Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
The greatest golfers in the world first achieved a level of consistency by
learning the fundamentals of the game. However, those fundamentals were
not enough to allow them to rise above the competition.
Jack Nicklaus, playing in an era when one of the fundamentals of golf was,
“keep your right elbow close to your body on the backswing,” was known
for his flying right elbow at the top of his backswing. Arnold Palmer was
known for his unorthodox knock-kneed putting stance.
I see this same focus on
uniqueness
separating great high-tech organizations
from their competition today. LACM
5
is currently at the top of their game
and are doing everything possible to stay there by focusing on—in the words
of their VP—the “unique value” their organization brings to their customer.
Similarly, recall the conversation at NANO when one of the leaders said:
We need to define Project Lead consistently across the organization.
The Director immediately replied:
No, we don't. What we need to do is change the word.
He then said:
I don't want you to change what your people do as “Project Leads,” but we
do need to use another word to describe it.
NANO did have an organizational standard set of responsibilities for a
Project Lead. However, they had tailored the Project Lead role for the dif-
ferent project types taking into consideration project-unique factors and
the strengths and weaknesses of the current project personnel. As an
example, this led to a tailored set of responsibilities for a Project Lead on
an install project (which had no new software development) that differed
from a Project Lead's responsibilities on projects that were software devel-
opment intensive. It is important to note that with this tailoring there still
existed a “core” set of responsibilities common to all Project Leads across
the organization.
If the Director ignored the organizational standard roles directing each
individual without reference to previous training and tasking, it would
have led to chaos and ultimately degraded organizational performance. At
times, the Director had been guilty of this, and he knew he needed to
change his behavior.
5. Refer to Chapters 2 and 3 for the LACM case study.
