Jump to content

Agile enterprise: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Agilon (talk | contribs)
30 edits
added reference
Agilon (talk | contribs)
30 edits
m moved User:Agilon to Agile Enterprise: Moved out of my user space once I had edited it several times.
(No difference)

Revision as of 14:31, 19 April 2007

The agile enterprise, as the name implies, is a chameleon-like form that is deliberately designed to have a nearly infinite capacity to create and/or adapt to ever-changing environments and to do so quickly and easily with a minimum of internal disruption and fuss. All organizations, of course, embody an inherent tension between stability and change; while the bureaucratic form shoots for the former and, when necessary, tolerates the latter, the agile enterprise thrives on the latter and actually worries about the former.

History of the term

Theoretical underpinnings

The “traditional” bureaucratic model is based on Newtonian science[1][2], which played a large role in the formation of the structure of most organizations from the late 17th century until the early 20th century. This model is grounded in the laws of motion[3][4], which focus on things being well-behaved and orderly, including the idea that things are easy to replicate, detect, control, and measure. Scientific management is the application of Newtonian science in the workplace and was especially prevalent in the Industrial Era. It is characterized by routine, streamlined work with close supervision and clear direction. The goal of this management style is to produce the most output in the least amount of time.

The shift from the Industrial era to the Information era, due in part to changes in technology, globalization, and increased competition, caused vast changes in the workplace, workers, and the work. The agile enterprise” model is becoming more prominent with this shift. [5] This model is based on complexity science, which sees relationships as nonlinear and not easily predicted. Due to this, feedback is used to adapt to the environment by rescaling and reconfiguring. Complex adaptive systems rely on their ability to internalize the feedback and information, learn, and modify and evolve.[6] [7][8][9][10] [11]

Marketplace agility

A diagram form of the workforce scalability concept

For an Agile Enterprise, competitiveness is a constantly moving target. These organizations strive to increase their strategic maneuvers while decreasing the internal trauma required in achieving competitiveness. This means that the organizations must be able to continuously modify and evolve in the marketplace, but remain steady and stable internally. This outward agility requires rapid fire innovation involving exploring new options, exploiting the marketplace through their delivery of new products, adapting and changing based on feedback, and exiting at the appropriate time.[12][13][14][15] [16] [17]

  • Explore is getting out in the marketplace and determining what new innovation would be successful. This includes anticipating demand and fulfilling it.
  • Exploit is taking the product to the marketplace and delivering effectively and efficiently at the best price.
  • Adapt is the ability to change an idea if needed and try again. This ability to be flexible and to learn from feedback is really important.
  • Exit is realizing when to get out of a market and then following through and actually exiting it. This requires getting out before having to get out.

Organizational agility

File:Agility2.jpg
The various aspects of an agile organization must be aligned and support each other

For an organization to achieve marketplace agility, the Agile Enterprise must possess a structure that nurtures and supports organizational agility. The practice of rapid fire innovation requires a company to change and adapt externally. This external adaption relies on the company’s internal flexibility and agility. This internal agility comes from having self-organizing workforces. Self-organizing workforces require that employees are able to take on multiple roles, improvise, initiate, spontaneously collaborate, and rapidly redeploy, while learning from and teaching those around them. [18] [19] [20] [21] For this type of workforce to be successful members of the organization must be able to take an idea and run with it, while simultaneously working with others to accomplish their goals. To promote the creation of this type of workforce, organizations must reconfigure the organizational infrastructure. Each system and process must work to decrease the internal trauma and time spent adjusting to the marketplace changes. Workforce Scalability is another key concept in organizational agility. Workfore scalability consists of two components: workforce alignment (WA) and workforce fluidity (WF). “WA is a Human Resource (HR) configuration in synchronisation with the configuration required by its business strategy.” In other words, workforce alignment is achieved when an organization has the right number of the right types of people in the right places at the right times doing the right things right. Therefore, the workforce’s capacity contributes to the creation and implementation of successful strategic thrusts in the marketplace.[22]

Eight rules of an agile enterprise

According to the book “The Starfish And the Spider”[23] by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom an Agile Enterprise has the same characteristics as a decentralized organization. A decentralized organization is mainly characterized by eight rules:

  1. When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized.
  2. It is easy to mistake starfish for spiders.
  3. An open system doesn’t have central intelligence; the intelligence is spread throughout the system.
  4. Open systems can easily mutate.
  5. The decentralized organization sneaks up on you.
  6. As industries become decentralized overall profits decrease.
  7. Put people into an open system and they’ll automatically want to contribute.
  8. When attacked a centralized organization tends to become even more centralized.


