The meaning of grouping organisational entities or the importance of the line.

Imagine an organisation as a set of entities or functions that in their smallest unit add a value to the output and existence of that organisation.

Grouping these essential functions in an organisational structure (formally or less formally) is one of the things management and leadership do.

The choices made influence how the organisation is perceived, even if the basic functional entities remain unchanged (which is often the case in organisational changes).

Drawing the lines is not without meaning and that is something to remember when involved in organisation design.

Loose end space, the sometimes very useful imperfections of the organisational circumference.

Organisations may, due to environmental conditions, not have the perfect boundary and have what could be viewed as an anomaly. The loose end of an organisation. The space that does not fit in a neat design.

The non-standard border needed as an interface with a special supplier.
The space that would make a natural fit, but that is occupied by a competitor
An essential node of knowledge that does not fit in the streamlined process.
A long standing commitment to provide support in a area that proves to be more of an appendix, than an integral part of the whole.

Examples of loose ends.
Anomalies or sources for innovation? To be smoothed out or cherished?

The same border elements can provide different organisational experiences: a matter of orientation.

 

Architects have played with the idea since a long time: using the orientation of  similar elements to create various spacial experiences.

Could we apply this concept to organisation design?

It would start with a deeper awareness of the effect of organisational building blocks such as HRM systems, meetings, innovation processes, customer interaction set-ups, etc, etc. Then we could orient them to the intended experience.

With the best intentions with regard to interaction with the outside world, internal blockage can spoil everything.

 

The inside of an organisation does influence the external interaction, which in the end is the raison d’être of any organisation.

Misallignment of internal and external objectives, structures and processes, will fundamentally endanger the very existence of an organisation in the long run.

Although not put in such words like the above, a lot of people in organisation will recognise the struggle and the frustration of a mismatch between the inside and the outside.

 

Organisationally framed or not organisationally framed?

It are the people that build an organisation and interact directly and indirectly with the environment, so the organisational framing of the individual does matter. Framed in the sense that what you are, what you think you are  or what you are perceived to be, is partly (or more than partly) defined by the organisation you belong to.

Can a person afford to be unframed of the organisation he or she belongs to? Is there a price to pay?

And is it even possible to be part of an organisation and not to be framed by it?

We can come up with new answers for these tricky questions in organisation design.

Dissecting the organisation in various blood groups does not change the shape of the organisation. So why bother?

Unless you want to create separate entities, dissection of blood groups does not change the shape of the organisation. Not its interaction, nor its meaning.

Ii is a view on organisations with the consequence that internal structure does not matter for the outside.

All efforts to break up an organisation in various parts (along functions, products, locations, customers) have little effect to the outside world, unless it affects the shape and the characteristics of the border.

A paradox in organisational design thinking and it highlights the question about what defines an organisation.

The line of the border may remain the same, the shape of the organisation may vary though.

The border is about the line itself and about the shape the line forms.

To what extend does the line (the boundary) matter in the definition of the shape (of the organisation)?

The way forces at the boundaries react to each other is another element to describe organisations and to design them

The way the inside and outside forces in an organisation collide is an interesting object of study.

What were the design intentions and how does it roll out in practice?

Can we anticipate the behaviour of the other force? And choreograph a  favorable outcome? Can we design behaviour?

What happens at the border defines the organisation, so understanding how it works, helps to design that organisation.

The border of an organisation is more than a physical divide. It extends to a multi-faceted collection of various forms.

The border of an organisation consists of more than just a physical divide between the inside and the outside.

The boundary extends to the people that represent the organisation, its (brand) image, the means of communications and the products and services the organisation delivers. All these elements show what the organisation is about and in that sense they are  the various layers of interactions, the extended elements of the border.

Taking this broader perspective can benefit the thinking about the meaning of an organisation and the design of its forms.

Intimacy (with customers and others) through interlocking and mirroring at the border. Maximum areas of exchange.

Organisations have something paradoxical. On the one hand they focus on their inside and want to be distinguishable from the outside. On the other hand organizations thrive on the interaction with their environment and some even strive for customer intimacy.

Mirroring the forms at the border  provides a long stretch of closeness and an extended space to interact. It remains a challenge to figure out how this interwoven intimacy is actually shaped, but extending the border provides ample opportunities. Organisation design in this respect is also interaction design.