focus) and gathering information from yourself. Regarding the latter, I recently avoiding paying over $100 for an iPhone/on-line logbook capability by building it myself using Google Forms. Any basic survey can be built in Forms and then the form tool deposits the information directly into the on-line spreadsheet (also available off-line if you are using Google Gears.) The iPhone/smartphone capability comes from saving the survey’s web address as an icon on the screen.
• 5. Build Documentation -- I see this one as being useful both in terms of meeting output and in terms of all written work-products. I have moved from being an evangelist of wikis as how to run group writing efforts to being not so passively aggressive about wiki-based group writing as my only approach. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that you often eventually have to move the document into a real word processor for final formatting -- but I bet this won’t always be the case (and I suspect isn’t the case for purpose-built tools like ZOHO Writer -- hmmm. I’ll have to check out the Microsoft Word support…). I’ll also be first to acknowledge that you and your co-authoring team have to become comfortable with sharing “alpha drafts.”
• 6. Assemble and Reuse Information -- Link away! Not only can you cut and paste easily if you have access to all of your organization’s documents — but you can also help your documents live through links. Linking (rather than cutting and pasting) means that the material stays in sync.
• 7. Employee Handbook -- I was in a waiting room for a while Sunday night and happened to sit by a TV playing Undercover Boss — Waste Management. In the episode, the President & COO of Waste Management, Larry O’Donnell, anonymously takes on a variety of entry-level jobs within his company. This is an eye-opening experience for him and he seeks ways to reduce some of the frustrations he finds in the field. What if he opened the Employee Handbook up as a wiki, at least for comments (and maybe they do…)? Is there risk for misuse? Sure there is a risk, but according to Andrew McAfee (Chapter 6), the incidence of bad behavior on wikis and blogs seems to be inconsequential — these are typically not anonymous.
• 8. Knowledge Base — Stewart distinguishes this use from Documentation in that he faces it externally. He gives an example of a moderated (the company checks changes before they are added) wiki that allows customers to see the help wiki and make contributions.

So, how many items can we add to Stewart’s list? I suspect the number will become quite large as more and more of our work moves to the web, but for a start:

• 9. Make Decisions -- Not only can we gather input, but we can make the decision via the wiki as well. The result is that we can always go back and track how we got to the decision we made.

You knew I’d get to ten…

• 10. Work — Over the last year, my bias has become wiki unless proven otherwise. My documents are in the cloud and I share files or full folders as default. As a result I am pushed to practice TOP Management (weaving together technology, organizations, people) as I think about the tools I have available, the practices the working group should focus on, and the skill set of the people in the group (see discussion of how to do a team audit here). Ideally our transfer of material to the cloud/wiki/team portal occurs passively — as part of just doing the task — rather than as a separate action. For example, if we are communicating via email with attachments of our working document, we have to actively save and sync our work. If we instead just work via the cloud/wiki/team portal the work and conversation are already there — passively with no extra effort.

What I missed?

Common Craft’s Explanation of Cloud Computing:

Tweet This Post

Andrew McAfee defines Enterprise 2.0 as “the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.”

Piazzza provides E2.0 for interaction between fellow students and faculty. Interaction and emergence are at the heart of modern business, and ideally, modern teaching. I have used a threaded discussion approach for “course questions and comments” since 2000. Since 2001 I have been adamant that email is for health and personal grading issues only (for more on my thoughts on email, please see Kill Email). Questions and comments should be made where all can see, provide support, and gain value. My approach is an application of transparency for learning. Piazzza takes a big E2.0 step forward from a threaded-discussion list by being responsive to student needs and taking emergence to the next level.

Pooja Nath (ex-Facebook developer, current Stanford Graduate School of Business student) approached me this Summer about being a beta site for Piazzza. Immediately I could see the value Piazzza provides to the students both from its base design and via the control it provides the students in terms of how they each individually experience the tool and the contributed information.

In the threaded discussion approach (old form), students had one level of control — they could either subscribe to the posts, or not. No option for digests. No option to only follow a particular thread. The result could be 20+ fragmented emails, and then a search through the website to find the full stream. Even the full streams were disorganized as students didn’t always follow best practice in terms of sticking to a thread’s topic. This was a nightmare and drove some students to ignore the material, which likely cost them some points and connections to useful information.

Piazzza realizes that not all questions/discussion have the same value to each student. Piazzza allows students to make the subscription choice — but at a more granular level. Once you’ve opted in, you see just the initial question/comment via email. At that point you get to choose whether or not to “bookmark” the question/comment. Only if bookmarked do you receive notification of the rest of the stream. (Piazzza.com is always available to see/search the full set of comments/questions.)

