Organizational Design and the Role of HR in Lean
This originally appeared on the Lean Career Compass blog.
Lean is a human system. And human resources deals with humans, right? So HR should have a pretty active role in lean. In most cases, I see them sitting on the sidelines. This is sad. It’s not that they don’t want to get involved, they don’t know how. There are many levers that HR can pull that can help a lean transformation move forward. Organizational design is one of them.
Most of the organizational design that we observe is trying to solve a poorly designed problem statement. For example, these two teams aren’t working well together, so let’s put them together under one roof. That makes sense on the surface, but because it was done based on symptoms instead of understanding a problem, it solves one symptom while creating a new problem.
If a connection is broken, by putting two groups or two people together you can improve the connection (or more accurately overcome it as this is a workaround). But at the same time you pulled one group further away from another connection, often exposing it’s weakness. So now you have a new problem. This is what I call a waste shell game. Watch the shell…it’s moving, it’s moving…where it stops, nobody knows. This is a bad, ad hoc, and reactive way to use organizational design to improve performance.
Point 1: Define the problem statement or operational objective before beginning to design the organization
Instead, you must first understand how you want the process to work. You must have an ideal or effective process by understanding the activities, connections, and flows. Activities, connections, flows – these are the building blocks of your processes. You then build your organizational design around the most efficient ways to make those connections and flows work.
Point 2: Design your organization around the process that you want
For example, at a hotel, one of the most important operating factors is cleaning rooms according to their schedule and on time. On time allows you to plan room availability around checkins, particularly if you have several different room types. Most leaders wanting to improve the flow of room cleaning would just want to consume more resources by adding more to the cleaning crew.
But after prioritizing the flow around stable and predictable outcomes, and understanding the supporting activities and connections within the work such as stocking carts, the design actually took someone out of the cleaning crew. They were made a team leader, although not with any pay difference. They handled many of the connections, such as supplies to carts, but also provided an important connecting in managing a part of the flow, which is an exception. An exception in the process is a room that will take longer to clean than normally required. Instead of just falling behind schedule, when a team member enters the room they ask themselves if they can clean it in the allowed time. If not, they first contact the team leader who comes and helps them clean the room. This room takes two people instead of one, but this was a better response to the exception than pushing the entire process behind schedule.
Point 3: Often the most effective designs are responsive to changes, defects, and problems
This is an example of designing the organizational structure, and the roles and responsibilities, around an understanding of the process, including the exceptions and problems within the process. This is a fundamental and highly value-added role that HR can play in this stage of the process.
What have been your lessons on organizational design in lean? And how can HR help?
I pulled my comment from the Lean Career Compass to kick this off!
Jamie, I agree on the all the points you make above. I have often wondered why HR doesn’t take a more active or proactive role within Lean. Some of my hypothesis have been of the pre-conceived notion that Lean is nothing more then waste reduction, another hypothesis currently being encountered is Lean does not have the proper tools or methodology to address the ‘human side’.
The case could be made by many in HR, that Lean change agents (and Lean Leaders for that matter) have not taken the time to understand the human side and how to develop these interrelationship skills, therefore focusing on what comes natural to them (i.e. execute the tools).
I would be interested in approaches on how to pull HR as well as Finance, into a more active role.
I pulled my comment from the Lean Career Compass to kick this off!
Jamie, I agree on the all the points you make above. I have often wondered why HR doesn’t take a more active or proactive role within Lean. Some of my hypothesis have been of the pre-conceived notion that Lean is nothing more then waste reduction, another hypothesis currently being encountered is Lean does not have the proper tools or methodology to address the ‘human side’.
The case could be made by many in HR, that Lean change agents (and Lean Leaders for that matter) have not taken the time to understand the human side and how to develop these interrelationship skills, therefore focusing on what comes natural to them (i.e. execute the tools).
I would be interested in approaches on how to pull HR as well as Finance, into a more active role.
I pulled my comment from the Lean Career Compass to kick this off!
Jamie, I agree on the all the points you make above. I have often wondered why HR doesn’t take a more active or proactive role within Lean. Some of my hypothesis have been of the pre-conceived notion that Lean is nothing more then waste reduction, another hypothesis currently being encountered is Lean does not have the proper tools or methodology to address the ‘human side’.
The case could be made by many in HR, that Lean change agents (and Lean Leaders for that matter) have not taken the time to understand the human side and how to develop these interrelationship skills, therefore focusing on what comes natural to them (i.e. execute the tools).