See also

References

  1. ^ Tetenbaum, T.J., "Shifting Paradigms: From Newton to Chaos" Organizational Dynamics (Spring 1998), p.21-31.
  2. ^ Cooksey, R.W. "What is Complexity Science?" Emergence. (2001), p. 77-103.
  3. ^ Tetenbaum, T.J., "Shifting Paradigms: From Newton to Chaos" Organizational Dynamics (Spring 1998), p.21-31.
  4. ^ Cooksey, R.W. "What is Complexity Science?" Emergence. (2001), p. 77-103.
  5. ^ Tetenbaum, T.J., "Shifting Paradigms: From Newton to Chaos" Organizational Dynamics (Spring 1998), p.21-31.
  6. ^ Anderson, P. (1999). “Complexity Theory and Organization Science”. Organization Science, 10, 3: 216-232.
  7. ^ Cooksey, R. (2001). “What is Complexity Science?” Emergence, 3(1): 77-103.
  8. ^ Holbrook, M. (2003). “Adventures in Complexity: An Essay on Dynamic Open Complex Adaptive Systems, Butterfly Effects, Self-Organizing Order, the Ecological Perspective, Fitness Landscapes, Market Spaces, Emergent Beauty at the Edge of Chaos, and all that Jazz”. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 6: 181.
  9. ^ Richardson, K. (2005). Managing Organizational Complexity: Philosophy, Theory, Application. Greenwich, CT: New Age Publishers.
  10. ^ Richardson, K., Goldstein, J., Allen, P. & Snowden, D. (eds). (2005). Emergence: Complexity and Organization. E:CO Annual Volume 6. Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publishing.
  11. ^ Stacey, R., Griffin, D. & Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking? London: Routledge.
  12. ^ Crossan, M., White, R, Lane, H. & Klus, L. (1996). “The Improvising Organization: Where Planning Meets Opportunity:, Organizational Dynamics, Spring: 20-35.
  13. ^ Hitt, M.A., Keats, B.W. & DeMarie, S. (1998). “Navigating in the New Competitive Landscape: Building Strategic Flexibility and Competitive Advantage in the 21st Century”, Academy of Management Executive, 12, 4: 22-42.
  14. ^ Rindova, V. & Kotha, S. (2001). “Continuous ‘Morphing’: Competing Through Dynamic Capabilities, Form, and Function”. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 6: 1263-1280.
  15. ^ Dyer, L. & Ericksen, J. (2007). "Dynamic Organizations: Achieving Marketplace Agility Through Workforce Scalability." In John Storey (ed.) Human Resource Managment: A Critical Text. London: Thompson Learning.
  16. ^ Dyer, L. and Ericksen, J. (2005). "In Pursuit of Marketplace Agility: Applying Precepts of Self-Organizing Systems to Optimize Human Resource Scalability" in M. Losey, S. Meisinger & D. Ulrich (eds.). The Future of Human Resource Management, NY: Wiley
  17. ^ Axelrod, R. & Cohen, M. (1999). Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York: The Free Press.
  18. ^ Breu. K. (2002). “Workforce Agility: The New Employee Strategy for the Knowledge Economy”. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 21 (accessed through ProQuest).
  19. ^ Coleman, H. Jr. (1999). “What Enables Self-organizing Behavior in Business?” Emergence, 1: 33-48.
  20. ^ Wanberg, C. & Banas, J. (2000). “Predictors and Outcomes of Openness to Changes in a Reorganizing Workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1: 132-142.
  21. ^ Dyer, L. & Shafer, R. (2003). "Dynamic Organizations: Achieving Marketplace Agility With People. Leading and Managing People in the Dynamic Organization. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  22. ^ Dyer, L. & Shafer, R. (2003). "Dynamic Organizations: Achieving Marketplace Agility With People. Leading and Managing People in the Dynamic Organization. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  23. ^ Brafman, O. & Beckstrom, R.A. (2006). The Starfish And The Spider. London: Penguin Books.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agile_enterprise&oldid=124090379"