Move guide
Run the work that crosses functions
Your report suggested a move on at least one of these three practices:
- whether the processes that cut across functions exist as processes;
- where work crosses a team boundary, whether the hand-off was designed;
- how the book of work is decided, and whether anyone can see it.
This move guide gives the process that hurts most a name, an owner and a calendar. It maps the worst hand-off end to end, with an owner at each step. Then it puts all the work in one list, ranked by one forum.
1. When it applies
Use this move guide if your report placed any of these practices in the lowest two stages.
| Practice | Where it may sit today | Where this move guide aims |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the processes that cut across functions exist as processes | Lagging: "The sales plan, the production plan and the budget are three documents built by three teams that never meet." Basic: "The budget is last year plus a percentage, the strategy never quite turns into a business plan, and nobody owns making the sales, stock and finance numbers agree." |
Competent: "The handful of processes that cross functions (planning, budgeting, pricing, product changes) each have a name, an owner and a calendar." |
| Where work crosses a team boundary, whether the hand-off was designed | Lagging: "A national customer deals with five different people who do not talk to each other, and work crosses teams on goodwill and personal favours." Basic: "The worst hand-offs are known by name, and each has a workaround that depends on two people who get along." |
Competent: "The handful of processes that cross team boundaries are mapped end to end, with a named owner at each hand-off." |
| How the book of work is decided, and whether anyone can see it | Lagging: "Nothing central has a price, so every request is urgent, nobody can see the list of work under way, and priority goes to whoever shouts loudest." Basic: "Requests are listed somewhere; the order they get done in depends on one executive's calendar." |
Competent: "One forum ranks the work against written criteria, and everyone can see what is queued, what is under way and what was declined." |
If all three already sit at the middle stage or higher, skip this move guide.
It needs the placements from placing each function and the forums from deciding who decides.
2. What to do
Four steps, in four to six weeks.
- Pick the cross-functional process that hurts most. Usually planning to budget, or pricing. Give it a name, an owner, a calendar and a forum that decides at its end.
- Pick the process where customers or work most often fall between teams. Map it end to end on one page. Name an owner at each hand-off.
- Put the whole book of work in one visible list. Write the criteria it is ranked by.
- Give the list one forum that owns the order. Make the teams asking for work see what it costs.
Table A below holds the process, the hand-off and the list on one page.
The three free worksheets do the recording:
- /worksheets/operating-model/cross-functional-processes for the process calendar;
- /worksheets/operating-model/hand-offs for the hand-off map;
- /worksheets/operating-model/prioritisation for the ranked list.
3. What to produce
One table, plus the three worksheets above.
Table A. The process, the hand-off and the list
| Item | Name | Owner | Calendar or forum | First date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The cross-functional process that hurts most | ||||
| The forum that decides at its end | ||||
| The worst hand-off, mapped | ||||
| Owner at each hand-off (list them) | ||||
| The book of work, in one list | ||||
| The forum that ranks it, and its criteria |
A hand-off with no owner belongs to whoever is most patient.
4. A worked example
Illustrative. Written for this move guide. It describes no client.
A furniture maker sells through retailers and its own website. Sales, production and finance each built their own plan for the year.
The process.
- The three plans became one: sales and operations planning, owned by the operations director. It runs monthly, and ends in a meeting that sets the build plan.
The hand-off.
- Custom orders fell between sales and the factory. The team mapped the order from quote to delivery on one page. Each of its five hand-offs now has a named owner.
The book of work.
- Twenty-three improvement requests sat in three inboxes. They now sit in one list, ranked monthly against three criteria. Seven were declined, and the list says why.
- 1 plan, where there were three
- 5 hand-offs, each with an owner
- 23 requests in one ranked list
On a retake, all three practices could be answered at the middle stage.
What it looked like in our work
From our own work. Redrawn.
A national labour-hire network ran the same process five ways across its sites. The work wrote down the steps that had to match, and left the rest to the sites.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| The core process | Five site models for the same work | One standard for the steps that must match |
| The service step | The least defined part of the model | Written down, with an owner |
| National clients | Went to whichever state manager answered | Account management rebuilt around them |
| The site model | Branches, by habit | Branches kept on purpose: a hub did not change the economics |
The standard covered only the steps that had to match. Everything else stayed with the sites.
5. Effort and dependencies
- Chief operating officerPicks the process and the hand-off, and owns the list.
- Process ownersRun the calendar and own each hand-off.
- The people who do the workMap the hand-offs as they really happen.
What you need
- The forums from step 6.
- Every open request for work, from every inbox.
How long
- Four to six weeks.
What gets in the way. We have seen these in our own work:
- Five ways of doing the same job. A national labour-hire network ran five site models for the same process. The service step was the least defined part of the model.
- A process that did not exist. A regulated utility's strategy team had no process from strategy to business plan, and none for setting targets. The gap only showed when two senior people left.
- Priorities set by committee. A joint venture's shared IT ranked its work by committee, against a capacity bought in advance. Nobody could see the queue.
6. How will you know it worked?
The test is whether the calendar runs and the list is used. Retake the check after two cycles of the process. Each of these should be true when you answer:
| Practice | You can answer Competent when | A document alone does not count if |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the processes that cut across functions exist as processes | The worst process has a name, an owner and a calendar, and has run on it twice. | The calendar is written, and the three plans are still built apart. |
| Where work crosses a team boundary, whether the hand-off was designed | The worst hand-off is mapped end to end, and each step has a named owner. | The map exists, and the work still crosses on favours. |
| How the book of work is decided, and whether anyone can see it | One forum ranks all the work against written criteria, and anyone can see the list. | The list exists, and the order still follows one executive's calendar. |
The worked example is illustrative.
Think we've used your work without proper credit? Tell us and we'll fix it.