I would be interested in approaches on how to pull HR as well as Finance, into a more active role.
I too agree that HR needs to be more involved in organization design and lean. So many HR pros I meet and work with have gravitated toward becoming subject matter experts in technical subjects such as compensation, benefits, and performance management rather than areas that link operations and functions across value streams. Some HR pros do work in the Organization Development space, which is where the organization design experts are. I’m a member of the Organization Design Forum (ODF)–in addition to all of my professional communication associations–and I should look for opportunities for us to work more closely with lean change agents and other lean experts.
I too agree that HR needs to be more involved in organization design and lean. So many HR pros I meet and work with have gravitated toward becoming subject matter experts in technical subjects such as compensation, benefits, and performance management rather than areas that link operations and functions across value streams. Some HR pros do work in the Organization Development space, which is where the organization design experts are. I’m a member of the Organization Design Forum (ODF)–in addition to all of my professional communication associations–and I should look for opportunities for us to work more closely with lean change agents and other lean experts.
I too agree that HR needs to be more involved in organization design and lean. So many HR pros I meet and work with have gravitated toward becoming subject matter experts in technical subjects such as compensation, benefits, and performance management rather than areas that link operations and functions across value streams. Some HR pros do work in the Organization Development space, which is where the organization design experts are. I’m a member of the Organization Design Forum (ODF)–in addition to all of my professional communication associations–and I should look for opportunities for us to work more closely with lean change agents and other lean experts.
HR – or for that matter all support functions – should have the objective to make the teams that revolve around the value stream or primary process more autonomous.
This means that these function should focus on building their functional competence (HR, Finance, Planning, …) into these teams so that they actually are becoming more autonomous. This is where they truly become supportive instead of a service provider managed through internal SLA’s and being in physically remote shared service centers. Functions will then move from being executer in the process to becoming co-creators of the system in which their teams operate.
Unfortunately, I still see very little functions taking steps towards this model with true built-in autonomy.
HR – or for that matter all support functions – should have the objective to make the teams that revolve around the value stream or primary process more autonomous.
This means that these function should focus on building their functional competence (HR, Finance, Planning, …) into these teams so that they actually are becoming more autonomous. This is where they truly become supportive instead of a service provider managed through internal SLA’s and being in physically remote shared service centers. Functions will then move from being executer in the process to becoming co-creators of the system in which their teams operate.
Unfortunately, I still see very little functions taking steps towards this model with true built-in autonomy.
HR – or for that matter all support functions – should have the objective to make the teams that revolve around the value stream or primary process more autonomous.
This means that these function should focus on building their functional competence (HR, Finance, Planning, …) into these teams so that they actually are becoming more autonomous. This is where they truly become supportive instead of a service provider managed through internal SLA’s and being in physically remote shared service centers. Functions will then move from being executer in the process to becoming co-creators of the system in which their teams operate.
Unfortunately, I still see very little functions taking steps towards this model with true built-in autonomy.
Hi Jamie – really enjoyed your article about the benefits of organisational design. I also agree that there are many levers that HR can pull to lead and support transformation. However, there is a ‘skills gap in HR’ which holds back the transformation of the HR function itself and broader improvements to organisations. For info see the HR Transformer Blog article, HR Survey Highlights Skills Gap in HR.
HR should be able to provide leadership in the core people management aspects of transformation including change management, impact on roles and responsibilities and sourcing the project team.
In my view, HR can also play a key role in transformation projects including organisation design by making sure they develop a “transformational skill-set†in Lean/6-Sigma, Project Management, Change Management & Business Case management amongst others.
Bridging the ‘skills gap’, gaining experience in transformation projects and learning the ‘lean lingo’ would all help HR.
Hi Jamie – really enjoyed your article about the benefits of organisational design. I also agree that there are many levers that HR can pull to lead and support transformation. However, there is a ‘skills gap in HR’ which holds back the transformation of the HR function itself and broader improvements to organisations. For info see the HR Transformer Blog article, HR Survey Highlights Skills Gap in HR.
HR should be able to provide leadership in the core people management aspects of transformation including change management, impact on roles and responsibilities and sourcing the project team.
In my view, HR can also play a key role in transformation projects including organisation design by making sure they develop a “transformational skill-set†in Lean/6-Sigma, Project Management, Change Management & Business Case management amongst others.
Bridging the ‘skills gap’, gaining experience in transformation projects and learning the ‘lean lingo’ would all help HR.
