What is the best approach? is the better way to start top-down or bottom-up? Seems that the most important is to involve the entire organization because everybody is responsible to push the organization to the next step. Think about OKR, BSC, Hoshin Kanri, WCM...Drucker, Ford, Taylor, Shewhart, Kotter, Deming....maybe the ideas from this great thinker will amplify your concept about improvement. Saving Changes...
Key indicators usually start from the top-down. At the lower levels, whatever the things are being evaluated are often the responsibilities of many different stakeholders. There is a tendency to sub-optimize among teams rather than look at the complete picture. What could be a cost savings for one team, can drastically increase the cost for another so who cares if one sub-team looks great on paper if the project level impact is bad? Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
First thing is to define what excellence mens for the organization. With that on hand there are standard models that can be followed for each type of domain where the organization is working on. Following a domain that not mean to get a certificate. Regarding top-down of bottom-up is a debate that in my personal opinion has no sense. Organizations are systems and this type of decisions are strategic. The tactic to implement it could vary.
...
1 reply by Keith Novak
Nov 04, 2019 10:32 AM
Keith Novak
...
Sergio,
By saying that the decisions are strategic, doesn't that itself indicate a top down approach?
When you consider both agile anarchy as philosophies, both include self forming groups that work together for some purpose. The difference is that with agile, the teams' purpose should be aligned with the strategies of the organization, while with anarchy there is no organization and thus no larger common purpose aligning the groups.
Dear Jarlei
Interesting your question
Thanks for sharing
Do You Know the EFQM Excellence Model?
What about ISO9004: 2018?
Yes, but is about quality management, just to Europe, no? Excellent.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Nov 04, 2019 6:45 AM
Luis Branco
...
Dear jarlei What prevents companies from using this system to strive for excellence?
Some years ago (1982) Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman wrote "In Search of Excellence" which was published in Brazil under the title: "Vencendo a Crise". I think the proposal remains current today
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Nov 04, 2019 6:26 AM
Replying to Jarlei Nascimento Goncalves
...
Yes, but is about quality management, just to Europe, no? Excellent.
Dear jarlei What prevents companies from using this system to strive for excellence?
Some years ago (1982) Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman wrote "In Search of Excellence" which was published in Brazil under the title: "Vencendo a Crise". I think the proposal remains current today
...
1 reply by Jarlei Nascimento Goncalves
Nov 04, 2019 7:00 AM
Jarlei Nascimento Goncalves
...
I agree....but with the term "agile", seems that just calling the things agile will define a new way...I understand that we need to back to the older ideas and pick up the better for the actual days.
Dear jarlei What prevents companies from using this system to strive for excellence?
Some years ago (1982) Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman wrote "In Search of Excellence" which was published in Brazil under the title: "Vencendo a Crise". I think the proposal remains current today
I agree....but with the term "agile", seems that just calling the things agile will define a new way...I understand that we need to back to the older ideas and pick up the better for the actual days.
...
1 reply by Kiron Bondale
Nov 04, 2019 7:34 AM
Kiron Bondale
...
True agility is based on empiricism and the use of valuable (and not vanity) metrics. Agilists also take a whole system level view rather than trying to optimize at the silo or individual level.
Properly implemented, the OKR approach would align well with agile thinking and is a good method of creating true alignment around an agile transformation.
I agree....but with the term "agile", seems that just calling the things agile will define a new way...I understand that we need to back to the older ideas and pick up the better for the actual days.
True agility is based on empiricism and the use of valuable (and not vanity) metrics. Agilists also take a whole system level view rather than trying to optimize at the silo or individual level.
Properly implemented, the OKR approach would align well with agile thinking and is a good method of creating true alignment around an agile transformation.
First thing is to define what excellence mens for the organization. With that on hand there are standard models that can be followed for each type of domain where the organization is working on. Following a domain that not mean to get a certificate. Regarding top-down of bottom-up is a debate that in my personal opinion has no sense. Organizations are systems and this type of decisions are strategic. The tactic to implement it could vary.
Sergio,
By saying that the decisions are strategic, doesn't that itself indicate a top down approach?
When you consider both agile anarchy as philosophies, both include self forming groups that work together for some purpose. The difference is that with agile, the teams' purpose should be aligned with the strategies of the organization, while with anarchy there is no organization and thus no larger common purpose aligning the groups.
...
1 reply by Sergio Luis Conte
Nov 04, 2019 12:13 PM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
Sorry @Keith but Agile is not about the teams decide. Agile is an strategic decision like Lean or other approach you use. Think that Agile is about tactic is the first step to fail. Why? Because Agile as others approches was born as an strategic decision. Strategic does not mean top down. Strategic mean both directions.Is not because I am saying that. Is because the definition of things like Agile, Lean and others things organizations needs demmands to adopt.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Nov 04, 2019 10:32 AM
Replying to Keith Novak
...
Sergio,
By saying that the decisions are strategic, doesn't that itself indicate a top down approach?
When you consider both agile anarchy as philosophies, both include self forming groups that work together for some purpose. The difference is that with agile, the teams' purpose should be aligned with the strategies of the organization, while with anarchy there is no organization and thus no larger common purpose aligning the groups.
Sorry @Keith but Agile is not about the teams decide. Agile is an strategic decision like Lean or other approach you use. Think that Agile is about tactic is the first step to fail. Why? Because Agile as others approches was born as an strategic decision. Strategic does not mean top down. Strategic mean both directions.Is not because I am saying that. Is because the definition of things like Agile, Lean and others things organizations needs demmands to adopt. Saving Changes...
Sergio, You're saying the same thing as I am but a little differently. Strategy is the overarching layer that drives tactics. Tactics drive execution.
If tactics don't follow strategy, then they tend to be incoherent and conflicting. When I refer to top-down, it implies that first we first identify the qualities of a good solution, then we look at how the constituent pieces and approaches best support that purpose.
While the tactics and execution need to support the strategy from the bottom up, the strategy itself defines the overarching solution plan that dictates the tactics used. It is the difference between assembling a team that is highly skilled in solving the specific type of problem at hand, and assembling a team of highly skilled people but with skills that in no way relate to the given problem.
...
1 reply by Sergio Luis Conte
Nov 04, 2019 2:00 PM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
Then, sorry for my missunderstanding on your previous comment. My best regards.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'"
