Between Cooking Gas and a Cooked Meal
Kenneth Igiri
Enterprise Architect | Enabling Long-Term Business-Tech Alignment with Architecture & Strategy Tools
Last week I had to do quite a bit of running around. Thursday was the height of it - it seemed cooking gas was scarce and I, always staring at computers, didn't know. I met an unusually long queue at the cooking gas station. We didn't have gas in the backup gas cylinder and I didn't have time to stay on the queue. I made my way back home having decided to buy the cooking gas some other time. When I got into the kitchen, I was utterly amazed that my people in the house were still waiting for the cooking gas. The reason I was amazed was that the cooker was a hybrid - it came fitted with electric plates.
You see, my folks were so fixated on cooking with cooking gas that they missed the salient point. They were staring at the electric cooker and yet unable to cook because cooking gas was not available. As far as their wiring was concerned - even subsconsciously - cooking was meant to be done with cooking gas. Aren't we often so fixated on HOW we want to get things done that we forget exactly WHAT we want to do and WHY.
HOW, WHAT, WHY
Considering the household challenge I started off the article with, let us imagine that we can roughly equate HOW to people, process and technology options, WHAT to capabilities (delivered by people, process and technologies incidentally) and WHY to the overarching aspirations of an organization - vision, mission, strategy, goals objectives etc. There are three interesting questions that help us go back one step in our thinking.
The illustration has already highlighted HOW we are trying to get something done. We are trying to make an afternoon meal using a defined recipe and specific technology - cooking gas. Let's take one step back and ask "WHAT". Please read that sentence again, I mean the one before the "WHAT" sentence.
WHAT are We Trying to Do?
In the context of my short example, the job to be done was cooking a meal for lunch. We could abbreviate this for the sake of literary sophistication to "Making Meals". We can assume that this is something we do on an ongoing basis in the family and something that is of prime importance. This is a core capability of the family - Making Meals.
The process of meal making requires a a technology that applies heat to the food we wish to prepare once we have gone past previous steps such as:
All the above, can be considered tier three capabilties in the Family group as shown in the diagram. The technology we are accustomed to for completing the process is cooking gas. In the case of the example we started with, we were so focused on the HOW - using a specific technology - that we forgot WHAT we were actually trying to get done. Stepping back from HOW to WHAT may help us consider alternatives in terms of HOW we deliver the intended results. You might like a reminder on Business Capability Maps from this article .
Evaluating our organizational context from the standpoint of capabilities - WHAT we do - may help us optimize our methods. This includes the specific process and technology choices we made or have already made.
WHY are We Trying to Do This?
Simon Sinek is famous for teaching us to start with WHY. But in this article we are taking steps back from our typical position when in "operational mode". We have identified WHAT we want to do - Making Meals - now we are asking WHY. Well it is quite simple in this context. We could respond to why we are Making Meals by hazarding a few guesses:
Again, that one step back as to WHY we are Making Meals may help us refine our choices in terms of what kind of meals we cook, who we employ to make those meals, when we make those meals, what tools we us, what our budget might be and so forth.
WHY is the purpose question. It is an attempt to articulate the intended outcomes of the efforts we are planning or executing. This calls to mind another important triplet: Efforts, Output and Outcomes .
Taking a Step Back
When faced with nerve-racking problems in the workplace, the stage in the sequence where we are stuck may be part of the challenge. Are our minds hanging around HOW, WHAT or WHY. Each step back we take in our thinking helps us broaden the list of alternatives and may get us closer to possible solutions.
If we are proactive enough to boldy reverse the order and actually start with "WHY", then "WHAT", then "HOW", we might set up an incredibly efficient organization from the get go. But then, that is simply not how things work all the time. In many cases, we meet the organization already in motion and needing the intervention of profound thinkers and consultants to get leadership (who also met the train moving) to start with WHY.
If we are proactive enough to boldy reverse the order and actually start with "WHY", then "WHAT", then "HOW", we might set up an incredibly efficient organization from the get go.
Incidentally, in many cases, consultants don't even start with WHY. It is very hard to ask an organization to re-evaluate their winning aspirations. It is easier to try to bring a little order into what already exists - developing new processes, upskilling people and procuring the "right" technology. The job of articulating WHAT the organization does or would like to do is typically another tough ask. Afterall, "everyone knows WHAT we do".
In my view, taking a step back, as hard as it may seem, is probably what needs to be done in many cases either holistically or in a segment of the organization if there is appetitite for radical change. Ever so often, such appetite is either lacking or the effort required is not pragmatic.
What Would Be Your Next Move
Quite a few respected colleagues reading this article are either middle management professionals or senior leaders in ther organizations. So I dare ask the following questions both for reflection and hopefully in expectation of a few responses we can all learn from.
Thank you for reading.
Enterprise Architect | Enabling Long-Term Business-Tech Alignment with Architecture & Strategy Tools
1 个月@ @