Large organization rely on the application of rules to enable business transactions to proceed. Each IS is a perfect bureaucrat follows the company rules exactly and allows no exception. I believe some level of bureaucracy is necessary and healthy. How do we adopt flexibility in a perfect bureaucrat IT company? Has anyone come across this type of situation?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations derfloh on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Bureaucracy in IT 6
- Thread starter yuni
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #21
The problem with companies today is that they do not want o rethink about how their business work, they only focus on their business objectives and goals. Although, in order to achieve their goals, companies need to look at the things that could assist them to achieve their goals. People in the workplace are so focus, that they do not look beyond the square or see the bigger picture.
CitrixEngineer
Technical User
I think that companies should allow themselves to be a little more customer-driven.
What I mean by this is that clear procedures should exist, which involve the customer at key points in the lifecycle of a project;
Take an IT project, as an example.
The whole point here is to deliver an IT solution to a group of users (customers).
Firstly, a User Requirements document should be requested from the customers. This provides customer drive throughtout the project.
Next, this document should be studied by the IT team assigned to the project - not just the managers.
Revisions and proposals should be taken back to the customer, until this document is signed as acceptable by both parties.
At each stage (predefined by the project leader) in the lifecycle, documents should be signed off by teams when stages have been completed. Each section is managed by the project leader, but handled by team leaders for teams assigned to that section.
The very last stage is to have the entire project signed off by the users as being a true representation of the original requirements (including agreed modifications).
This approach requires a little conventional bureaucracy and hierarchy, but I think that the overall flatness of structure and self-reliance of the individual teams is self-evident. Having the entire team involved from day one means that everyone is aware of the big picture as well as their own place in the project. Having the users involved means that they are more likely to get what they ask for (although, of course, probably not what they want ;-))
I believe this addresses bureaucracy, and gives flexibility within it.
Me and my ideal world (-:
CE
What I mean by this is that clear procedures should exist, which involve the customer at key points in the lifecycle of a project;
Take an IT project, as an example.
The whole point here is to deliver an IT solution to a group of users (customers).
Firstly, a User Requirements document should be requested from the customers. This provides customer drive throughtout the project.
Next, this document should be studied by the IT team assigned to the project - not just the managers.
Revisions and proposals should be taken back to the customer, until this document is signed as acceptable by both parties.
At each stage (predefined by the project leader) in the lifecycle, documents should be signed off by teams when stages have been completed. Each section is managed by the project leader, but handled by team leaders for teams assigned to that section.
The very last stage is to have the entire project signed off by the users as being a true representation of the original requirements (including agreed modifications).
This approach requires a little conventional bureaucracy and hierarchy, but I think that the overall flatness of structure and self-reliance of the individual teams is self-evident. Having the entire team involved from day one means that everyone is aware of the big picture as well as their own place in the project. Having the users involved means that they are more likely to get what they ask for (although, of course, probably not what they want ;-))
I believe this addresses bureaucracy, and gives flexibility within it.
Me and my ideal world (-:
CE
DaveGoTech
Programmer
Well, the bottom line is - no 1 shoe fits all! And organizational structures are being continually remolded by its' employees. Just don't be too quick to abandon some of the tried and true business models for a "new" way of thinking - just look at what happened to the .com's.
- Thread starter
- #24
Yes, no 1 shoe fits all! but what happened if the employees do not want to restructure the companies since they are inherently resist/afraid of changing? Sometimes we have to take priorities in our lifes, although we do realise there needs to be a restructuring however if our positions are being jeapordised, we rather be a silent worker. The truth is many people often feel threatens if remodelling takes place in their companies. In my previous company, the senior management was introducing the newer and flatter structure and it has resulted many people got lay offs and staff's morale lowered since it has threatened about their job security.
Citrix..what your describing is basic methodology for any project, not neccesarly IT projects. This methodology works. And you are correct in every aspect of your post.
Yuni, people crave structure and organization which is why bureaucracy can exist. See Citrix above post, a good methodology is entwined with a little of bureaucracy...makes a nice stew...not too much of any one thing.
And yes, companies today and always focus on their business objectives and goals and if neccessary make changes to their plans and strategy..thats what we are supposed to do in leadership positions. Restructuring is a tool to achieve an objective...nothing more. Restructuring is not bad, restructuring several times in one year is not a good thing and is an indicator that leadership is not clear of their mission and how to achieve it.
The problem, which is the (IMHO) underlaying theme of this thread, is when inexperienced leadership/management carries their job to the extremes or worse yet does not know what their job is ie: within a given managers domain, what is the mission...the goals...what needs to be done. Overconrol takes place and the balance between process, people and deliverable gets disrupted. In short leadership doesnt know what needs to be down...and if leadership doesnt know this..then how are staff supposed to know what they have to do.
Flexibilty....to meet customer and market place demands..IT needs to be flexible. It can...but often there is a cost associated with flexability (read..change). IT most understand and control these changes (read cost) and pass these on or inform customer (stakeholder) of these changes and their costs. Nothing new...just all part of good project management (a novel concept).
Cheers,
pivan If not now, when?
If not here, where?
If not us, who?
Just do it!!
Yuni, people crave structure and organization which is why bureaucracy can exist. See Citrix above post, a good methodology is entwined with a little of bureaucracy...makes a nice stew...not too much of any one thing.
And yes, companies today and always focus on their business objectives and goals and if neccessary make changes to their plans and strategy..thats what we are supposed to do in leadership positions. Restructuring is a tool to achieve an objective...nothing more. Restructuring is not bad, restructuring several times in one year is not a good thing and is an indicator that leadership is not clear of their mission and how to achieve it.
The problem, which is the (IMHO) underlaying theme of this thread, is when inexperienced leadership/management carries their job to the extremes or worse yet does not know what their job is ie: within a given managers domain, what is the mission...the goals...what needs to be done. Overconrol takes place and the balance between process, people and deliverable gets disrupted. In short leadership doesnt know what needs to be down...and if leadership doesnt know this..then how are staff supposed to know what they have to do.
Flexibilty....to meet customer and market place demands..IT needs to be flexible. It can...but often there is a cost associated with flexability (read..change). IT most understand and control these changes (read cost) and pass these on or inform customer (stakeholder) of these changes and their costs. Nothing new...just all part of good project management (a novel concept).
Cheers,
pivan If not now, when?
If not here, where?
If not us, who?
Just do it!!
- Status
Similar threads