From the Ask Tom mailbag –
Question:
Many times when there is an issue that affects more than one department in the company, we assign committees involving members from each department to solve them. While this seems nice from a cultural standpoint, it seems strange that we would ask people in an S-II or S-III role, to solve issues that span multiple departments, typically an S-IV function. I recently experienced this myself where I established a committee, set a clear direction (I thought), and checked in occasionally. The end result was I now had a group who had reached a consensus, but it was the wrong one! We are still able to move forward and correct it slowly, but it feels like we wasted effort. What’s the right answer to this? Be more involved? Assign another committee leader with level 4 capabilities? Provide better direction? Make a larger committee?
Response:
Quick review on general accountabilities at levels of work.
- S-I – Production
- S-II – Making sure production gets done, coordination and implementation.
- S-III – System work, designing, creating, monitoring and improving a single serial system (critical path)
- S-IV – Multi-system integration
So, your intuition is correct that, where multiple departments are involved with either output or impact, department integration is appropriate.
Your question – Be more involved? Assign someone with S-IV capability? Provide better direction?
Answer – Yes.
In any managerial role, with team members one level of work below, the manager cannot simply call the meeting and then not show up. Undirected, the team will make the decision or solve the problem at their level of context. Each level of work understands its decisions and problems from their level of context. That context is measured in timespan.
Problems or decisions involving multiple departments generally require looking at longer timespan outputs, more correctly, longer timespan throughputs. A single department is usually heads-down, internally focused on efficient output. Multiple department throughput typically looks at two things. Does the efficient output of one department provide the correct input for the next department as work moves sideways through the organization?
- Does the output of marketing (leads) provide the correct input for sales?
- Does the output of sales include all the data necessary agreements for proper project management?
- Does the output of project management provide all the accurate data necessary for operations?
- Does the output of operations provide all the necessary checkpoints for quality control?
Multiple department integration also requires a look at the output capacity of each department as they sit next to their neighbor department. Is is possible for sales to sell so many contracts that it outstrips the capacity of operations to produce? A lower timespan focus might say we just need to communicate better. A longer timespan focus (throughput) will realize that no communication solution will fix a capacity issue.
So, yes, the manager has to be more involved, include another team member at S-IV, provide better direction on the requirements of any solution. A larger committee might actually be counter-productive if it contains team members at the wrong level of the problem. I offer these same guidelines as those of a couple of days ago.
- What is the problem?
- What is the cause of the problem?
- What are the alternative solutions?
- What is the best solution?
- How will we test the solution to make sure it solves the problem?