Fast Strategy Deployment Message Sequence Diagram

I am working on a message sequencing diagram for fast strategy deployment. Here is an initial version:
There are five hierarchical levels. Assuming that one leader can lead a team of 7-8 people, this message diagram would be good for an organization with 16,000 to 32,000 people.

An important assumption here is that the organization uses a Boyd style decentralized management model. This allows teams at each level to decide how to solve the problems within their spheres of control and influence before sending information upwards in the organization.

Another important assumption is IOHAI (Insight, Orientation, Harmony, Agility, Initiative) training for all leaders. This does of course include working knowledge of Crawford Slip, The Logical Thinking Process, and other Strategic Navigation tools.

Note that with this messaging model, information about the external environment reaches top management first. Information from inside the organization takes about five days to travel up.

By the time information reaches top management, many internal problems are already on their way to be solved. What happens in the first five days is mostly part of regular tactical and operations level OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loops.

(If your organization uses an agile software development method, like Scrum or Extreme Programming, you already have a mechanism for decentralized decision making in place. What this message sequencing diagram does, is show how Strategic Navigation can be used to extend such mechanism throughout the entire organization.)

A first version of the Commander's Intent, in the form of one or more Intermediate Objective Maps, is communicated to the entire organization day 7.

From then on, top level management pulls information from various levels of the information, creates a Grand Strategy, and communicates it with Future Reality Trees in about a week.

The last planning phase is tactical and operations planning, which is done at lower levels, and communicated upwards. In other words, the tactical plans say "this is what we intend to do in order to achieve the mission objectives", rather than "this is what you should do..."

Three weeks may seem a short time for strategy development and deployment, but the U.S. Marine Corps does something similar in a couple of hours.

It is my belief that business strategy cycles can be compressed a lot more than the diagram shows.

I would like a bit of help from you: The picture above shows an early version of the diagram. I would like your suggestions for how to improve it. I would also like to hear about obstacles and your opinions on feasibility.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waterfall vs. Agile: Battle of the Dunces or A Race to the Bottom?

Image
The major software methodology wars since the mid 1950’s. Someone was wrong on the Internet, so here we go… In a recent HBR article, It’s Time to End the Battle Between Waterfall and Agile , the author sets up a false premise: There is a war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. The war must end. And finally, you can combine the approaches to get the best of both worlds. This sounds good, but the article is based on a misunderstanding of both Waterfall and Agile. Also, there is no war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. There can’t be, because Waterfall methodology does not exist! Waterfall is a name for large projects that failed in the 1960’s. Waterfall was never a methodology, but a failure to apply the methodologies that existed back then. As I will show towards the end of this article, at least one of the “successful” Waterfall projects mentioned in the HBR article was neither successful, nor a Waterfall project. I got invaluable help from Alistair Cockburn. He fact che
Read more

Performance Evaluations, Business Strategy, and Agile Methodologies

Image
It is performance evaluation time in many companies. This can be stressful, both to the people being evaluated, and the people doing the evaluation. In companies adopting agile software development methods, the tension can be extraordinary. Individual performance evaluations run counter to agile philosophy, which emphasizes team performance over individual performance. However, managers and corporate leaders need to take a few steps back, and consider the impact performance evaluations have on the organization as a whole. Especially now, in the midst of a recession, it is important to look at a companies current policies to see if they can be improved, or if they are actually holding the company back. So, how can a manager evaluate policy? Performance evaluation policies can serve as an excellent example. I'll confine myself to discussing the so-called ‘rank and yank’ methods. These are performance reviews were employees are ranked using a forced ranking system. It usually looks so
Read more

Agile Requirements Structures, Part 1

Image
If you have worked in large Agile projects or programs, you may have noticed that there is often quite a bit of confusion about requirements, what the requirement types are, their purpose, how to write them, how to use them, and above all, what not to do with them. There are many causes for this confusion. Here are some of the more common I have seen: Nobody in the organization has read up on the requirements model it is using, so everyone makes their own interpretation. The organization deviates from a standard requirements model, but nobody knows which standard model the organization is deviating from, and/or there is no agreement about how they deviate from it. The organization has not documented its own requirements model very well. The organization mixes two or more different requirements models, often without realizing it. The organization has documented its requirements model, but finding the documentation is an epic project in itself, on par with when Henry Sta
Read more