F•R•I•E•N•D•S – The one where we called out the Buzzwords (Part Two)
You didn’t know this was a two-part episode? Some narratives just can’t be condensed. And with a topic such as business collaboration, trying to summarise all this content in a single blog post was like stuffing all the tasks of an entire project, and its dependencies, onto an A4 sheet of paper! (Do you like what I did there?).
So, welcome back to part two. Not only will this be the season finale (yes, not even I dare create a trilogy blog post), but I will be giving the ending some extra feel-goods. You see, we have to cover some awkward territory first. To give you an idea, I wasn’t sure what to title this blog post. It was either the current title, or ‘The one where they realised they had no to time to actually work!’
A waterfall that acts like a lake… Is that even possible?
Before we dive into the murky waters of project methodologies, I want to frame this conversation around organisational structure. I first wanted to know how much of a project mindset was set from the top. Do companies standardise how they ‘should’ work on projects?
Firstly, it seems these days (unless you’re Rachel) businesses go for a flatter feeling organisational structure. By that, I mean, although the organisation is technically a pyramid structure with a series of senior managers and teams cascading down, the business operates like those tiers are not divisions. They don’t exist. In short, the organisation makes an effort to create a flatter feeling company culture where anyone can talk (and collaborate) with anyone. Less siloed, more collaborative.
Does it work? Our survey says… maybe. Although there seems to be better awareness from the top as to what happens and the bottom, and vice versa, a flatter structure seems to muddy the middle and create conflicting priorities. It also seems to make it harder for you to build closer relationships with those you immediately report to, or who report to you. Then without accountability or autonomy, there seem to be blockages with flatter structures as ‘the few’ have to approve things for the ‘collective majority’.
Objectives, naturally, are set from the top. Often done companywide in a meeting. Core objectives are shared and explained to everyone at the same time. However, following this meeting, team objectives are usually set and often only communicated within that team. Or, in parallel, heads of that team will communicate these objectives collectively with senior management. So, although you know your objectives, you often don’t know the objectives of your colleagues in different teams. Even though, at times, they are related objectives or share dependencies.
Am I using too many commas? Yes. Do I have a point with all this? Also, yes. Although flatter structures are encouraged and often business objectives are shared with everyone, the pyramid structures still create a waterfall of information moving up and down. They create little siloes or, as I just imagined, forked spice trading routes. So, although work is encouraged between teams and individuals, no one really knows how these shared objectives correlate to one another. Or if one team’s objective has a higher business priority than another team. It’s collaborating when you can, whilst giving first priority to your own tasks and objectives. It’s trying to work collectively when your needs are the most important in your mind.
This same mentality, and shared company culture to personal and shared objectives, translates into projects and project methodologies. Each team has its own objectives, processes, culture, and methodology. This is because there is no standardisation of process, culture, and methodology from the top. There is a set of goals, it gets divided up and everyone just works away on their part, in a way that makes sense for them. Could everyone, in theory, follow the same methodology to projects so when they collaborate they are already using the same tools, processes, and company culture guidelines? Yes, it’s possible. However, the problem for projects is that a project methodology is a bit of a mythical beast. Some people see a mermaid, others a manatee.
Methodology or Mythology
A project methodology, such as scrum, agile, Kanban, and lean are terms that describe a particular way of working on a project. The problem is they have become buzzwords and don’t have much meaning to most people. People use them because it sounds good. In fact, of my six friends, three didn’t know if a project methodology was used by anyone in their company and only one knew precisely what the methodology they use actually meant (in terms of how you should work). In fact, Ross corrected me and my understanding of scrum.
Five of my friends were trying to explain a style of working on projects that they use. Sometimes, they described elements of different methodologies and created some sort of hybrid. For instance, Chandler said he used scrum, but his team didn’t have a scrum master to protect the work being conducted in any given sprint. People could change and influence a sprint at any time. It sounded more agile in nature to me. It seems, with most of my friends, the project working styles they used were introduced to them by their team, and they have learned ‘their way’ of doing it. They don’t know if that’s actually what scrum/agile/lean should be though.
