What is more important for whole organization change, design/structure or method/approach?
Spurred on by all the comments and Gail’s invitation to add more to the mix I have reopened this question. More context. My view is that it is possible to build structure that gives opportunity for design to support the appropriate method and facilitate various approaches. At times, in stand alone project tracks the right side of the equation will prevail. When those tracks begin to stack up and overlap into programs design is necessary. When the programs are each pieces of corporate strategy and the paths to business objectives then all four design/structure/method/approach must be illuminated and led with skilled internal and external resources. I have seen over and over method/approach bulldoze any chance for design/structure more times than I can count in my career. And, to be fair, I have seen design/structure squash any chance of quick change in project work. Because I am often the translator from client to options for whole organization change putting these two, often disparate,
Related Questions
- I have heard about the "Splash and Ripple" approach to Outcome Measurement. Where can I find out more about this method of using outcomes to design & manage community activities?
- What is more important for whole organization change, design/structure or method/approach?
- What are tha major benefits of the database approach?