All of us must be systems designers to be effective in our current environment. We must make our own choices about how to weave together technology, organization, and people dimensions of our work. I feel that Piazzza is giving my students greater opportunity to make the best design decisions for themselves. Neither the technology or our practices are silver bullets and Piazzza allows us to use the technology to design practice at the class level (how we promote particular uses in class) and at the level of the individual (how individuals choose to interact with the material). We are integrating the technology and the practice.

Designed by a student, for students. Clean interface. Anonymity when needed, credit for providing answers to question. Engagement through tracking speed to answer. Ability to give thanks for answers. I’m a fan and the feedback from the students is that they are fans as well. We are still working on the organization/people intersection (anonymity means that not all the questions are well considered; students forget to search to see if the answer is already available).

The students are also quick to add suggestions around the technical feature set — recall that we are beta testers. For example, they wanted, and received, more control over the email flow and the ability to answer a question anonymously (I’m not sure how I feel about that — but so far so good). They also wanted, and received, greater clarity around new items.

Pooja and her team are right on the mark with their product. They ask for feedback, follow the use patterns, and are quick to make improvements. I’m looking forward to using Piazzza in all my classes!

Tweet This Post

I’ve known Peter Weill, co-author of IT Savvy: What Top Executives Must Know to go from Pain to Gain, since our days on the faculty at the Melbourne Business School. I was a visitor during my summers, while Peter and his colleague Marianne Broadbent were full-timers and doing the top research focused on IT business value. Peter is now Chairman of the Center for Information Research at MIT. (I hope to follow up with Marianne soon!)

Of course the title of Weill & Ross’ new book, IT Savvy, jumped out at me given my colleagues’ and my work on Systems Savvy. I find IT Savvy to be a beautiful, more organizational-level, companion to Systems Savvy.

Systems Savvy: The human capability to grasp the possible functions of technology tools and organizational practices and how these might be meshed to best effect. People with SysSavvy understand that technologies and practices are intertwined and they know how to make design adjustments to both the technology and the practice to effectively weave them together. We see SysSavvy as distinct from expertise, but more on that when our data are in…. Systems Savvy is critical to the ability to practice TOP Management.

IT Savvy: “…a characteristic of firms and their managers reflected in the ability to use IT to consistently elevate firm performance. Like savoir faire, IT savvy looks effortless from the outside. But IT-savvy firms distinguish themselves from others by building and using a platform of digitized processes” (p. 23).

My reading of this is that IT Savvy firms have managers who themselves have Systems Savvy. While Systems Savvy can be used beyond strategic information technology — when focused on the strategic issues described by Weill & Ross, the benefits to the organization are clear.

Weill and Ross note that IT Savvy is a rarity:

IT-savvy firms are not necessarily high-tech firms. In our research we have encountered only a small number of IT-savvy firms. Without exception, these firms use IT to “wire in” core transactions, and they use the data from their core transactions to inform decision making. Our list of IT-savvy firms includes highly successful new-age e-businesses such as Amazon, eBay, and Google. But long-established brick-and-mortar firms can also become IT savvy. Take, for example, 7-Eleven Japan, United Parcel Service, and Procter & Gamble (p.24).

Though rare, IT Savvy matters:

Our research found that firms that are above average on both IT savvy and IT spending have margins 20 percent higher than industry average. In contrast, firms with less than average spending and savvy have margins 32 percent lower than their industry (p.121)

What does it take to become IT Savvy? A business transformation that includes:

• Fixing what’s broken about IT – broken accountability and decision making
• Building a digitized platform – a base that provides stable core operations
• Exploiting the platform for profitable growth – leading change and driving value from this new asset

IT Savvy is full of clear examples (many based on their own research) and steps to take. Weill & Ross provide an assessment tool and the ability to compare your own firm with others. I found myself drawn in by their ability to answer questions I’ve had for a while. For example, In February 2008 I wrote a post about Southwest Airlines’, then new, boarding process. I was impressed with the success of Southwest’s complex implementation of the required technology, organization, and people components (showing TOP Management) and noted, “I’d also love to hear how Southwest came to manage the process in the way they did. Do they have this social and technical focus for all of their changes?” IT Savvy gives me the answer: Yes, they do!

The top thirty leaders of the company each sit on two or more strategy teams so they can inform their colleagues of services and needs within their own functional area while learning about the operations of other functional areas. The teams propose enterprise IT projects, which are reviewed by the firm’s executive committee in establishing project priorities. Around 80 percent of Southwest’s technology projects are aligned with one of the strategy teams. pp. 87-89.

