Joan Cole wrote
>This "cross-functional site team" is tasked with finding ways
>to make several teams/groups within the division cooperate as a
>division-level team rather than competing, hiding information from each
>other, passing the buck and so on...So, from this standpoint, I'm interested
>in learning what can be done by people at the bottom of the food chain to be
>"change agents" -- or does the theory of learning organizations just address
>management?
Since this was her introduction message, welcome!
I think that you are in an enviable position of having management support
and being able to change from the bottom up. Be ready for a long process
of change because it takes a long time to have organizations change their
habits. In any bureaucracy there will be resistance to change, the larger
the change the greater the resistance.
One strategy I have found successful is to start small but in a good
payback business process. That is find a process that hampers people in
carrying out their work. Find the bottlenecks/roadblocks or whatever.
Then work with the people involved and change the process. Your goal is
to have:
1. A project in which people in different organizations work together
to solve a vexing problem.
2. A project that was a success and that can be cited - see what
happened because of the 'XYZ' project -- we can do the same here.
3. A project that is arguably within the authority of the team members
to change the processes. If the team takes the action (i.e. assumed the
responsibility), and they are successful they are sending messages to
managers. The messages are that they care about the success of the
organization and that they are capable of doing the right things better.
Here is a key point. Once the rank and file has moved a small step
and been successful in the eyes of 'management' the rank and file can push
the boundary further. The long term goal is to be boundary less and you
can accomplish that by pushing the boundary step by step to finally
include everyone. This is a long process.
Lots more discussion is possible in this area.
>I also do a bit of work with Lotus Notes, and I've read some things about
>how groupware can help in bringing about organizational change... I'm
>interested in general with what role technology can play in bringing
>people together to be more productive.
One must be very careful about technology as a change agent. An
organization can lock information in a computer system more easily than in
a file cabinet. It is also possible for technology to separate or
alienate people. From the bottom up as well as the top down I think that
the first task is to clearly define what must be accomplished and what is
the best way to accomplish it. Only after you have a good deal of detail
concerning the business process down on paper (OK in a computer program),
then look to what steps could benefit from computer system, or new piece
of machinery.
I personally think that a computer systems expert should be on every
change team, but they must be of the mindset that thinks of technology as
just another tool to assist the business process and before a technology
project is started the cost justification is strong.
In general technology is simply a tool. It should be assigned processes
that it is designed for. For instance, computer systems are a great way
to remember detailed data and they can add or subtract with great
accuracy. Human beings are able to draw inferences from one field of study
and apply them in another. Allocate tasks among technology and the human
side of the business process appropriately to the capabilities of each.
--
William J. Hobler, Jr. Bill bhobler@cpcug.org
::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::
Collaborating and learning for mutual growth.
The job is not done until we are all humbled by what
each of us accomplished together.
::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::