Eradication

Where we might disagree (but not sure yet) is project work consumes organizational capability.

This term “organizational capability” is simply too ambiguous for me to know what to do with. Could I print out “Organizational Capability?” Could I google an example and find a visual of what this is?

My best guess to respond to this (and I might be off-track and misinterpreting) is that project work consumes Current State and spits out Future State.

“Organizational capabilities” … you might mean “Current State Operations.” If so, this quickly gets more tangible for me.

My point of view is that the culture, actions, and habits of the project team shape the culture (and generations of Future State) of Operations.

Again, I’ll pause for reaction and mutual understanding.

You propose that fragmented authority is an Org Design issue. I might agree with that, but again, Org Design feels like a big umbrella. Too squishy and ambiguous for me to know for sure.

But one plain, even if tentative, disagreement we have is that I do see fragmented authority as a project framework issue.

I grasp your question, “Which organizational structures create fragmented authority?” Although, even then we might need to double-click on the term fragmented authority to reduce ambiguity. 😊

The fragment I see is the combination of an Org Chart and RACI.

An org chart (hierarchy) formalizes authority without accountability. Lucky folks.

A RACI formalizes accountability without authority. Unlucky folks.

That decoupling sets teams and individuals up for failure.

Does RACI propagate fragmented authority?

Does RACI simply expose it?

I lean toward “propagate,” but I don’t feel strongly on this point.

Nodding to much of what you shared, Aaron.

When you’re good with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I’m Exhibit A of being guilty of this. I have a strong background in the performing arts, and I see immense value in imitating the culture traits of the performing arts.

In operations work AND in innovation work.

The performing arts give us culture traits such as synchronization, low latency, simplicity, and clarity. But the list of culture traits to adopt in project work … that list … not an exaggeration … it’s 100 long.

Another benefit of the performing arts is that the culture traits are not squishy. They are pointy. The culture traits are explicit without being rigid.

Squishiness discourages overt disagreement, but tolerates covert disagreement. Inauthentic stakeholders stay on the bus – not good.

Pointiness encourages overt disagreement, but does not tolerate covert disagreement. Inauthentic stakeholders get off the bus – good! 😊

One project management thought leader, Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez, shares a quote, “Project are our future. When our projects succeed, our future succeeds. When our projects fail, our future fails.” I subscribe to this.

I don’t focus on Operations because I don’t believe that the world’s most important disagreements and dysfunction reside there. The world’s most important disagreements and dysfunction reside in Innovation; i.e., how or why we would change.

Improving Operations depends on the trustworthiness of Innovation.

I don’t believe innovation trustworthiness depends on Current Operations.

We must fix innovation trustworthiness (project methodology) to stop incurring “Innovation Debt.” We have high “Methodology Debt.”

We are trying to fix 21st century problems with 20th century methodologies that carry around baggage from the mid and late 1990s, even earlier.

Another possible lens is that you see “Innovation Debt.” I see “Methodology Debt.”

If we stay buried in Methodology Debt, it’s very difficult to pay back Innovation Debt.

• Systems thinking helps explain why organizational patterns emerge.
• Organizational architecture preserves, distributes, and coordinates the conditions under which those patterns are likely to emerge.
• Frameworks provide structured ways of organizing recurring patterns of work or decision-making.
• Methodologies describe how those patterns are executed in practice.

• Access to relevant information and organizational context;
• Legitimate decision authority;
• Clearly defined accountability;
• Appropriate knowledge and capability;
• Sufficient resources and time;
• Governance mechanisms;
• Aligned incentives;
• Clear interfaces between functions;
• Effective escalation paths;
• Timely feedback from outcomes.

• Business cases;
• Project charters;
• Requirements;
• Solution designs;
• Schedules;
• Estimates;
• Risk responses;
• Change requests;
• Procurement documents;
• Contracts;
• Policies;
• Reports;
• Decision papers;
• Acceptance documentation;
• Lessons learned.

• Draft creates the initial version of the artefact or decision under development.
• Review evaluates it against evidence, expertise, requirements, constraints, risks, and stakeholder perspectives.
• Revise incorporates what has been learned through the review.
• Approve provides the legitimate authorization required for action.
• Distribute communicates the authorized outcome to those who must use, implement, govern, or be informed by it.

• Who has the legitimate authority to draft;
• Whose expertise should participate in the review;
• What evidence justifies revision;
• Who is authorized to approve;
• How disagreements are resolved;
• When escalation becomes necessary;
• What accountability remains after approval;
• How responsibilities are distributed following communication.