Breaking down organisational silos to benefit project outcomes
Genevieve De Michele IN4 Advisory
Abstract:
Successfully breaking through and encouraging cross-collaboration between organisational teams is the key to project success. This is best achieved through the early creation of targeted, proactive and committed project working groups. This paper explores why organisational silos form and how they can hinder project success, how to disrupt a silo for best-for-project outcomes, and how to
encourage information sharing amongst teams and progress towards the initiation of permanent communication channels between organisational teams.
An organisational “silo” is a term used when an organisation appears to have teams working in parallel hierarchical structures but where information is not shared across these teams – in essence these teams work in isolation to reach their individual goals. The result of this separation can lead to organisational silos; developing their own culture, governance and processes which further segregates teams from one-another within an organisation.
Communication across all relevant stakeholder groups for a project is the key to project success. This ensures that stakeholder inputs can be considered at an early stage in the process, risk can be allocated to the most appropriately placed teams to manage these, and project objectives can be agreed collaboratively, which are often favourable for multiple stakeholders, departments and teams. Organisational silos can inhibit this process as they encourage teams to work independently without collaboration. This is perpetuated by the unique culture and processes that each silo develops, making the process of sharing information and collaboration inherently difficult.
The development and implementation of formal project working groups is a structured way to encourage the disruption of organisational silos. These groups offer each relevant
stakeholder and/or team a formal role in project decision making and within the governance process, ensuring that a dedicated forum is created at which the sharing of information is
encouraged. Established project templates, communication methods and agreed processes/systems enable the various teams to openly share information, further developing trust and transparency.
Forming project working groups that are empowered to own and deliver 'best for project’ outcomes, the organisational silos are broken down and focus is brought back to the overall project purpose rather than independent team drivers.
Keywords: Project management, collaboration, working groups, productivity, efficiency.
1. Why Silo’s form
Project success is driven by open and transparent collaboration between organisational teams. This is especially true for infrastructure projects, which require the input of many stakeholders (i.e. both internal and external groups) in their development, at all stages of the project lifecycle. The
existence of organisational silos hinders collaborative approaches to project planning and delivery;
often resulting in project delays, overrun budgets, poorly defined scope and increased project risk.
Organisational “silos” can form when teams begin working in parallel hierarchical structures, either in vertical or horizontal divisions. As a result of seeking simplification of roles and clarity of scope, these streams often end up working in isolation to achieve their individual goals and objectives. The result of this separation can lead to organisational silos developing their own culture, objectives, governance and processes which further segregates teams from one-another within an
organisation. In management literature, organisational silos are defined as psychological boundaries creating compartmentalisation segregation and differentiation.1
The development of organisational silos is rarely malicious, with silos often commencing as micro- team structures or departmentalised organisational structure, which is intended to increase team efficiency and enhance productivity within an organisation. Overtime, these teams develop a system of work that is centred around their own objectives and key performance indicators, and are often hyper-focused on their individual workstreams, sometimes deliberately ignoring the “noise” around them in order to achieve their milestones. Accelerated delivery timeframes, organisational growth and job protection are three potential factors which further reinforce a silo once it is formed.
1.1 The speed of work is increasing
Direction from upper management for project teams to deliver to a higher standard, at a faster pace, is not unusual. There has been a notable increase in the speed at which information is available with the rise of technology and huge jump in the volume of data that now feeds into the project design and implementation process. As a result, project teams feel the pressure to complete increasingly complex work, under tighter and more competitive timeframes. These directions however, do not often encourage collaborative, creative or innovative thinking. In times of project acceleration, teams often turn inward even further, working amongst themselves to react to the imposed deadlines and simply ‘survive’ the project process. Achieving the project deadlines, further
reinforces the notion that smaller, siloed teams can increase their productivity by focussing solely on their area of expertise or speciality.
1.2 Larger organisations generally result in a higher number of individual teams
Organisations that are managed in a “branched” structure are generally at higher risk of developing organisational silos. This includes organisations that work in departments, branches, or faculties.
Often in larger organisations, smaller teams are necessary to provide structure and clearer role definitions of each team. Teams or individuals may be onboarded, expanded, condensed or moved with the organisation, and unless messaging about these changes is transparent across the entire
organisation, it can often be difficult to remain abreast of changes and responsibilities of each team.
In the face of this uncertainty at a large scale, teams tend to focus on their own roles and sub-team structure, again, reinforcing the silos which may have formed. The need for role clarity, sense of belonging and ability to influence and contribute to a team mean that individuals will more readily stay exclusively within their smaller teams, rather than actively probing into a much larger, more complex organisation.
1.3 Patch protection
Lastly, job protection can cause teams to operate in an isolated and protective manner. This often occurs when two teams are working in similar areas or across the same project (with perceived similar roles). This is a natural response to the threat of role consolidation. People often hold information close to themselves and their team, rather than share this with others, to reinforce the value of their role or the knowledge which they bring to the project. Job protection mentality can also arise from teams that have deeply ingrained ways of doing work that they have developed in isolation and that may not integrate well across other teams on the same project. This can stem the flow of information across disciplines and stakeholder groups, driving an ‘us vs. them’ mentality where each side of the fence feels misunderstood, unheard or left out of the broader project team.