As you can see, it all gets very confusing once you start trying to unpick project methodologies. In truth, teams have developed their own hybrid styles. They can’t articulate it and you can’t learn if from Google. So, it’s basically impossible to standardise how people work collaboratively, collectively. Much like languages, everyone may understand a bit of one, but across the whole globe, there is no single language everyone can speak. You have so many variations and dialects.
Does that matter? Probably not. It seems using a project methodology doesn’t really dictate what tools you use, but it may change the frequency you use them. So, you still use Zoom and Trello, but you may have a stand up each morning for 15 minutes. I think transparency and process can enable people to work across different teams, objectives and working styles without the need to standardise a methodology across the company. You ask for help on a specific task for your project, and you allow your colleagues you collaborate with you outside of your methodology. If you can use similar tools and if you have a shared understanding of company and team objectives, there is no harm in not adopting a certain methodology. In my opinion, all you need is a place for open communication, a company culture to give visibility to team objectives and business priorities, and a process around collaborating with other teams and projects. One where you can support without having to understand every detail.
Managing dependencies across teams, again, comes down to culture and process. Not methodology. Are your own objectives most important? Do you know which business objectives are most important? If you create a flatter organisational structure and everyone knows what is most important, you should not need a senior manager to help you prioritise a task. Everyone should know, roughly, what the company should be doing to achieve its goals.
Basically, make it what you want. Call it what you want. You don’t need to understand everyone’s working style, just create and nurture a company culture, and develop processes to help everyone understand what’s important. Make it easy for people to contribute. Just don’t use buzzwords.
DIGITAL COMMUNICATION & COLLABORATION
GUIDE 2021
Do you also spend 71% of your time writing messages, in meetings, and staying organised?
It’s a lot, right? For some people, like Monica who is in sales, or Joey who was a Creative Director, messages, meetings, and team organisation is a core component of the role. But for everyone else, the time it takes to cover all the communication channels, replying to messages, attending team and company meetings, and generally just staying organised, retract from what you actually need to do for ‘work’. For our 6 surveyed, on average, they spent 71% of their working week on the routine work admin mentioned above. And that is, quite frankly, shocking!
Some, like Chandler, actually work whilst on Zoom meetings. But that, surely, isn’t a meeting that needs your full attention. Are you really doing either well? Do you actually need to be on that meeting in the first place?
Shouldn’t digital tools make our work more efficient? Do we actually end up speaking more about what we need to do, than actually doing it?
Although many companies don’t want to enforce the standardisation of tools, processes, and methodologies, and of course, we want everyone to be as happy as possible... I think every organisation needs to recognise the trade-off between talking about work (and being aligned), and actually doing the work. In some respects, too many meetings and too much communication can be as unproductive as not enough. Really, what it boils down to is efficiency and not about individual preference or habit.
Using the same instant messenger tool, video chat, and project tool, companywide, can reduce the number of channels you need to check. It reduces the number of notifications you receive and the tools/data you need to maintain. Having the same tools used by everyone helps to create processes that can apply to most people in the company. If you combine this with a better companywide focus on what is important to achieve, collectively, and a planned and efficient way to maintain that - you should have something that is really efficient.
The point is not which tools, which project methodology, or what processes you use. Its adoption of it across your company. And it’s not about knowing everything about every department’s objectives and tasks, but it’s about knowing what’s important to do, now, to achieve the core objectives of the business.
To achieve the latter, I suggest adopting the ‘1-page strategic plan’ (that’s actually 2 pages), which distills in one page what the company core objectives are, what your team objectives are (and which core objectives they relate to) and then your individual objectives (and how they relate to team and core company objectives).
