tags: #publish links: [[Organisation Design]], created: 2022-07-28 Thu --- # Org design isn't copy-pastable between different organisations > adoption of org processes should always take the step-by-step iteration process into account. Or to put that another way — when you are reading about Agile, or Scrum, or Shape Up, or some other business process, you should never think of it as a system to be adopted wholesale; you should always think “hmm, this is a set of tools that seem to work for some context; how do I know this works for mine?” And then you should break those processes down to atomised pieces, and apply them by running smaller, more iterative tests. > Consequently, anyone who tries to shove some org process down your throat with no thought for your business’s context is probably a novice at org design. > those with some experience of org design know that they cannot perfectly predict organisational behaviour in response to their changes, so they iterate. Those who aren’t good at the skill think that they can get there through mechanistic adoption alone. Distrust the latter whenever possible. > stories of organisational processes are more important than descriptive how-tos of the process: > \[Novices think] “Ahh, here are a handful of mechanisms these successful organisations used to become successful! If I adopt them in my org, I, too, will be successful.” > But this is naive. > An experienced org designer would read them for the stories of how those companies got to those mechanisms in the first place. The story of the iterative process is more revealing than a simple description of the mechanisms, because it tells us the context. Understanding the context is usually key to understanding if the processes have a shot at working when applied to your company.