Posts
Ever seen companies pour human capital at a problem in order to solve it?
Its almost like there is a direct relationship between the size of the problem and the number of people involved. And therein lies the problem of efficient problem solving.
I liken this type of resource allocation to whacking a piñata. Lots of action with limited return. After all, the goods in the piñata are predetermined and will not increase, despite having more people taking a swing at it.
To illustrate the point - a friend of mine is in charge of a new initiative with a large company, and as is often the case at large companies, everything is a mad dash to the finish, with limited budgets and constrained time lines.
Having started out the project with limited resources, my friend is now faced with the need of allocating tasks to a very large and very diverse number of people and departments in order to successfully complete the project. Unfortunately, only a few of the people involved report directly to my friend.
Because of the initiative's high visibility, there is no lack of people who want to work on the project because of the great internal visibility involvement brings. However, because so few of the people involved report directly to my friend, holding them accountable is difficult. Furthermore, because there are always other large initiatives in the works at this company, people come and go, resulting in an ever increasing amount of incomplete work piled up at my friend's doorstep.
Needless to say, this approach to resource allocation, where the resources are not held ultimately accountable for their output is good neither for the project in the short term, nor the company in the longer term.
Perhaps a more successful approach is to have smaller, dedicated teams with larger cross-functional talent bases performing the tasks at hand. Not only does such an approach improve the lines of communication, but it also removes from the equation those merely present to enjoy a moment in the spotlight. Using smaller groups of talent also ensures that responsibility to accomplish the task remains undiluted and easily identifiable.
Business is much like piñata whacking. What is important is not necessarily how many swings you take, but how well you execute on the first swing.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Peter:
ReplyDeleteThere are instances where a broad cross-functional team is not only not bad, but essential--especially if the functions engaged in the planning will also be held accountable for the execution and, more significantly, the ongoing management of the initiative. Possibly the best example is a due diligence team comprised of the many functional "leads" of the departments that will, literally, own the acquired business post-deal. As far as managing them, assuming you've picked the right responsible people, they will/should understand that teamwork and pro-active participation is in everyone's best interest. Very important: In any cross functional project, a communications "champion" and publicist needs to be certain significant information and updates (e.g., meeting notes and timelines) are accurately documented and available to all on a timely basis. Without that "C" link, any group project gets fuzzy fast.