All Posts in Organizational Design

|In: Career Management|Last Updated:

The world of business punditry is abuzz with JPMorgan Chase’s $2 billion loss. As it should be, I guess. Learning from the mistakes of others surely beats learning from our own.

On the other hand, there are many more ways to do things wrong than there are to do them right, and besides, for most of the business world the whole matter is about tribes who aren’t us—what “they” (JPMC’s) management) did wrong, and how “they” (our own management) should do things differently.

Ideas we can use ourselves are nowhere near as enjoyable. Valuable, yes, but enjoyable? No. And so, with some misgivings, I’ll forego the opportunity to critique yet one more blunder from yet one more group of grossly overpaid blunderers.

Instead, I’m going to tell you about a restaurant and some lessons it provides for you and your teams.

The restaurant is Travail. It’s a physically unprepossessing little place located in downtown Robbinsdale, Minnesota, an unprepossessing little Minneapolis/St. Paul suburb.

That’s as far as its unprepossessingness goes, though. It’s one of the rare eateries that makes a two-hour wait for a table a fine investment of your time.

Here’s the story:

The founders/owners/staff are thirteen or so talented chefs. The decor is early brick, with tables. The menu goes on two large chalkboards. The waiting list goes on a third. There’s a bar. The kitchen is visible, inside and through the front window.

What isn’t visible is the floor, because the place is packed. We arrived minutes after it opened, but the diners who had waited outside for the last hour filled all of the tables with crowd to spare.

Our group of four was fifth in line. “How long is the wait?” “Maybe 90 minutes.” We got drinks and chatted, not sure our patience was up to the task, but willing to find out.

When we finally sat, we ordered the Tastings — ten courses, none large. “What are they?” “Don’t worry about it.”

Served over a span of two hours, they were unique, without being either pretentious or contrived. Also, they were delicious.

Except, perhaps for the beets. I don’t eat beets, so I can’t say.

Travail is a wildly successful business in an industry known for its high rate of failure. So the factors driving their success might provide guidance for the rest of us:

  • Excellence comes first. Remember the six optimization parameters? Excellence … uniqueness, tailoring, customization, with no standardization … is what makes Travail’s food worth every minute of the wait. Quality (absence of defects: salmonella would be an example) matters too. The other four optimization parameters are whatever they are. Clearly, neither cycle time nor throughput matter, and the menu is priced so that fixed and incremental costs don’t matter either.
  • Every chef is a superb chef. Travail makes no compromises on staffing. It doesn’t try to substitute process for ability. It lives and dies on talent.
  • And, they work as a team. There’s no false dichotomy about talent and teamwork. They’re independent variables, and they’re both present in abundance.
  • Every chef takes turns as chef, sous chef, bartender, dishwasher … and server. Cheerfully — they enjoy talking with diners, explaining each dish and answering questions. Now pay attention: In their own way, chefs are geeks just as much as programmers and sysadmins, and yet there were no communications barriers, other than the ambient noise, just infectious enthusiasm about the subject.
  • The work doesn’t have to be fun, but it is fun. People can fake a lot of things, but they can’t fake that. When you’re preparing ten dishes per patron, plus the desserts (the dessert Tastings had four more dishes), with a room full of waiting patrons, the pressure is constant. Or could be. Instead, everyone working there wanted to be there.

Which leads to the final take-home lesson — the virtuous cycle that connects a sense of ownership to outstanding outcomes, and outstanding outcomes to a sense of ownership. At Travail, creating that sense of ownership is, admittedly, easier — everyone is, after all, an owner. But their legal ownership isn’t what makes everything work. It’s the attitude of ownership that drives them to achieve great results — not just the food itself, but the experience that surrounds it, which together were worth every penny.

Between the two-hour wait and the two-hour meal, that experience took four hours. It was worth every minute, too.

Comments

|In: Industry Commentary|Last Updated:

Evidence is a scary thing. Faced with it, most of us have an uncanny ability to explain it away if it doesn’t fit into our preferred view of How Things Work.

Here in KJR, and in my other weekly blog, InfoWorld’s “Advice Line,” I’ve been writing for years about the difference between processes and practices and the increasing importance of the latter. My arguments relied more on logic than on evidence, though, and so, last year, we conducted a survey to try to remedy this. It’s time to look at the results.

Respondents provided their company’s two most important core business functions and supporting business functions. For each they ranked fixed cost, incremental cost, cycle time, throughput, quality, and excellence in order of importance.

63 participants provided usable responses, although some described fewer than four functions. Aggregating the two core functions and two supporting functions, we ended up with data about 123 core functions and 106 supporting functions.

To classify each function as process or practice: If incremental cost was on the list, it scored one for process; likewise if quality was on the list. Excellence and fixed cost each scored a point for categorizing the function as a practice.

Netting the process score against the practice store, functions that scored +2 counted as pure processes, +1 as processes, 0 as hybrids, -1 as practices, and -2 as pure practices.

Some respondents combined multiple functions into single responses, presumably to provide a more complete look at their companies. For example, a respondent working in the extraction sector listed exploration and production as a single function, when they really are separate functions with separate characteristics.

I decided to include these entries, so the results pertain as much to the aggregate of a company’s business functions as to individual functions.

To the results:

As Figure 1 and Figure 2 show, among core business functions, processes outnumber practices (32% vs 20%), while among supporting functions they’re almost perfectly split (26% vs 25%). In both cases, about half the functions have both process and practice characteristics (they’re hybrids).

 

Company size matters. As Figures 3 and 4 show, the core functions of companies with 250 or fewer employees are far more practice-like than the overall average (33% qualify as practices compared to 20% for the population as a whole, n=43), while their supporting functions are little different from the population as a whole (n=35).

 

Meanwhile, as Figures 5 and 6 show, the core functions of the largest companies are, as you might expect, far more heavily weighted toward the process end of the spectrum (38% are processes while only 17% are practices, n=58). More surprisingly, their supporting functions remain evenly split — size does not appear to affect supporting functions as much as it does core functions (n=49).

How to interpret these results?

  • Practices matter: I don’t owe you a retraction — phew!. Clearly, a lot of the work that takes place in 21st century businesses is properly characterized as practice … just about as much as qualifies as process, in fact.
  • Size matters too: Unsurprisingly, bigger businesses organize more of their work into processes than smaller ones do. It’s unsurprising because the usual competitive advantage size confers is economy of scale — what process has to offer — while smaller companies generally compete on flexibility and agility, which come from employing practices instead.
  • Beware the false dichotomy: Process and practice aren’t categorical alternatives. They’re the endpoints of a range of possibilities, and for a given business function it’s entirely reasonable … and often desirable … to get work done in ways that have both process-like and practice-like characteristics.

Here’s what matters most in all this. As is the case in two other big areas where business and IT intersect, theory has ignored half the universe or more.

The first is data management, where we have well-developed methodologies for dealing with structured data, and no methodology at all for dealing with unstructured data.

The second is applications management, where we have well-developed methodologies for designing business systems but none at all for integrating commercial off-the-shelf software.

The third is how work gets done. Starting with Deming’s statistical process control and continuing through the current “big three” business design methodologies (Lean, Six Sigma, and Theory of Constraints), we have a lot of knowledge about how to organize business processes. But business practices, which according to the evidence we finally  have, constitute roughly half the work? It appears we have some methodologizing to do.

Sounds like a perfect project for some budding business PhD candidate.

                                                                                      

Thanks to all who participated in the survey.

– Bob

Comments