The great thing with the 1-page strategic plan is that you create this document together, as a company. Depending on the company size, you may break into departments to brainstorm objectives and tasks as a team. Small companies may just do this altogether. When you come together you discuss things collectively and get buy-in from as many people as possible. Enough that majority rules and its set in stone. This document is created by everyone, with the approval of everyone (by majority rule), and is known and understood from inception by everyone. It’s using the flat organisational structure in goal setting, not just collaborating on those goals.
Once a month, there is a shorter team meeting that explores progress as a team, and each team member has autonomy and accountability for their tasks. Every quarter you have a company meeting to discuss progress across the core objectives and team objectives. This helps everyone get some idea of what the company is doing, now, how well it’s going, and a reminder of how it all relates to your individual goals. These systematic check-ins help people understand shifting priorities or objectives lagging/needing extra support. It’s focused time to stay aligned, without the need for constant communication.
This is used in many start-ups to help people align and focus on what’s important. Using a project tool of your choice, you can work on your individual, team, and company projects. You align everything you do against an objective. Once you have a process for collaboration within your company, all you really need to do is organise yourself. How detailed you organise yourself, or how far in advance you plan is up to you. Do you have objectives and deadlines? Do you have a single project taking 3 months, or do you have several smaller projects? Do you need to know the next thing you’re working on, or the next 5? It always varies. However, from those surveyed the solution to staying organised is, without a doubt, the humble to-do list.
The key is to align your lists with your 1-page strategic plan. Are your objectives broad and a single project? Or are they smaller and you complete several in a month? Do you need to allow for change? Do you work in agile or scrum methodologies (or take aspects of these methodologies)? Does it have a hard deadline? Does it have dependencies?
It’s hard to be reactive/adhoc and planned/organised at the same time. If you are going to add structure and process and standardisation… you need a list. In fact, almost everyone has a list of some sort anyway. The key is making sure it has the right things on it, and that you stick to it.
The season finale
These days, almost every organisation is global. They have websites, social channels and if they have an online marketplace, they can have customers from anywhere in the world. Even my local, family-run, tapas bar runs its Facebook page like a website with reviews in multiple languages and followers from all over the world.
As companies grow, they will likely have individuals and teams working directly in key markets. All reporting to a central HQ. This is simply a natural progression as organisations look to better serve the needs of their key customers. So, it’s not a case of ‘if’ companies are digital, it’s more a case of how many tools they use and if they have any guidelines on how to use them.
Digital communication and collaboration are a necessity. Even before the pandemic, this was true. However, now it’s evident for so many more people. At times a painful truth, as they rushed to put in infrastructure and process to enable 100% digital working environments when COVID-19 spread across the globe.
Neither instant messaging, video calls, or digital project management tools can replace what face-to-face communication and collaboration can provide. There is no point trying. Instead, understand their weaknesses and strengths, and play to them. It’s very difficult to get social cues from digital, but you can get fast transactional responses and brainstorm ideas, for example.
More and more companies, even if a traditional pyramid structure, are trying to act like they have a flat organisational structure. This is in an effort to prevent silos with team-working and the data generated. Transparency and free-flowing communication can cause a lot of noise though, so it’s important to apply these same principles to company objectives, so communication and collaboration are encased in a collective goal. This will reduce everyone working adhoc on tasks that are not relevant.
Remember that most business communication and collaboration happens at a team or project level. This means small pockets of people start using tools and project working styles that work for them. You don’t need to stifle team preferences with enforced standardisation, but if you can limit the number of tools you use, you can apply a process to more people. This means when teams do, inevitably, work together than can efficiently.
Digital tools for communication and collaboration are meant to make our lives easier, so make sure you apply some guidance on the tools everyone should use, processes on how to work together, and clear company goals that everyone can align to. That way, maintaining digital tools will not take over from actually doing tasks to achieve those collective goals.
It’s working together, online, smarter.
“Huddo Boards is your visual and collaborative project task management app. Add your tasks to a board, assign members, add comments and descriptions, files and more. Discover Kanban Board, MindMap and Timeline views that help users visualise their tasks to get more done.”
