Comments on: Silos and the art of Empirical Theology http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2007/07/08/silos-and-the-art-of-empirical-theology/ experiments in refactored perception Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Venkat http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2007/07/08/silos-and-the-art-of-empirical-theology/#comment-242 Venkat Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:46:07 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2007/07/08/silos-and-the-art-of-empirical-theology/#comment-242 Well, most departments are also silos, yes. But in matrix organizations (which I'll talk about next in this theme), it is not clear how process and departmental structure interact. But if you ignore terminology and just think of "units that develop an internal language, play in an internal economy and can have communication problems," that picks out the object of my discussion. So no, I don't think I am overstating the silo concept. If new departments are created specifically to fill gaps, they just create new gaps. I am not convinced there are global gains to putting new "interdisciplinary" functions somewhere UNLESS you destroy some departments as well. Essentially the only way to globally rationalize an organization is to refactor it the way s/w engineers refactor software. I've seen/heard of that done a few times, so it can be done. Kinda the intra-economy equivalent of declaring a couple of monopolies to clean up the chaos. Well, most departments are also silos, yes. But in matrix organizations (which I’ll talk about next in this theme), it is not clear how process and departmental structure interact.

But if you ignore terminology and just think of “units that develop an internal language, play in an internal economy and can have communication problems,” that picks out the object of my discussion. So no, I don’t think I am overstating the silo concept.

If new departments are created specifically to fill gaps, they just create new gaps. I am not convinced there are global gains to putting new “interdisciplinary” functions somewhere UNLESS you destroy some departments as well.

Essentially the only way to globally rationalize an organization is to refactor it the way s/w engineers refactor software. I’ve seen/heard of that done a few times, so it can be done. Kinda the intra-economy equivalent of declaring a couple of monopolies to clean up the chaos.

]]> By: Torp http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2007/07/08/silos-and-the-art-of-empirical-theology/#comment-239 Torp Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:15:31 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2007/07/08/silos-and-the-art-of-empirical-theology/#comment-239 Whew! I ran out of breath reading through, and could not keep the whole thing in my head coherently. Taking a step back... I am forced to ask... what is the real difference between "silo" as you like to call it, and the concept of a "department" that all general managers recognize. A department is MEANT to be self-interested, coherently focused on one mission (which maybe different from the mission of the overall organization, but is FULL WELL expected to contriibute to creating more shareholder value, even if it erodes value creation in sister departments). IN fact - the only reason a new department is EVER created, is to generate more focus and energy on an issue that would "fall between the cracks" if it were left in the purview of other departments. So a department creates some siloing.. and is done in a desirable situation. Of course, down the line a department accretes its own management, becomes a fiefdom, may underperform both on its own local goal and its more global corporate role... but that is how human organizations work. CEOs are EXPECTED to break through this quagmire, and get everyone on the same page, by making tradeoffs at a corporate level that may displease individual departments. Are we overstating the "silo" concept? Whew! I ran out of breath reading through, and could not keep the whole thing in my head coherently. Taking a step back… I am forced to ask… what is the real difference between “silo” as you like to call it, and the concept of a “department” that all general managers recognize. A department is MEANT to be self-interested, coherently focused on one mission (which maybe different from the mission of the overall organization, but is FULL WELL expected to contriibute to creating more shareholder value, even if it erodes value creation in sister departments). IN fact – the only reason a new department is EVER created, is to generate more focus and energy on an issue that would “fall between the cracks” if it were left in the purview of other departments. So a department creates some siloing.. and is done in a desirable situation. Of course, down the line a department accretes its own management, becomes a fiefdom, may underperform both on its own local goal and its more global corporate role… but that is how human organizations work. CEOs are EXPECTED to break through this quagmire, and get everyone on the same page, by making tradeoffs at a corporate level that may displease individual departments. Are we overstating the “silo” concept?

]]>