Exploring Org Topologies at Loglass
I have recently become interested in Org Topologies - a framework designed to enhance organizational design through thoughtful structuring, fostering higher adaptability, and ensuring a transparent change process. Org Topologies revolves around two key axes: the "Scope of Capabilities" and the "Scope of Work." Together, these axes form 16 archetypes that represent different organizational patterns or types. These archetypes help in identifying, assessing, and designing organizations to optimize their adaptability and performance.
The Scope of Capabilities measures the level of cross-functionality and the ability of a unit to deliver value independently. High capability consolidation means fewer technical dependencies and greater autonomy. The Scope of Work evaluates the breadth of the work a unit can handle, from narrow task-specific work to broad value definitions that encompass entire customer needs.
This framework allows for simple visualization and classification into the 16 different Archetypes on a two-axis map. By understanding these archetypes, organizations can craft a thoughtful design, fostering higher adaptability and resilience in the face of changing business needs.
In January 2024, I introduced Org Topologies to Loglass - a Japanese company providing a cloud-based management system aimed at improving the productivity of budget and performance management. I have recently been supporting. The company divides its product into multiple functional areas, with each area being developed by independent Scrum teams. Each Scrum team is highly capable as a stand-alone unit, but there is not much collaboration between the teams.
I gave a brief introduction of Org Topologies in a short 30-minute session. The participants showed a strong interest and immediately held a one-hour workshop the next day with all employees in the development organization, where they plotted the current status of each team on a map.
Although it was only a self-assessment in a short workshop, most teams plotted themselves onto A1 - A2, as I expected.
To clarify, the A1 and A2 archetypes represent specific types of organizational structures:
A1 (Siloed functional group with feature focus): Teams within this archetype are specialized in specific functions and work on particular features. They tend to work in silos, with limited interaction with other teams.
A2 (Incomplete multi-skill teams with feature focus): These teams have a mix of skills but are not fully cross-functional. They also focus on specific features, similar to A1 teams, but with slightly more collaboration among team members.
There were internal discussions, mainly about moving up from the A-level to the B-level. The B-level archetypes are more collaborative and aligned with business goals, promoting greater agility and responsiveness to market needs. For instance:
B2 (Incomplete multi-skill teams with business area focus): Teams that are not fully cross-functional but work more collaboratively across different business areas, fostering better alignment with business goals.
B3 (End-to-end fast-flow teams with business area focus): Highly cross-functional teams that manage entire business areas, promoting faster delivery and greater adaptability.
During my observation, I noted a few things:
Some people's perspectives were focused on their own team rather than the whole organization. For example, several stated that their teams wanted to advance to the B-level, but they did not seem to realize that this would require strong agreement and collaboration with the other teams.
Most participants acknowledged the benefits of B-level teams but couldn't imagine what B-level or "a team of teams" would be like.
Some people felt that staying at the A-level was also a viable option. They admitted that the teams were "optimized" and each individual team was quite productive. They mentioned that moving to the B-level would be costly.
They and I had long discussions about what their organization's challenges were and what their goals should be. It took several months before they finally decided to "go up".
5 months later, in June 2024, there was the "Developer Productivity Conference", a Japanese domestic tech conference, where Hiroshi Ito (VPoE of Loglass), gave a talk. He introduced Org Topologies and their mapping activity from the beginning of 2024, where their teams were currently at A1-A2, and they decided to move to B2-B3.
He went on to talk about scaling their agility and for the moment, they would be trying it based on the adoption of FAST Agile.
FAST Agile is an approach that blends ideas from Kanban, Open Space Technology (OST), and Agile to create a lightweight, scalable framework. It emphasizes forming collectives, setting up the organizational foundation in a one-time setup, and continuously improving through a cycle called the Value Cycle. This cycle promotes self-organization, synchronized activities, and regular meetings to keep everything aligned.
It might be a big challenge for Loglass, but I believe that the experience they gain from it would be a valuable asset. I also intend to actively support them going forward.
This experience report presents a personal view on the change story by the credited writer. Should you have alternative views or additional details about this particular company's change story, please do not hesitate to contact Org Topologies and submit your version for publishing.
Comments