AI Change tools: Introducing The StrategiGraph!
Track the relationship between autonomy and strategic interdependence
Greetings! Today, let's delve deeper into the inner workings of designing an effective AI change program. To begin with, it's important to take a bird's-eye view of the process. In most cases, AI-related initiatives require changes to be implemented from a centralized location, such as a headquarters unit, to different business units that fall under the company's control. However, implementing central change programs is widely acknowledged to be a challenging task. Therefore, it's crucial to understand the underlying factors that make them so difficult to execute.
One possible explanation is the relationship between two factors:
The need to be autonomous.
The level of autonomy needed in a business unit depends on the type of unit and its products. For instance, if the unit supplies cement to a builder, who is also within the same company, then autonomy is not a major concern. But in the case of a newspaper, where journalists require editorial independence, this need for autonomy is likely to extend to other departments. While it may be possible to override this psychological factor from the center, it is an essential aspect of the business and should not be disregarded. In the next week, we will explore some tools to assess this aspect using the cultural web.
Change is always cultural change, and an organisation's ways of working are always an expression of the current culture.
The need for strategic interdependence.
The definition of strategic interdependence is as follows:
"...refers to a situation in which the actions and decisions of one actor or entity significantly affect, or are affected by, the actions and decisions of other actors or entities. In strategic interdependence, the choices made by one party have implications for the outcomes and interests of others involved."
In today's business landscape, it is not uncommon for various departments to operate with their own dedicated teams. While this approach may work well for some organizations, it can result in a disconnect with the headquarters' overall strategy. Moreover, some business units may have a lower level of maturity, which is reflected in the employees' juggling of multiple roles and responsibilities, both full-time and part-time. While there may be valid reasons for this, such as the size of the unit (Small units will often roll HR into Operations, for example), it is important to note that smaller units can often be more agile and adaptable. A prime example of this is Twitter, which managed to stay operational even after laying off 40% of its workforce. By eliminating power structures that hindered change, the company was able to pivot its offerings multiple times a day. However, as with any approach, there may have been downsides to this strategy.
On the other hand, the business unit can be enormous, comparable in size to the headquarters, or even larger. It may even function as a headquarters for other business units that it owns. In such situations, some may argue that the headquarters is less developed than the unit it oversees.
By combining these two factors, we can strategize how to implement the change program across all business units. Unfortunately, I could not locate a suitable tool for analyzing this information, so I created my own:
"The StrategiGraph!"
Subscribe to find out more!
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Just A Simulation to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.