Cutting out parallel processes - the CEO’s responsibility October 11, 2007
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Outcomes systems architecture, Outcomes models, Easy Outcomes , trackback
Outcomes systems are a CEO and other managers’ way of aligning what happens in an organization with the outcomes it’s trying to achieve. It’s rather like the Captain on the bridge of a large aircraft carrier needing a well functioning communications system which flows all the way throughout the vessel. If they don’t have it, they’re not going to get the carrier to go where they want it to. The outcomes systems in many organizations are like an aircraft carrier which has a confusing mess of communications systems - all sorts of flags flying from the bridge, a telephone system, several radio systems, people shouting, small notes passed to individual sailors etc. All these have been introduced at different times, some are badly designed, some are now not functioning in the way they were originally designed to. Meanwhile, the captain is running around the bridge yelling into phones, scribbling on scraps of paper and waving flags while the carrier meanders around the ocean turning in larger and larger circles.
It’s the CEO’s responsibility to make sure that they have a lean and efficient outcomes system which tightly links outcomes all the way down to what each staff member is doing in the organization. Often they don’t pay enough attention to this issue because it’s technically complex and because up until now there’s not been a common language to describe outcomes systems. Outcomes theory potentially provides a common language for this task and in the future I hope to provide some examples on the revamped outcomes theory site (by the end of 2007) of how different outcomes systems can be analyzed using outcomes theory.
Where there are multiple confused outcomes systems within an organization, CEOs are left wondering why it is that when they turn the wheel, they don’t get the snappy response from their organization they’d like. Instead they get a sluggish response because conflicting priorities are feeding through their various outcomes systems. They need to put time and resources aside to fix this.
Staff know that there are parallel processes occurring when they are cutting, pasting and rewriting similar material into various administrative reporting documents on a regular basis. They also notice that they seem to be spending a lot of time talking about similar issues in different forums where the discussion is structured in slightly different ways. There will always be some duplication in organizational life, but the trick when it comes to outcomes systems is to minimize it as much as possible and just have one major outcomes system as the main conduit between management and staff. These problems can be sorted out by good outcomes system architecture but the problem is that many CEO’s do not devote sufficient time and resources to doing this.
I’ve sat in on executive team meetings where the discussion moves between various initiatives which are being set up, all of which seem to me to be about outcomes but which are dealt with as though they are entirely different projects. These systems go by names such as priority setting exercises, performance management systems, cost effectiveness reviews, baseline reviews, performance reviews, evaluation strategies, indicator monitoring, research and development strategies, strategic realignment, resource reallocation exercises, as well as the more obvious titles such as outcomes measurement and reporting.
The trick to seeing that these systems are similar is the outcomes theory insight that under much of what we do in organizational life there’s an implicit or explicit outcomes model. This model can be visualized; it can be in narrative form set out in large documents; it can be the subject of verbal discussions in strategy and other meetings; and it can just be in the heads of the people working on the various aspects of organization life listed above. An outcomes model sets out all of the high level outcomes you’re trying to achieve and all of the steps which you need to take to get to them. To do strategic planning you need such a model; to do a resource privatization exercise you need such a model; to do a cost effectiveness/cost benefit study you need such a model (see my posting on how outcomes models should underly all cost benefit modeling); to sensibly report on indicators you need such a model; to do an evaluation plan you need such a model; to set research and development priorities you need such a model etc.
It’s tremendously inefficient to have many subgroups within an organization all, in effect, developing somewhat different outcomes models in different formats and often not even realizing that this is what they’re doing. The underlying outcomes models they develop will determine the direction in which these various exercises will push the organization. If there’s no common way of modeling the outcomes structure which lies under all of them, then there’s no way for the CEO or other managers to make sure that these different organizational activities are aligned. They therefore end up left like the frustrated aircraft carrier Captain - stranded on the bridge with a myriad of different messages regarding what should be done flowing through the aircraft carriers various muddled communications systems.
How should CEO’s and managers deal with this? Two things I suggest in working with organizations is first that they get together a working group to look at the various outcomes related systems they have. This needs to include one or more of the highest-level managers available. Ideally, the CEO should also look in on the work of this group to give it status and so he or she can deepen their understanding of the systems operating in their organization. The group needs to include people from any level in the organization who really understand the different systems which currently exist - understanding exactly what such systems do is often not a trivial exercise. The group should first summarize all of the systems which are currently in place, get an in depth understanding of what they are intending to do and work out how they can be better integrated by using a common outcomes model to underpin them. This may also lead to some of the systems being eliminated and some combined.
At the same time another group (which should have some membership in common) should be set up to develop a single comprehensive outcomes model. This will take considerable effort to build and I will post a blog entry some time on the best way to run groups such as this which are building outcomes models. The outcomes model (call it a strategy map, ways-means diagram, results chain, whatever you like) should be built to conform to a set of guidelines which make it useful for all of the possible tasks an outcomes model can be used for. See the Easy Outcomes guidelines for this.
So, unless CEO’s and managers get on top of the issue of parallel processes they will be doomed to having organizations which respond sluggishly to their directions, are misaligned and in which a great deal of time and effort is expended on duplicate parellel processes.
Later addition 5 February 2009: I now have a paper up which described a full system Systematic Outcomes Management / Easy Outcomes which integrates a whole set of organizational functions around the use of a visual outcomes model (strategic planning, priority setting, monitoring, evaluation, evidence-based practice, economic evaluation, outcomes-focused contracting). This approach is designed to let the CEO clearly communicate strategy all the way through the organization, get alignment through a whole range of organizational functions, and leverage off the work done in under one organizational function in another (e.g. a visual outcomes model drawn during strategic planning can be used in monitoring, evaluation and outcomes-focused contracting). http://knol.google.com/k/paul-duignan-phd/the-systematic-outcomes-management-easy/2m7zd68aaz774/138
Paul Duignan (outcomesblog.org)
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?