Designers Forum

Tools You Can Use

By Pat Keith

Whether in an external or internal consulting role, the participation of the client in all phases of the improvement process are paramount to success. I have yet to hear of a turn-key project that, without the client, would change the organizational structure, culture and direction. Providing only analysis and advice to a client meets some client needs but still falls woefully short of achieving the dynamic changes we expect. The question, then, is how do we involve the client in the discovery and analysis Process such that we build internal capacity and commitment for change?

In both my private practice and m a manager for the Texas State Auditor's Office, I have found a number of tools that help lead clients into building internal capabilities and gain greater buy-in for solutions. Most of the tools are simple, often computer based, but always flexible in use. Some come from the quality field and find a valuable but different use in organizational design applications. Others are specifically designed for organization design analysis. This article is a first in a series dedicated to exploring different uses for tools that will help us, as practitioners of organizational design, help our clients achieve their own expectations.

For a period of time, I have "beta-tested" several versions of ORGCON (Organizational Consultant), a computer based decision support tool from ECOMERC. I emphasize the decision support aspect because it cannot ever compensate for those subtle cultural aspects that may heavily influence organization structure demands.

ORGCON is designed to provide decision support for evaluating organizational design in the role of attaining organizational goals. The model, developed in the software's accompanying text, attempts to demonstrate the relationships between culture, climate, structural design, and performance. The authors use a multiple contingency approach to further refine these relationships and their effects.

The contingency factors for organizational structure include Strategy, Size and Ownership, Technology, Environment, and Management preferences. Questions related to these contingency factors arc grouped in the following input modules:

• Organizational Configuration
• Formalization
• Centralization size
• Organization Age/Ownership
• Product
• Diversity
• Technology
• Environment
• Management Profile
• Strategic Factors
• Climate Factors

Also provided are properties and structural configurations derived from consistent "if-then" rules. "If the organization is large, then decentralization should be high" is one example of the approximately 350+ rules in the knowledge base.

Comparisons between the various input modules identify appropriate structures and organizational structure misfits between basic elements. For example, the factors of medium trust, low conflict, medium-to-high morale and low change resistance all indicate a developmental climate. However, routine technology, a defender strategy, and a management preference for high micro-involvement indicate otherwise and are therefore labeled misfits.

While I could have acquired the basic input information from the client via surveys and interviews, I chose to allow the client, in a group setting, to decide on what the input should be. Now Windows-based, the software is easy enough to us and, with basic projection equipment, was easily displayed for the group discussions.

The software is well structured so that you can inform the client as to the time commitment required the discussion topics. It is important that the client organization be represented at all levels of the "hierarchy".

Here's how it worked for one client group: As the meeting opened and introductions completed, I reviewed the purpose of the meeting and set group expectations. And so we started, question by question.

Questions ORGON asks a group of organization designers we grouped in the topical input modules and presented in a multiple choice format. Examples of the types of questions are:

• What is the organization's current configuration?
• How much direct involvement does management have in gathering the information they use in making decisions?
• To what extent are supervisors and middle managers free from rules, procedures, and policies when they make decisions?
• Top management may prefer to make most of life decisions themselves, or, they may prefer to delegate numerous decisions to other managers. What kind of decisions does the top management prefer to make?

Group members have different understandings of each question. Using the help function on the keyboard, we found good definitions that aided in placing boundaries on the questions and opened up the discussion. By the third question, I was on the sidelines, facilitating the process and the group had taken over... bantering back and forth over questions of complexity, purpose, environment, etc. I suddenly realized that I had given dim a new (to them) way of talking about their organization, its purpose, and their functions within.

Each question also requires an entry of a "confidence" percentage of 0 to 100 percent. That means: While the default is 100 percent, our group quickly caught on to using it as a bartering mechanism to gain consensus. "I'll go with your answer if we set the confidence limit to 50 or 60 percent" became common after the first set of questions. This helped the group to tailor their answers, gain consensus and thereby move past what would otherwise be a stalemate, position.

Soon, the group members were generally oblivious to me, only turning to ask specific questions or opinions and then win back to their own discussion. Managers tended to be less directive, allowing subordinates to get more involved. In post event interviews, members stated that they had become focused on the software and questions. As a result, they rallied in an effort to be as accurate as possible, ignoring, for the moment, the normal daily pecking order.

What I found particularly interesting is the effect of the software on the quality of group discussion, understanding and decision-making. The structure of the software provided a non-threatening environment within which members could discuss their own organization more easily and objectively than they could in the past. While originally designed for the expert in organization design, the tool became a facilitation tool that brought the organization together to explore alternatives and make decisions. When I presented the output of the analysis (simplified for the client) to the members in a follow-up meeting, the general consensus was "of course" and "we knew that". Change buy-in was. newly immediate and the decisions made in subsequent meeting were quickly implemented.

A fluke? I don't drink so. After nearly 26 sessions with both public and private groups, I found similar outcomes. Even my own organization came to the realization that we were not as product innovative or matrix aligned as we thought and that, at least, opened up the opportunity for change. The software is adaptable for both large and small organizations and the output, with the understanding of the organizational design professional, will be meaningful and useful for the client

Want to try it out yourself? EcoMerc has a trial version that can be downloaded for evaluation. The latest version (v. 7. 1) is much improved over the older DOS version. I'm told that a newer version is in the works that will include charting capability. Information about the company and the software can be found at www. [insert address here]. Fully functioning, the trial version limits the number of uses before becoming disabled. Whether you use the software or not in your own practice, the concept of bringing key client member together to self-discover seems valuable in regards to the outcomes.

In the next newsletter, I'll cover FMEA (pronounced fema) - Failure Mode Effect Analysis and describe how it can be used to lead the client to the significant issues that need to be addressed.

If you want more information on the software, or have specific questions or comments, contact me at cpk@sao.state.tx.us or call me at (512) 479-3064.

Pat Keith

As of January 1, 1999, AMOD will be changing its office location to the following address.

AMOD

PO Box 151011

Columbus, OH 43215-8011

AMOD2K@aol.com

Robin Kingma will be managing the AMOD office. Please direct all mail, inquiries & comments to her.

Phone 614-470-2721

New AMOD Office Management/Address

Summary

Employing the Client

The Contingency Theory

Organizational Consultant Software

Using Organizational Design Tools to Facilitate Group Decisions

Published by the Association for the Management of Organization Design

Vol. 8, No. 6 November/December 1998