thinking/critical

Executives who fail to master a broad understanding of technology applications risk holding their organizations hostage to their lack of knowledge.

One topic that seems to create a lot of concern – with both customers requiring consulting and blog readers – is the topic of using systems to facilitate communication. There are three camps. Camp 1 is the group who is convinced that systems create bureaucracy, slow down the process, and undermine creativity. Camp 2 is [...]

Here’s where the confusion between chaos and order, creativity and confusion begins to cost. The entrepreneur is generally a person who dislikes any restrictions on their freedom. They don’t want a boss, they don’t want to follow rules, and they don’t want to be told what to do. Creation of systems is not their strong suit. Not only that, but they resent any system to which they are subjected. But the dynamics of communicating and planning with 3 people are significantly different than the dynamics of communicating and planning with 20 people. And the challenges expand exponentially with each doubling of the workforce. Systems, the very thing renounced by the entrepreneur, are necessary to grease the wheels of a group of people trying to work together effectively.

In my career I have encountered countless professionals who do not know how to make a computer do anything. They can make an application do something (with varying degrees of success), but that’s different than making a computer do something. So the computer has become a god, and not to its benefit.

So just where does a small business get the advantage? After all, the large corporations can employ legions of McKinsey and Mercer specialists who will show them how to flatten their hierarchies, increase lateral communication, deploy technology to effectively enable teams, and engage their employees in ever-shifting flexible organizations (can you count the buzzwords I just used in that paragraph?). Small businesses don’t have large consulting budgets. Heck, most small businesses don’t have any consulting budget.

Think of a business as a mechanical device. A car. There are a lot of components in a car, but individually they don’t matter very much. The most comfortable driver’s seat in the world probably won’t impress you if it’s in a livingroom. A well-designed engine doesn’t perform well if it’s not fed by an efficient fuel system or good fuel. If an engineer works very very hard to develop the fastest engine on earth, but doesn’t work with the engineer designing the auto body, the car could break apart at high speeds. Making extremely good parts doesn’t guarantee an extremely good whole. The strategy, organization, and control systems of a company must be integrated.

I don’t think companies can afford to continue to operate in the old hierarchical ways. Those structures will be the dinosaur bones in the dirt within this century. Flat, networked organizations are not the thing of the future – they are the organizational design of now. So companies thinking about making a transition are wise to do so. But the process needs to be approached with a deep respect for how much time and investment will be required to achieve the desired results.

Open source is not free. It’s kind of like the casinos of old. The food was practically free. It got you in the door. But the cost of the rest of the experience had a lot to do with your skills and self-control. If what you are good at is designing software AND designing business operating environments, and you are also good at new product development project management and managing software developers, then open source may be a good option. It’s still not free, but it’s definitely flexible. If your business is so unique that no other business models apply, open source may also be a good option (this, by the way, is extremely rare).