inicio mail me! sindicaci;ón

Organizing for Tough Times - Getting More for Less

by Rob Paterson

All of us who have worked in conventional organizations know what “More for less” means when our CEO tells us that that is our goal. It means big layoffs. It means those that remain will have more work to do. It means that the competition for scarce resources inside the enterprise will become even more deadly.

This was the fate of Easter Islanders. As resources became ever more scarce, civil wars became pandemic. As resources became more scarce, the more they were squandered on grandiose projects to propitiate the Gods. Until all the wood was used for making and moving statues - so that there was none left to make boats and hence be able to fish.

That is where many organizations are going today as the economy tightens. It is where nations are going too.

Divisions fight each other inside organizations. People fight each other inside of departments. Institutions spend what they have on projects that look good but don’t help. The need for control at all costs goes up. The real work doesn’t get done. The future is jeopardized.

Is there a better way of getting more for less? Yes there is and it is more than a model. It is out there and it works.

Of course being revolutionary, few saw it for what it was and almost no one except a handful have copied it in spite of it being so successful.

You use it every day and never think about it.

More than 30 years ago, the new credit card industry was in chaos and a man called Dee Hock was asked by the Chairman of Bank of America to make work.

His huge idea was the Chaord. A system connected by a set of DNA or Principles rather than directed from the centre. A system with a small group in the centre who job was to work on behalf of all members to grow the value of the larger system. Bach who used the Chaord in his music described this process as:

“Not the autocracy of a single stubborn melody on the one hand.  Nor the anarchy of unchecked noise on the other. No, a delicate balance between the two; an enlightened freedom.”

For the big problem was that each bank wanted to have  global card system of its own - the control thing. What Hock could see that was that there was not enough money in the world to do that. But if all banks could become members of a system - the system could act as the connector. In this way the network effect could help all. Point of sale terminals added by one bank would serve all. ATM’s added by one bank could serve all.

He could also see that such a system need not impinge on the unique identity of each member. They could keep their own brand and their own IT systems. All they had to do was to meet a small number of performance standards and use a co brand in common.

The staff at Visa International, until the IPO, worked for a non profit! Their role was the support the interests of all the members.

So in practice, each member got more for less and all the actions of each members added resources to the whole.

Dee Hock’s great dream was that this well proven model would become the norm for all organizations. His tragedy is that it remains largely unknown, not understood and not adopted.

Until recently. On PEI we have been deliberately using this idea to build a new Bio Science capability. Like the banks starting Visa, there were many competing groups, labs, companies etc that all saw the other as the competitor. All were small and could not get to critical mass on their own.

In the last 10 years we have found a way to use the Visa model and the results are in.

In my next post I would like to tell you what happened so that you can see how you too might use this model.

Here is a pdf that will tell you Dee Hock’s story in his own words. The forgotten gospel!

dee-hock-the-chaordic-organization

Share and Enjoy:
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt


6 Comments »

Paul L’AcostaNovember 3rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Rob,
After reading this post my mind has become numbed to a point of no return! Thank you so much for this great link to “the forgotten gospel” as it has instantly become the magnifying glass through which I’ll be looking at everything that surrounds me from now on.

Two things: It was kind of surprising to see the year it was wrote and I wonder if Hock foresaw what we’re going through, economy-wise, now in 2008? Was the lack of a system the catalyst that created this chaos?

Also, and I’m looking at it from a marketing perspective, do you think there’s a system being brewed as we speak to deal with this labyrinth we very humbly call “social media”?

Thanks!

Rob PatersonNovember 5th, 2008 at 10:03 am

Paul
I think he did see ahead - he could see that it is the way that we organize that is the flaw - we traditionally organize for self interest. So the investment adviser purports to advise you - BUT he really needs to sell you a defined product. The University purports to educate you but really is selling bums on seats.

In the traditional model the institution mediates and captures the value by getting between you and what you need.

In the Hock model all sit at the same table. The organization owns the table it is not a toll bridge.

Is this not like Martin Luther? The church had placed itself between people and God. Luther made the mad idea that each of us could talk to God ourselves. The social media of his time - the press - enabled him to make available a bible in German that all could read - so all could make up their own mind. The Press also allowed the message to get out around the church.

The early Protestant church was a Hock “table” - a congregation came together to offer support to each other not to receive direction from a priest - all could work as a community.

Was this not the founding idea of America itself?

Paula ThorntonNovember 5th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Too bad the FED isn’t organized around this model. :)

Paula ThorntonNovember 5th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

One major problem with the Chaord theory — it already had a title. It’s called “complexity”. It’s always been the middle between the two — well at least after the complexity boys brought it all about via Sante Fe.

Rob PatersonNovember 7th, 2008 at 8:56 am

Of course Paula - why I think it is needed now is that after the advent of the web in 1985 or so - our world has become so interconnected that we have phase shifted into a new realm of complexity.

Only systems that can cope with complexity have any chance of working

Why determinism has to fail and worse make situations worse

Paula ThorntonNovember 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am

Now that I’ve had moment to pause, reflect and compare this to current work, I’m seeing my focus clearly call out these distinctions in products. Clearly there are MANY perceived 2.0 products (blogs, wikis) that have not been designed in their ‘use’ from a 2.0 perspective — that is, they’re not “Architecture 2.0″ (I guess that should be my next post). They’re only paying lip service to the ‘whole’ of 2.0 because they’re still ‘fixed’ in their process and UI.

Complexity is always the litmus test for 2.0.

» Subscribe to the RSS feed for these comments

Your comment

Want an image to appear near your comment? Go to gravatar.com

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>