Why Organizations Don’t Need More Strategy — They Need Structural Integrity

It has been a a good while since doing a decent editorial, and part of that has been a good bit of tension between the work I’ve been wanting to do, and the work I’ve been seeing as needed. In a sense, I see many organizations not so much as need a technologist or help with their strategy as much as I’m seeing a disconnect with the structures which are supposed to be upholding that strategy.

My most effective engagements have been with organizations who have had a strategy problem covering and integrity problem. For example, with one group, was were brought in to confirm a technical roadmap, but what was found was a disconnect between behaviors and expectations in some key processes. Using a series of data models and service blueprints, we (myself and the small team that was put together) discovered the gaps, proposed a few attainable solutions, and even added the technical landscape they could utilize across that mapping. So whether they decide to go with a new platform or not, they were empowered and engaged for success.

In that engagement, and most others, there’s a usual pattern which unveils itself: strategy illusion, structural integrity, where the integrity breaks, and then an expression of the actual need.

The strategy illusion manifests itself within a misalignment drift. Somewhere between governance, operational flows, or decision authority, there’s this impetuous towards “we have to do a thing.” Consultants are hired, software is deployed, and/or new initiatives are announced with nothing more than a “we have to get it done” blanket thrown with it. When I am engaged, one of the first things I’m asking is “as a result of this strategy, what’s the outcome that’s certain, and the known ripples to what those outcomes will effect?”

That question/conversation unveils the structural integrity that exists (or not) under those efforts. Going back to the effective engagement spoken of earlier, there was financial costs and political decision alignments at play. The person making the decision to go for this research sprint was very much matched with the responsibility of the outcomes called for. The operational systems didn’t meet their expectations for the current state, and could therefore not do so for the future state. My work had to affirm those expectations, and call out where their strategic goals might be aligned (or not) with the capacity of the team and tooling.

In the throes of doing the analyst work, the were three patterns which revealed themselves. First, there was a subversion of authority. While the system’s actors could very much tune themselves to the desired outputs, they didn’t trust the system they put in place to ensure it. Digging deeper into some of the veteran actors, it was made clear that the last system update didn’t take their tempo of work into account; and so systems were added on systems, without hard boundaries for what wasn’t allowable. In fact, holding onto one of the platforms revealed significant PII (personally identifiable information) issues.

Second, none of the information being rolled up to leadership or decision makers was happening in realtime. This team literally had a “we will print this out, sign it, then scan it back in before sending it upward” philosophy. This was also due in part of a slow performing software platform. They saw no reason to use or learn to use lighter notification services for lower bandwidth notifications. And therefore, much of the “what’s the update on…” conversations had to happen in high-bandwidth meetings, which further slowed the rate of work.

Lastly, there was little in the way of incentives for processing faster. In fact, in order for one of the actors to process their work faster, the leadership would have to move to a parallel workflow which would have exposed the slower speed of getting relevant information. Therefore, one of the tactics we used during interviewing was to ask, “what would it look like to gain back 10-15 minutes each hour on processing this part of your work?” The answers ranged from stress reductions to being able to “go to their real work.” Incentives don’t always need to be extra, sometimes, it is simply alignment.

When I go in (as Avancee) to organizations, I’m listening for these four areas (strategy illusion, structural integrity, where the integrity breaks, and then an expression of the actual need). Strategy without structural integrity is a lot like putting an bandaid on a gunshot wound. Yes, you are acknowledging the loss of blood, but there’s something deeper which will cause catastrophic damage if not addressed. This isn’t to say that strategy isn’t important. But, strategy without structural integrity is unstable.

If you are looking at the physics of your organization and can use a systems-level approach to address structural issues, get in touch and let’s discuss how you can advance forward.