Hi Jamie – really enjoyed your article about the benefits of organisational design. I also agree that there are many levers that HR can pull to lead and support transformation. However, there is a ‘skills gap in HR’ which holds back the transformation of the HR function itself and broader improvements to organisations. For info see the HR Transformer Blog article, HR Survey Highlights Skills Gap in HR.
HR should be able to provide leadership in the core people management aspects of transformation including change management, impact on roles and responsibilities and sourcing the project team.
In my view, HR can also play a key role in transformation projects including organisation design by making sure they develop a “transformational skill-set†in Lean/6-Sigma, Project Management, Change Management & Business Case management amongst others.
Bridging the ‘skills gap’, gaining experience in transformation projects and learning the ‘lean lingo’ would all help HR.
Jamie – thanks for flagging your interesting post my way.
HR practitioners can be transactional, transformational or ideally both; and the places where I’ve worked HR was both! Transformational HR incorporates organizational design and development into their activities and interactions with other functions to design, develop and implement outcomes focused on people, process, systems and technology. I understand that this isn’t the case with all HR departments in all organizations and that HR as a profession has miles to go, but some of us are there.
Regarding your point 2: org design isn’t just about process. It’s also about incorporating business and customer outcomes into designing structures that support value-add process. Form must follow well-thought out function. High-performing transformational HR leaders can/should facilitate collaborative discussions with all functions to assure that people/process/systems/technology are integrated as well as being aligned to long-term strategic visions.
Jamie – thanks for flagging your interesting post my way.
HR practitioners can be transactional, transformational or ideally both; and the places where I’ve worked HR was both! Transformational HR incorporates organizational design and development into their activities and interactions with other functions to design, develop and implement outcomes focused on people, process, systems and technology. I understand that this isn’t the case with all HR departments in all organizations and that HR as a profession has miles to go, but some of us are there.
Regarding your point 2: org design isn’t just about process. It’s also about incorporating business and customer outcomes into designing structures that support value-add process. Form must follow well-thought out function. High-performing transformational HR leaders can/should facilitate collaborative discussions with all functions to assure that people/process/systems/technology are integrated as well as being aligned to long-term strategic visions.
Jamie – thanks for flagging your interesting post my way.
HR practitioners can be transactional, transformational or ideally both; and the places where I’ve worked HR was both! Transformational HR incorporates organizational design and development into their activities and interactions with other functions to design, develop and implement outcomes focused on people, process, systems and technology. I understand that this isn’t the case with all HR departments in all organizations and that HR as a profession has miles to go, but some of us are there.
Regarding your point 2: org design isn’t just about process. It’s also about incorporating business and customer outcomes into designing structures that support value-add process. Form must follow well-thought out function. High-performing transformational HR leaders can/should facilitate collaborative discussions with all functions to assure that people/process/systems/technology are integrated as well as being aligned to long-term strategic visions.
Thank you everyone for great comments.
Andy, I agree there is a skills gap. In the category of change management that you mention, I believe the gap is that often HR is taught to treat change management as a program or a project. But in that, the “one heart one mind at a time” principle is lost. This requires often a different skill set.
Jane, thanks for pointing out that it’s not just about process, it’s about customer. As a lean thinker, that to me is a given. It’s like breathing – you just better make everything about the customer. But not everyone takes this for granted, and I should be making that more clear. I will correct that in my future teaching and writing on the subject.
Thank you everyone for great comments.
Andy, I agree there is a skills gap. In the category of change management that you mention, I believe the gap is that often HR is taught to treat change management as a program or a project. But in that, the “one heart one mind at a time” principle is lost. This requires often a different skill set.
Jane, thanks for pointing out that it’s not just about process, it’s about customer. As a lean thinker, that to me is a given. It’s like breathing – you just better make everything about the customer. But not everyone takes this for granted, and I should be making that more clear. I will correct that in my future teaching and writing on the subject.
Thank you everyone for great comments.
Andy, I agree there is a skills gap. In the category of change management that you mention, I believe the gap is that often HR is taught to treat change management as a program or a project. But in that, the “one heart one mind at a time” principle is lost. This requires often a different skill set.
Jane, thanks for pointing out that it’s not just about process, it’s about customer. As a lean thinker, that to me is a given. It’s like breathing – you just better make everything about the customer. But not everyone takes this for granted, and I should be making that more clear. I will correct that in my future teaching and writing on the subject.
