Re: Organizational integration LO953

Michael (Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk)
Wed, 26 Apr 1995 08:03:30 +0000

Replying to LO932 --

David, I'll have a go at some of your challenge and hope that it
helps illuminate some approaches without getting into much detail:

> One of the criteria has to
> do with integration, specifically, how well an organzational
> model promotes cooperation and collaboration among technical
> specialties.

Stu Kauffman at Santa Fe is doing some very interesting work that
suggests that "grand" cooperation and collaboration is not an ideal.
What is appearing to be ideal is a great deal of local cooperation.
It may be that "chunking" into small groups and freeing communication
on local levels and then "chunking up" so that small cells, teams or
"patches" also interact mainly with a local environment will produce
remarkable results for information flows and adaptability.

> It appears to me that organizations are structured to promote
> cooperation within major divisions (vertical integration), but
> that difficulties arise when elements within one division need to
> work with elements of other divisions (horizontally). The
> challenge in any organization is to build a management system - a
> set of interconnected process that collectively promote the
> effective and efficient achievement of the organization's mission
> - that promotes cooperation in both directions.

The difficulty may be that the language used (for thinking and
speaking) is just a reflection of the metanarratives of business and
that the whole way of framing above is the source of lack of ability
to access the problem. For example, "vertical", "horizontal",
"divisions" and even "organisation's mission" and the causal and
behavioural elements implied may already preclude any approach that
has creative possibility.

It may be that the "difficulty of horizontal communication" is _only_
in the existing langauge and system. I don't know that it exists in
any other reality.

> If the above premise about the difficulty of horizontal
> cooperation is true, then my question is: How can an
> organization identify those areas of integration that it most
> needs to concentrate on, while not building barriers between
> those that have "natural" connections? Maybe another way to
> phrase this is: How can an organization be set up to promote
> both vertical and horizontal integration?

So ... I suggesting that the way to promote what you want here is to
get rid of the language and design of "horizontal and vertical".
Keep the language and I suspect, if the organisation is large, you'll
keep the problem.

You've already said "I know the info is in the organisation" so I
won't pursue that - although I'd recommend that you do.

> the situation (such as the ability to work in teams, improve
> quality, empower staff and develop partnerships with stakeholders)?

The conceptual models that you are looking for might be found in
metaphors from biology or ecology or physics or sports teams. If you
start with these, then challenge your metanarratives based on trying
to account for what you think you need with what the models suggest,
you might produce some suprising results.

Michael McMaster
Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk