1. ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN: THEORY VERSUS PRACTICAL APPLICATION
SAIMAS workshop
ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN: THEORY VERSUS PRACTICAL APPLICATION
27th October 2016
Ground Floor, 19 Souvereign Drive, Route 21 Corporate Park, Irene
P.O.Box 203, Wapadrand, 0054
T: W:

2. Service delivery beyond implementation
Topics for discussion
Reflecting on different theoretical models / approaches directing Organisational design.
Why we need Design principles?
Evaluating the current state of Organisation structure: Applying tests.
Holistic view: Structure follows Process follows Strategy.
Strategy evaluation
3rd generation process approach
Maturity assessment
Levels of Accountability (LoA)
Practical application.
Service delivery beyond implementation

3. A Comparison of three popular Organization Design Models
Organization Design Models- A comparison
Organization Design is not an exact science. The success of any approach lies in making the design exercise logical and objective.
Over the years, many models have been developed for understanding the various elements of Organization Design. The objective has been to provide a framework to understand the intricacies of organization design.
Source: Guide to Organisation Design: Creating High-Performing and Adaptable Enterprises By Naomi Stanford, John Wiley& Sons, 2007
Service delivery beyond implementation

4. A Comparison of three popular Organization Design Models
McKinsey’s 7S Model
Published by Waterman & Peters in 1980s, this is the most commonly accepted model. Its popularity lies in the
fact that both hard elements and soft elements have been considered and their interactions are firmly
established
Benefits
Description of important organizational
Recognition of the interaction between
Limitations:
No external environment (input)elements
throughput /(output) element
No feedback loops.
No performance variables.
Service delivery beyond implementation

5. A Comparison of three popular Organization Design Models
Galbraith’s Star Model
Developed by Jay Galbraith in Galbraith’s Star Model 1960s, the star model is widely
accepted because of the Strategy approach that seamlessly links competitive advantage
to strategy to structure , people , lateral processes and reward mechanisms People Structure
Rewards Processes Behavior Performance CultureBenefits
Benefits:
- Description of important elements
- Recognition of the interaction between elements
Limitations:
- Does not “call out” some key organizational elements including input / output culture
Service delivery beyond implementation

6. A Comparison of three popular Organization Design Models
Weisbord Six Box model
Developed by Marvin Weisbord in the 1970s, this Weisbord Six Box Model model gives attention to issues such as:
Purpose
Relationship
Mechanism
Rewards
Structure
Environment
Benefits
Include some diagnostic questions per box
Requires he purpose to be stated
Limitations
Focus on some elements may lead to overlooking others
Service delivery beyond implementation

7. Other popular Organization Design Models
Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model
Developed by David A Nadler and M L Tushman in the early 1980s, the basic principle of this model is that an organizations performance is derived from four elements: tasks, people, structure, and culture.
Burke & Litwin Model
(Developed in 1992), this model shows the various drivers of change and ranks Burke-Litwin Model them in terms of importance. The model is expressed diagrammatically, with the most important factors featuring at the top. The lower External layers become gradually less important.
7 P model focused from the client
perspective
Service delivery beyond implementation

8. Why is design projects not successful?
Focus on the people and not the work (position)
To close to the answer (environment) – “Part of process and detail”
Wrong intent
Personal agenda’s
Empire building thinking
GAP for current to new to big
Can not afford the structure
Little logical definitions and principles applied ?
Service delivery beyond implementation

9. Why we need design principles?
Ensure objective design
Provide guidance
Provide parameters
Give focus to the design team
Keep the design team honest within the parameters
Utilise as evaluation criteria
Service delivery beyond implementation

10. Evaluation: Proposed structure vs Design Principles
Yes/No
Comments
Customer focus
Yes
Inclusion of BRM
ITIL compliant
Identified ITIL ownership within ICTS, ACS to participate in processes
Formalise PM
Identified within ICTS
Design for role and not people
Design compiled independent by H2R
Allow for succession planning
Middle management layer identified
Span of control (Team size) – Practical
Partially
Span of control could be bigger
Preference to flat structure
Clear role and responsibilities – no duplication
No duplications

11. Evaluation: Proposed structure vs Design Principles
Yes/No
Comments
Alignment to UCT structures
Yes
Part of grading process
Do not structure for a technology basis
Partially
Structured for required skill sets
Capacity issue
More positions within the proposed structure
Skills profile and retention
Skills sets defined as part of job profile; Retention is a management function –can not structure for this
Integrate system technologies
Remove non core functions from the structure
Differentiate between support and new development in structure

12. Evaluation: Proposed structure vs Design Principles
Yes/No
Comments
Align structure with best practices
Yes
Fit for purpose & align to good practice models
Accommodate institutional culture
Inclusion of BRM
Allow for new development skill sets
Within System Development function
Ownership-based structure
Clear ownership defined
Allow for integration across ICTS
Participation in cross-functional processes (e.g. ITIL)

13. Org design tests Capacity Utilization Test:
The test comparatively evaluate the structure in terms of the FTE ratio’s
Structure Effectiveness test
The test evaluates the number of levels as well as the span of control
Business Process Maturity test
The test evaluate the level of business process standardisation and efficiency (Business Process Maturity)
Role clarity test
The test evaluate if different positions takes responsibility for the same deliverables.
Resource availability test
The design of the organization should take into consideration the number of critical positions and difficulty to get them filled.
Functional test
The design of the organization should ensure that functional departments add appropriate value. Business practice maturity evaluation and continuous improvement processes
Red tape test
The design of the organization should cater for unnecessary procedures regarding decision making.
History test
The company are structured accordingly to principles and procedures of good practice
and nor that worked in the past

14. Organisational structure Span of Control (Average)
Org design tests
Span of control evaluate the manager in relationship to the number of sub-ordinates. Detailed below is the span of control depicted according to business function and then according to business unit. One of the current organisational structures show a span of control of more than 10 individuals hence the current Debswana structure is excessively deep in comparison to better practice standards which is approximately 1:7
Organisational structure
Org Levels
(Levels of Mgmt)
Span of Control (Average)
No. Span > 10 (Max)
HR Overall – Jwaneng
1:8
1:2:2:2:2:1:2
HR Overall – Orapa
1:9
1:2:3:2:2:2:2
HR Overall – HQ
1:7
1:5:3:1
FIN Overall – Jwaneng
1:6
1:5:2:2:2:3
FIN Overall – Orapa
1:4:3:1:1:4
FIN Overall – HQ
1:5:3:2:1:1
SCM – Jwaneng & Orapa
1:6:1:3:6 1
SCM
1:4:2:2:1
Debswana Shared Services Planning

15. Holistic view: Structure follows Process follows Strategy
Strategy evaluation
Use BSC as foundation for Strategy alignment grid
Easy reference / analysis tool
Identify gaps and over focused areas
Service delivery beyond implementation

16. Strategy Alignment Grid
People
Money
Infrastr.
Service/
Product
1.2.2; 2.1.1; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.3.1
1.1.3; 2.1.1; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.3.1; 3.2.1; 4.1.1; 4.1.2
1.2.1; 2.1.1; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.3.1; 4.1.5; 4.1.4
1.2.1; 1.2.2; 1.3.4; 2.1.1; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.3.1; 3.2.1; 4.1.5; 4.1.4
1.2.2; 1.2.3; 2.1.4; ; 4.1.6; 4.2.1; 4.2.2; 4.2.3; 4.2.4
1.2.2; 1.2.3; 2.1.4; 2.2.2; 4.1.2; 4.1.3; 4.2.4;
1.2.2; 1.2.3; 2.1.1; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.2.2; 3.3.1; 3.3.2; 4.2.3; 4.2.4
1.1.2; 1.2.2; 1.2.3; 1.3.3; 2.1.1; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.2.2; 4.2.1; 4.2.2; 4.2.3; 4.4.4
1.1.1; 1.2.1; 1.2.2; 1.3.1; 1.3.2; 1.3.4; 3.2.1; 4.1.4; 4.1.5
1.2.2; 1.2.3; 4.1.2; 4.1.3
1.1.1; 1.1.3; 1.2.2; 1.3.1; 1.3.2; 2.1.2; 3.1.1; 3.1.2; 3.3.1; 3.3.2; 4.1.4; 4.1.7
1.1.1; 1.2.2; 1.3.1; 1.3.2; 1.3.3; 1.3.4; 2.1.2; 3.1.6; 3.2.1; 3.3.1; 3.3.2; 4.1.4; 4.2.1; 4.2.2; 4.2.4
1.1.3; 1.1.4; 1.2.2; 1.2.3; 1.3.4; 2.1.1; 2.1.4; 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.2.1; 4.1.5; 4.1.6
1.1.3; 1.2.2; 1.2.3; 2.1.1; 2.1.4; 2.3.1; 4.2.4
1.1.3; 1.1.4; 1.2.2; 1.2.3; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.3.1; 3.1.1,
3.1.2; 3.3.2; 4.1.7
1.1.3; 1.1.4; 1.2.2; 1.2.3; 1.3.4; 2.1.1; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.2.1; 2.2.2; 2.3.1; 3.1.1; 3.1.2; 3.2.1; 3.3.2; 4.1.6; 4.2.4
Pull
Push
Support
The EAG provides a significant input to strategy formulation.
When the four ‘process structure’ issues (PPIS, see earlier) are juxtaposed with the four Context Domains (4M’s, see earlier) to regulate the application of Expit information, they form the Expit Alignment Grid otherwise known as the EAG. The sixteen cells of the EAG provide a focus on complete strategy formulation.
Improve

17. Holistic view: Structure follows Process follows Strategy
3rd generation business processes
Defined as Management and Accomplishment processes
Service delivery beyond implementation

18. Holistic view: Structure follows Process follows Strategy
Maturity assessment
Defined with the 5 levels of maturity
Service delivery beyond implementation

19. Holistic view: Structure follows Process follows Strategy
Level 3 (Defined) (Processes have been defined and documented)
Average rating on Level 3:
2.92
Question
Score
Comments
Have all the triggers been properly documented 3
Not all
Have the triggers been documented according to the CPX standard
Suppliers of the triggers/events have been identified and documented 2
Not formal, need to be formally defined & documented
Quality criteria for all events/inputs have been defined, documented and communicated (Is supplier aware of the criteria)
2.5
Have all the results/outputs been properly documented
Have the results/outputs been documented according to the CPX standard
The clients that receive the services/products have been identified and documented
Quality criteria for outputs have been defined and documented (does this align with client requirements)
Service delivery beyond implementation

20. Holistic view: Levels of Accountability (LoA)
Levels of Work (Levels of Accountability) are a framework that clearly distinguishes the various types of work and accountability required in any organisation. All roles in the organisation fit into one of these levels, and the clear accountability of each level enables clarity of roles.
Service delivery beyond implementation

21. Holistic view: Levels of Accountability (LoA): Levelling Model
I Shape 6
Enterprise Strategic Leadership
I Influence 5
Organisational Strategic Leadership
I Integrate
Functional Horizontal
Leadership 4
Functional Value Chain
Specialisation
LEADERSHIP PIPELINE
SPECIALIST PIPELINE
I Optimise
Tactical Leadership 3
Tactical & Practice Area Specialisation
I Manage
Service Delivery Management 2
Service Delivery Specialisation
I do 1
Service Delivery & Quality Orientation
Transactional Specialisation

22. Holistic view: Levels of Accountability (LoA): Themes of work
Level of Accountability
Themes of work 6H
Enterprise Vision & Strategy Formulation and Influence 6L
Enterprise Strategy Formulation and Influence 5H
Organisational Strategic Leadership - Multi Operating Units 5L
Organisational Strategic Leadership - Single Operating 4H
Functional Leadership: Multi Value Chain Integration 4L
Function Leadership: Single Value Chain Integration 4S
Functional Value Chain Area Specialisation 3H
Tactical Leadership: Multi Practice Integration 3L
Tactical Leadership: Single Practice Development 3S
Tactical and Practice Area Specialisation 2
Service Delivery Management: Process (Manager) 2S
Service Delivery: Processes Area Specialisation
1TL
Service Delivery Co-ordination & Quality Orientation (Team Leader) 1S
Quality Orientation : Transactional Specialization 1M
Quality Orientation: Transactional Value and Knowledge Worker 1L
Quality Orientation: General Worker

23. Holistic view: Levels of Accountability (LoA)
Application of LoA
Service delivery beyond implementation