We live in a world of systems. In fact systems of systems. One of the implications is that when there is a blockage, or a rate limiting step, it may not be clear how to fix it, how to find the levers that give you most benefit. It's often the case that the first roadblock you see (often called "the presenting problem") may not be the rate-limiting one. In the old days of felled logs being sent down rivers there were experts who could determine which log to remove to get rid of the log jam. An inexperienced operator could remove log after log and yet the jam would persist because another jam was right behind the first one.
Here's another example: when I started in computing as a young chap, I was responsible for the performance of an expensive government computer. After several months it maxed out its performance, and I ran diagnostics which revealed it needed more memory. That was VERY expensive in those days - but I convinced the powers that be and so we upgraded the memory.
The performance increased - but only marginally. Very disappointed, and embarrassed, I ran the diagnostics again - this time it was the swap disk that was the bottleneck. Again, we got an upgrade - and again achieved a mere 10% improvement. You see where this is going. I finally realised then that the internal computer architecture was the ACTUAL rate limiting step - it simply could not go much faster. But it was not obvious at first that this was the case, because each blockage hid another one behind it. I had discovered the actual logjam too late.
Organisations too can be like this. We live in a world of systems, a complex matrix where one cog out of sync can cause the entire machine to stutter. When we encounter a blockage, or a rate-limiting step, it's akin to peeling back layers of an onion. Each layer might bring tears to your eyes, but it's necessary to get to the heart of the problem. But unlike running a computer diagnostic, diagnosing organisational performance is not about the nuts and bolts of hardware or software, and there are no perfect diagnostic tools. So where do we start with an underperforming organisation or department?
Culture and People at the Core
Since culture is central to everything it's likely to be the core of the onion so getting a rapid read on cultural aspects is a priority.
After all, an organisation's culture can be its greatest asset or its most stubborn barrier. A culture that is resistant to change, or one that stifles voices and ideas, or fails to celebrate and promote talent on a fair basis can choke the most brilliant innovations in their cradle. Dealing with an underperforming culture requires leadership so that's the next focus area.
The skills of the people in the organisation need to be aligned to the organisational requirements and there needs to be a renewal and retention program to ensure skills are being developed and retained. Not easy in growth or turbulent times. But potential logjam areas for sure.
Leadership and Structure
Leadership must be adept and adaptable but above all trustworthy and focussed on good futures for the people and long-term organisation and customer outcomes (not merely short- term self-serving for the next bonus as we have seen in many public companies). And the
leadership structure itself must be fit for purpose and not have its own bottlenecks (such too many layers of reporting, or confusing matrix reporting lines that blunt accountability).
What About Strategy?
Having a good strategy is important for sure (although I wrote about some limitations with long- range strategic plans recently) - and in any case, I believe the old adage that "culture eats strategy for breakfast". So generally I just like to see that some form of clear strategy is present (showing that the organisation has at least done some forward thinking) without worrying about the strategy being a detailed large document.
Processes, Data, Technology
After leadership, culture and strategy, it's important to examine the processes, data and technology to consider if they are likely to be performance logjams.
To help guide this view through the layers of the organisational onion, an old framework that still works well is Leavitt's view of organisations. You can find a recent blog here as a refresher. Some challenges remain...
So the above flow is now my go-to approach for trying to get to more fundamental logjams without getting caught in a "presenting problem" technology examination or process improvement exercise before considering the likely more fundamental aspects of culture and leadership.
Of course, a common issue is that you may be engaged via a contract to only look at one aspect such as a technology replacement. So what can you do then? Yes, this happens quite a bit. A good approach is to try and ensure there is scope for flexibility in the engagement up-front (if you can). If you cannot obtain this contract flexibility, then at least being aware that you may not be dealing with the fundamental rate-limiting aspects of organisational performance if you are only looking at just the tasks, or the technology (for example). But you can at least inform your clients that you may not be able to get to root causes of performance bottlenecks if you are only engaged for a specific aspect - it's not ideal though.
How about going broader than organisations? When dealing with even larger system-wide issues at a societal level, it can be even more complex to find the right levers. One approach developed by my colleagues at Deakin University is STICKE (Systems Thinking in Community Knowledge Exchange) - it has proved a great approach to unpack systems of systems. You can learn more here. It has been used successfully to uncover levers for change to assist with overcoming childhood nutritional and food difficulties. Share your thoughts What's your approach to avoid being caught in the removing a blockage that was not actually the rate-limiting blockage? It's be great to learn of your successful approaches.
Leave a Comment