Jamie –
Spot on. Coming from a non-HR background, I’ve found it very interesting to see how HR lifers see themselves. We are working to standardize the processes and drive out waste, which sometimes means not holding a line manager’s hand when they need to handle employee-oriented tasks. It goes completely against everything we (meaning the organization) thinks a leader should be, yet those responsible for the development of those leaders can’t get out of their own way. I suspect it’s more than a little bit of self-preservation at work.
There’s an old adage about not trying to remove a sliver from a friend’s eye until you have remove the plank from your own. I think HR, as a function, has a lot of work to do before they can speak as experts on improving the way others do their job.
Jamie –
Spot on. Coming from a non-HR background, I’ve found it very interesting to see how HR lifers see themselves. We are working to standardize the processes and drive out waste, which sometimes means not holding a line manager’s hand when they need to handle employee-oriented tasks. It goes completely against everything we (meaning the organization) thinks a leader should be, yet those responsible for the development of those leaders can’t get out of their own way. I suspect it’s more than a little bit of self-preservation at work.
There’s an old adage about not trying to remove a sliver from a friend’s eye until you have remove the plank from your own. I think HR, as a function, has a lot of work to do before they can speak as experts on improving the way others do their job.
Jamie –
Spot on. Coming from a non-HR background, I’ve found it very interesting to see how HR lifers see themselves. We are working to standardize the processes and drive out waste, which sometimes means not holding a line manager’s hand when they need to handle employee-oriented tasks. It goes completely against everything we (meaning the organization) thinks a leader should be, yet those responsible for the development of those leaders can’t get out of their own way. I suspect it’s more than a little bit of self-preservation at work.
There’s an old adage about not trying to remove a sliver from a friend’s eye until you have remove the plank from your own. I think HR, as a function, has a lot of work to do before they can speak as experts on improving the way others do their job.
Jamie, I’m so delighted to note that Jane Perdue commented on this post! She’s a very progressive thinker and a fantastic HR role model! She was a great asset to several employee communication projects I worked on for AT&T Broadband a few years ago before Comcast bought the company.
Jamie, I’m so delighted to note that Jane Perdue commented on this post! She’s a very progressive thinker and a fantastic HR role model! She was a great asset to several employee communication projects I worked on for AT&T Broadband a few years ago before Comcast bought the company.
Jamie, I’m so delighted to note that Jane Perdue commented on this post! She’s a very progressive thinker and a fantastic HR role model! She was a great asset to several employee communication projects I worked on for AT&T Broadband a few years ago before Comcast bought the company.
It seems that Change / Continuous Improvement (interesting how these terms are often interchanged without even a pause for breath!) has many advocates, each approaching the perceived business need from different angles: In my experience, Lean has traditionally operated at a process level and is usually characterised by the use of tools – something that is easy for Management to understand, even if it can lead down the inwardly-looking ‘how much cash can we save?’ route. HR type folks will refer to Organisational Design – often applying a theoretical model without the in-depth analysis of the benefits that are hoped to be achieved. Someone once said to me it’s a bit like putting cocoa powder on top of cappuccino – the froth on top may change but underneath it’s still just a cup of coffee!
I’m sure there are plenty of other departments who claim to be Leaders of Change. So, are we – Lean Practitioners – missing a trick? Do we need to get out more? (or is it just me that needs to get out more?). I think Lean principles have a rock-solid foundation and were we to start using language that other influential groups understand and cast our net wider we could evolve into a unifying force for Continuous Improvement; after all – why would you change if you weren’t making an improvement? The Hoshin Kanri route seems natural – it’s amazing how many people are turned off by the jargon and then get completely engaged when you describe the detail in simple terms. I think Deming said 95% of failures were caused by the system – and both Einstein and Dilts have said that you cannot fix a problem at the same level as that which caused it in the first place. For me, that’s where Lean needs to start – not at the tool level: I’ve spent too many years Leaning production lines, ‘saving’ millions in the process, and noticing little difference in bottom-line benefits.
I’d even go far as to question the steps in the Path to Lean and be more explicit about the steps at the start to increase the chance of success:-
“Define the purpose of the Organisation”
“Understand where the organisation is now”
“Identify what’s stopping the organisation fulfilling it’s purpose”
“Create a path to fulfilment of the organisation’s purpose”
Then we can start to align Customer Value with the purpose of the business and follow the path to lean in the areas of greatest need
This will ensure that the use of Lean tools will have the impact they deserve and that the whole organisation is aligned with this.