I used McAfee’s Enterprise 2.0 book in my Organizational Design course this term. I think IT Savvy is the perfect next step (rubber meeting the road) for those students who continue on to my Managing Technology & Innovation course. My highest praise: IT Savvy was the first professional book to make it to my B&N Nook.

Tweet This Post

Not all TOP Management stories start with a success. Technology projects can develop a life of their own, sometimes to the detriment of what is best for the organization and the individual teams involved. Brett Colbert, now VP of Enterprise Architecture at McAfee, gave me a great example from his early management career at Cisco. This is a story of how it is much more difficult to kill a project than to make the adoption decision — but when the killing is done well it can demonstrate an example of TOP Management by all involved. This is a story of how people and organization/management are tied to the heart of technology development, death, and resurrection — A Phoenix Project

Brett’s story:

A mentor suggested that Brett take on a new assignment: eContact. The project would give him a bigger role and broad visibility given the diversity of sub-teams involved.

I started doing some analysis and saw that pretty much every category related to general project management was broken or in the red: Quality component that’s being managed – No; Code being saved with source control – No; Right level of exec buy-in or change management – No. After about 2 months I went back to Andy [the mentor and overall manager] and said, “Each individual problem is solvable, but altogether it’s not. It’s a death march and we’re way off course.” Andy replied, “I was afraid you were going to say that, I agree with you. A rare occurrence, but we have to stop.”

They were 20 Million USD into this project at the time.

If you were talk to each person individually they’d say yes, kill it. But when you brought people together there was this strong desire to meet the culture of stretch goals that’s embedded at Cisco. People could not resist but to say, “We can fix anything! We can do anything!”

Even the most rational people, when you tried to put the breaks on things, pushed back — even though deep down they knew it wasn’t fixable. It was a big epiphany for me in terms of the desire for people to be able to prove or stay on course with these incredible stretch goals. They lose the ability to judge what’s reasonable, what’s impossible, what’s stretch [doable, but challenging].

Generally when management scholars talk about “escalation of commitment” it’s to say that tons of good money was thrown after bad (think Denver Airport baggage handling system). Not so in this case, though it wasn’t easy:

It took eight weeks to put the breaks on it… with a lot of analysis. Went back through the criteria that make a good project. This is where it got politically challenging. You want to be honest of how bad things are but you don’t want to focus on the people. The people are trying their hardest. You don’t want them to feel bad. We built a lot of collateral around why we were red in so many places. We’d over stretched as a company, group, team.

What was more important than finding a scapegoat was doing a reset. Tried to separate the people from the failure…. They were busting their butts, giving up holidays. Generally the team was doing what it was being asked.

Next came a request to present at the World-Wide IT Managers’ Conference. Brett’s boss said, “This is such an awesome example of success.” Brett replied, “I just killed a 20 million dollar project….” Boss, “Get up in front of 500 IT managers and tell the story of how you killed this thing.” Brett gave presentation and says his friends still laugh about it. Remember, this is at the beginning of Brett’s career. The amount of support from management was critical. They said, “you never learn when things are going great.” Smart management.

Ironically, a year later, after rebuilding their reputation, the same team went after the same problems — structured it right from the beginning. Focused on all of the lessons learned: starting off with change management, managing scope, exec support. Hugely successful. They will harken back that those were some of the greatest days: On time delivery, camaraderie, hitting stretch goals.

I asked Brett, “Given that most escalation of commitment stories end badly, what would you say made this one different?” His answer was the aforementioned management support and the follow-on:

Ultimately jumping back into the same problem and solving it: Having the right people, right roles, right player position…. You may want so badly to solve problem X, team may want to take it on, the business is there — but if you don’t have the right people stop until you do…. If you don’t have an org change management plan, it really isn’t the individual contributor’s problem. If you haven’t managed scope, it really isn’t the individual contributor’s problem.

I opened by saying that this was an example of TOP Management by all involved. It was a technology project with all the risks of technology projects everywhere: scope creep, complexity, etc. What made it TOP Management was the clear understanding that the problems weren’t about the technology. The problems were about the goals (organizational issues) and extreme motivation and commitment (peoples’ responses to the goals). Killing the project required being about to see all three aspects (technology, organization, and people) at once — seeing that there was no hope given the three aspects as they stood — and making a tough choice. Resurrecting the project was also TOP Management. The basic technology goal was still sound. Managing the organization and people issues with the lessons learned from the first go-round tied the process together.

More on Escalation of Commitment:

• Barry Staw: Knee Deep in the Big Muddy (pdf)
• Mark Keil & colleagues: Why Software Projects Escalate (pdf)

I’m always looking for examples of success or failure that demonstrate the tight ties between technology, organization, and people.  Contact me directly or post a comment below — I’d love to hear your story.

Tweet This Post