Category: Organizational Development

Value of support services

My thoughts have continued to develop, since a previous post’s conclusion, around the topics of workplace change and the influence on organizational design.  My latest thought is – perhaps we all need to take some responsibility for organizational design?  Every day, by interacting with someone in a work capacity or a colleague in a social environment, you are influencing the culture.  In your own big/small way you are influencing ‘how things are done round here’.

This came to mind again after attending a recent ‘Demonstrating your Value’ presentation, organized by CILIP’s Commercial, Legal and Scientific Information Group (CLSIG).  When I was in the session I know I was nodding along thinking ‘yes, very sensible’.  However, on reflection after the tube/bus ride home I thought again.  The feeling that overwhelmed me was how submissive the whole event felt.  Let me explain, firstly, by looking at some highlight notes from the presentation itself…

  • value = greater value add than your cost (depends on culture of organization and the credibility of your service)
  • credibility = utility (fit for purpose) / warranty / meets expectations
  • can influence credibility needs of organization
  • use user audits, ask people in detail what they need and how you are achieving it – ask ‘what else should I do?’
  • align headcount to roles, focus on wider value rather than niches
  • build story around budget, accurate numbers not enough
  • promote your value in language akin to firm’s advertising
  • learn from other support departments, scope for shared metrics, etc.
  • actively fill roles where the firm has previously used external consultants.

What came from my pork pie-fueled (appropriate for the venue) reflection/insight was that this all suggests support services are answerable to their masters and not enough influencers upon them.  This is of course understandable, as one presenter pointed out there are actually very few UK professionals left in areas such as legal research due to outsourcing, off-shoring, etc. but surely this is part of the problem.  I do not want to add to the stereotype of the ‘mousey librarian’, indeed most support staff leaders I have met over the years (including in library and information services) have tended to be outspoken.  Therefore, is there a better way to measure value?  User audits may identify what a business wants from its support services but not necessarily give the services scope for shifting expectations, as the support professionals pick up and develop ideas for the future of work.  Perhaps the below (aiming to be applicable to any support service):

  • A culture change survey: “In the last year my opinion of the x service has improved” (score out of 10, + to -).
  • An awareness survey: “Name of team member/service/offering” (worked with/used through to unaware).
  • An influence survey: “I have learned something from team member/service/offering this year” (agree through to disagree).

By all means, measure your service in financial terms but let’s not forget that every business is only as strong as its people and people need to influence the organization toward somewhere they would like to work.  That will change over time and simply working toward existing cultures won’t help move you forward.

What kind of organization do you want to work in?

‘Social enterprise’, ‘networked enterprise’, ‘learning culture’ and many more related buzzwords are flying around at the time being and influencing the professional literature and conferences.  What perhaps makes these themes different, to their predecessors, is that it is clear they cut across traditional disciplines as, arguably, the first big shift of power away from IT departments since their creation.

Tools such as ThisWorkedWell offer, on the face of it, walled garden knowledge capture and dissemination.  For many organizations this would have been the responsibility of knowledge/information departments in the past.  However, such new tools recognize the value in collaboration for learning and efficiency, thus rethinking workplace learning and communications.

The mobile, BYOD, nature of many of these tools arguably democratize the workforce, albeit with the need for some staff to “let go of control“.  A point in that “let go of control” article, about Google’s environment, is that transparency is key.

Ultimately the questions over all of these related areas, for me, come back to “what kind of organization do I want to work in?” My answer would have to include characteristics such as the organization:

  • being transparent,
  • recognizes learning happens all the time,
  • encourages and supports value from people reflecting upon, and sharing, their work with others,
  • having efficient and effective communication platforms (as advocated on this ‘engaged worker’ infographic),
  • make use of my data as appropriate (for example, could you expose my twitter data – as in Gwittr profile below – to my colleagues to show my areas of interest?),
  • recognizes the value in play (such as the social areas in Google offices) and skills from activities such as playing video games.

What I am really talking about here is knowledge work and I have to agree with much from Jarche.com.  This of course relates to corporate culture and much more, again cutting across traditional theoretical disciplines.  An interesting time, especially for organisational design professionals.

Gwittr stats on use of Twitter up to May 2014
Gwittr data in May 2014