Insights

Kanban change and organizational models

In my article “The logic of failure in improvement initiatives” I stated that between 60 and 80 percent of change initiatives in companies fail. Here we should ask ourselves what it was that actually failed? What is the object to change? What is an organisation? We can identify very quickly an organ

Image

In my article “The logic of failure in improvement initiatives” I stated that between 60 and 80 percent of change initiatives in companies fail. Here we should ask ourselves what it was that actually failed? What is the object to change? What is an organisation? We can identify very quickly an organisation called Apple, BMW, Johnson & Johnson, Shell, etc. However, are we in an organisation when we simply walk through the company door or sign an employment contract? What happens when all the staff go home in the evening? Do they carry the organisation with them in their heads? Or does the organisation remain back in the offices, the furniture or in the documents waiting to be called to life again on the following day?

Organizational models

The fact is that organizations cannot be reduced to a building or a piece of geared machinery for which change can be managed simply by changing gear or pressing a button on a machine. From the perspective of systems theory, organizations are living social systems, which have a high degree of complexity. If you are prepared to take the risk of excessive polarization, two completely different organization models can be outlined:

Mechanistic organization

Systemic organization

Comprehensible and clearly structured

Complex and contradictory in itself

Linear causal chains

Multiple interactions

Central control, guided by a rational plan

Self-controlled, following its own laws

Formal logic

Integration of contradictions

Primarily target driven

Primarily sense driven

Hard facts and rational relationships

Hard and soft factors, emotions

Structure and process oriented

Oriented towards operational patterns and routines

High significance attached to individual requirements and controls

High significance attached to joint reflection, cooperation and ensuring results

Change through instruction and command

Change through dialogue and conviction

Centralised management

Polycentric management

In relation to a Kanban change initiative we can recognize that prescribing Kanban through a managed transition “from above” is the mechanistic view. The same holds true if Kanban is focused only on practices without following the principles. (More on the principles in the blog post “Signposts towards a culture of continuous improvement.”)

If you see organizations as living social systems, you come very quickly to the realization that for successful and sustainable change it takes more than regulation of a few practices or rules. Change requires attentive perception of what is happening in the company and the involvement of the individuals concerned.

** **

Change cannot be installed by a mechanic. This holds also true if you’re trying to install an Agile method on your company! Foster agility in your change process and do not install an Agile method like a mechanic.