> In startups, effective team structures are usually functionally organized.
Startups work with functional structures because they are small enough to not have communication or political impediments. The structure simply doesn't have enough friction to have a high cost at that scale. It is more about irrelevance than advantage.
> It would be more efficient to be able to place Bob in the sales or marketing team for a bit, so you implement a cross-functional matrix management system that you read about.
Cross-functional matrix management has rarely been efficient or effective if you measure actual outcomes. Having employees bounce around between particular “activity leader” who they may not have a formal reporting line to only works for hero culture, as teams take time to help.
Taylorism, which grew I to (pseudo)scientific management, was based on tasks that were repeatable, expressly timing a worker loading pig iron into rail cars. These jobs have been mostly automated or are easy to automate.
It has been known that cross functional teams are more efficient and effective when aligned to value streams, and even the Open group cites this study about mechanized coal mining from 1951.
I would highly recommend the book 'The Art of Action' as an introduction to the concepts of management by intent or mission command.
It will help fill in the blanks on why cargo culted team level concepts like Agile often fail, even if it is from a business context.
Matrix and functional hierarchies are actually pretty good if you want to maintain the status quo, but as adaptability is important to most organizations. Especially in non mechanistic, non repeatable tasks, moving past discredited yet popular organizational theory is needed.
Structures that are aligned to value streams, de-risk short term tactics, while supporting longer term goals and strategies is a far better target.
Focusing on 'what' an organization does and not 'how' is the trick.
You may still have function aligned teams, but they are most successful for needs that do superficially appear to the other parts of the organization.
A platform team is an example of a team that may appear superficially as mechanistic to the org, but still need self organizing cross functional teams behind that facade.
Quit focusing on how you do things and focus on what you do and why.
Management focusing on the engineering practice of breaking down a problem into smaller pieces as a first step is a common cause of the above.
Define what the problem is first before even considering it topologically first.
Business capabilities from EA is one tool to do so.
If you let the problem set the constraints on topology first, you are far more likely to have good outcomes.
Look at GMs failure with their partnership with Toyota if you want a concrete example that is divorced from technology terms and brands.
Well, the example of Swiss trains to me tell a simple thing: there can't be any effective and efficient public transport, so it's time to ANNIHILATE it along with the idea of the sharing economy. It sounds good at superficial level but it's definitively terrible in practice.
Startups work with functional structures because they are small enough to not have communication or political impediments. The structure simply doesn't have enough friction to have a high cost at that scale. It is more about irrelevance than advantage.
> It would be more efficient to be able to place Bob in the sales or marketing team for a bit, so you implement a cross-functional matrix management system that you read about.
Cross-functional matrix management has rarely been efficient or effective if you measure actual outcomes. Having employees bounce around between particular “activity leader” who they may not have a formal reporting line to only works for hero culture, as teams take time to help.
Taylorism, which grew I to (pseudo)scientific management, was based on tasks that were repeatable, expressly timing a worker loading pig iron into rail cars. These jobs have been mostly automated or are easy to automate.
It has been known that cross functional teams are more efficient and effective when aligned to value streams, and even the Open group cites this study about mechanized coal mining from 1951.
https://www.uv.es/gonzalev/PSI%2520ORG%252006-07/ARTICULOS%2...
I would highly recommend the book 'The Art of Action' as an introduction to the concepts of management by intent or mission command.
It will help fill in the blanks on why cargo culted team level concepts like Agile often fail, even if it is from a business context.
Matrix and functional hierarchies are actually pretty good if you want to maintain the status quo, but as adaptability is important to most organizations. Especially in non mechanistic, non repeatable tasks, moving past discredited yet popular organizational theory is needed.
Structures that are aligned to value streams, de-risk short term tactics, while supporting longer term goals and strategies is a far better target.
Focusing on 'what' an organization does and not 'how' is the trick.
You may still have function aligned teams, but they are most successful for needs that do superficially appear to the other parts of the organization.
A platform team is an example of a team that may appear superficially as mechanistic to the org, but still need self organizing cross functional teams behind that facade.
Quit focusing on how you do things and focus on what you do and why.
Management focusing on the engineering practice of breaking down a problem into smaller pieces as a first step is a common cause of the above.
Define what the problem is first before even considering it topologically first.
Business capabilities from EA is one tool to do so.
If you let the problem set the constraints on topology first, you are far more likely to have good outcomes.
Look at GMs failure with their partnership with Toyota if you want a concrete example that is divorced from technology terms and brands.