(Or is this just Hoshin Kanri? Is Lean a subset of a much larger toolkit? Or IS Lean the toolkit and I’m just not aware of all the tools in it? Is it an ever-expanding kit?).
It seems that Change / Continuous Improvement (interesting how these terms are often interchanged without even a pause for breath!) has many advocates, each approaching the perceived business need from different angles: In my experience, Lean has traditionally operated at a process level and is usually characterised by the use of tools – something that is easy for Management to understand, even if it can lead down the inwardly-looking ‘how much cash can we save?’ route. HR type folks will refer to Organisational Design – often applying a theoretical model without the in-depth analysis of the benefits that are hoped to be achieved. Someone once said to me it’s a bit like putting cocoa powder on top of cappuccino – the froth on top may change but underneath it’s still just a cup of coffee!
I’m sure there are plenty of other departments who claim to be Leaders of Change. So, are we – Lean Practitioners – missing a trick? Do we need to get out more? (or is it just me that needs to get out more?). I think Lean principles have a rock-solid foundation and were we to start using language that other influential groups understand and cast our net wider we could evolve into a unifying force for Continuous Improvement; after all – why would you change if you weren’t making an improvement? The Hoshin Kanri route seems natural – it’s amazing how many people are turned off by the jargon and then get completely engaged when you describe the detail in simple terms. I think Deming said 95% of failures were caused by the system – and both Einstein and Dilts have said that you cannot fix a problem at the same level as that which caused it in the first place. For me, that’s where Lean needs to start – not at the tool level: I’ve spent too many years Leaning production lines, ‘saving’ millions in the process, and noticing little difference in bottom-line benefits.
I’d even go far as to question the steps in the Path to Lean and be more explicit about the steps at the start to increase the chance of success:-
“Define the purpose of the Organisation”
“Understand where the organisation is now”
“Identify what’s stopping the organisation fulfilling it’s purpose”
“Create a path to fulfilment of the organisation’s purpose”
Then we can start to align Customer Value with the purpose of the business and follow the path to lean in the areas of greatest need
This will ensure that the use of Lean tools will have the impact they deserve and that the whole organisation is aligned with this.
(Or is this just Hoshin Kanri? Is Lean a subset of a much larger toolkit? Or IS Lean the toolkit and I’m just not aware of all the tools in it? Is it an ever-expanding kit?).
It seems that Change / Continuous Improvement (interesting how these terms are often interchanged without even a pause for breath!) has many advocates, each approaching the perceived business need from different angles: In my experience, Lean has traditionally operated at a process level and is usually characterised by the use of tools – something that is easy for Management to understand, even if it can lead down the inwardly-looking ‘how much cash can we save?’ route. HR type folks will refer to Organisational Design – often applying a theoretical model without the in-depth analysis of the benefits that are hoped to be achieved. Someone once said to me it’s a bit like putting cocoa powder on top of cappuccino – the froth on top may change but underneath it’s still just a cup of coffee!
I’m sure there are plenty of other departments who claim to be Leaders of Change. So, are we – Lean Practitioners – missing a trick? Do we need to get out more? (or is it just me that needs to get out more?). I think Lean principles have a rock-solid foundation and were we to start using language that other influential groups understand and cast our net wider we could evolve into a unifying force for Continuous Improvement; after all – why would you change if you weren’t making an improvement? The Hoshin Kanri route seems natural – it’s amazing how many people are turned off by the jargon and then get completely engaged when you describe the detail in simple terms. I think Deming said 95% of failures were caused by the system – and both Einstein and Dilts have said that you cannot fix a problem at the same level as that which caused it in the first place. For me, that’s where Lean needs to start – not at the tool level: I’ve spent too many years Leaning production lines, ‘saving’ millions in the process, and noticing little difference in bottom-line benefits.
I’d even go far as to question the steps in the Path to Lean and be more explicit about the steps at the start to increase the chance of success:-
“Define the purpose of the Organisation”
“Understand where the organisation is now”
“Identify what’s stopping the organisation fulfilling it’s purpose”
“Create a path to fulfilment of the organisation’s purpose”
Then we can start to align Customer Value with the purpose of the business and follow the path to lean in the areas of greatest need
This will ensure that the use of Lean tools will have the impact they deserve and that the whole organisation is aligned with this.
(Or is this just Hoshin Kanri? Is Lean a subset of a much larger toolkit? Or IS Lean the toolkit and I’m just not aware of all the tools in it? Is it an ever-expanding kit?).