This further reinforces silo walls by distancing teams, potentially eroding shared values and potentially jeopardising a ‘best for project’ mindsets.
The reinforcement of these silos, through seemingly natural responses to those perceived threats listed above, can be the largest hinderance of project delivery success within an organisation. The existence of isolated teams that limit the sharing of information (by choice or by structure), can be the key driver behind project delay, increased cost, delivery of less-than-optimal solutions, and the need for rework. All of these issues increase project delivery risk and often drive project cost up, or lengthen delivery time-frames significantly. Project delivery organisations are often large, and their structures by nature lend themselves to the formation of silos through the existence of
departmentalised operations. Although this structure is common across many government organisations, consulting companies, design houses and infrastructure operators, there are increasing attempts to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing across teams.
2. Breaking down the walls – Simple Steps to Implement
Many of the above-mentioned organisations cannot operate with a flat management structure due to their size and strict policy and regulation, which drives the need for increased governance and oversight of decisions, however collaboration amongst internal teams can still be achieved when three basic principles are followed. Rather than overcomplicate knowledge sharing or stakeholder engagement, a simple review of the project management practices of an organisation can have a large impact on driving a culture which encourages information sharing from project initiation, empowering all stakeholders to openly share and communicate with a best-for-project mindset.
These principals are; plan to engage, develop functional collaboration forums and share lessons broadly and regularly. When implementing these three simple steps, an increase in internal (and external) collaboration is naturally built into the project management process, benefiting the project, the delivery team (including all stakeholders) and the wider organisation.
2.1 Plan to Engage
The first step is to plan to engage. This means that engagement is considered, planned and acted upon over the course of the project lifecycle in a strategic and targeted way. Rather than simply reacting to the next enquiry that lands on their desk, teams must take time to proactively plan this step as it provides structure, context and awareness about the broader project considerations.
To complete this step, teams must identify all project stakeholders to the best of their ability, at the earliest possible point in project development. This list should cover internal stakeholders, external stakeholders and minor stakeholders (who may have touch points with related projects or
departments). These stakeholders must then be listed in a Project Management Plan prior to progressing the project. If a stage of the project is completed without this work, this is
recommended to be completed as soon as possible. After identifying all potential stakeholders to the project, a plan for engagement is to be developed. This can be an appendix to the Project Management Plan or a separate Stakeholder Engagement Plan. It is critical that this engagement plan identifies how that stakeholder group will be engaged; including at a minimum; key contact, frequency of contact, inputs required or outputs sought and escalation channel. Identifying key stakeholders proactively at an early stage in the project will assist to eliminate many of the risks that develop following poor engagement, and further enforces a culture where trust is developed
through targeted and transparent engagement.
2.2 Functional Collaboration Forums
Another key risk mitigation strategy is to develop functional collaboration forums. These groups can take the form of project meetings, workshops, working groups (technical, multi-agency, modelling etc) or knowledge sharing forums. Not to be confused with general meetings, collaborative forums are held for three reasons: to seek input, share output or seek escalation or endorsement to proceed. It is important to identify which forum type will best suit each stakeholder. This requires consideration from the project management team of who is required to produce inputs to inform the project development, who will be interested in the outputs of any research or planning work which is being undertaken, and who will be critical to assist in supporting the endorsement of project decisions. For example, a technical working group may consist of modelling teams from multiple internal and external agencies. This group may work together to develop planning information to inform project scoping. A separate forum may then form to review their work and support endorsement of these outputs to progress for inclusion in the project scoping
documentation. It is important that these groups are formed early in project phasing, with each group of stakeholders or individuals identified in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan or Project Management Plan nominated to attend or participate in at least one forum over the life of the project to ensure that their objectives and requirements are considered in project development.
The development and implementation of formal project working groups is a structured way to encourage the disruption of organisational silos. These groups offer each relevant
stakeholder and/or team a formal role in project decision making and within the governance process, ensuring that a dedicated forum is created at which the sharing of information is
encouraged. Although this may appear to create a large number of meetings and be an unproductive
way to approach project management, information sharing at the early stages of project
development often saves time in rework, repeat briefings, and provides a platform for identification of opportunities to enhance project outcomes. Whilst it is important to engage all stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle, this should be done in a controlled manner. It is recommended that each forum operate within a structured and bespoke Terms of Reference document. It is important that this document sets out the objective of each forum, attendees, nominated chair and
governance for escalation of decisions and issues. Successful forums are those with a minimal number of stakeholders representing each agency, but those members must be empowered to make decisions or speak on behalf of the organisation or team which they are representing. This ensures that decisions can be made in these forums and that they become productive groups for progressing project issues, rather than high-level briefings which deliver minimal value to all attendees.
2.3 Sharing of Lessons Learned
As the project progresses through each of its milestones or delivery gates, it is important that lessons are shared amongst the organisation (and other stakeholder organisations) in an open and transparent manner. This should not be left until the end of the project, but instead integrated into a frequent check-point for the teams where they can share information about progress updates, next steps and obstacles encountered along the way. Whilst an important part of project management, reflection is often neglected as projects move quickly and good intentions for knowledge sharing are often side-lined for more ‘pressing’ issues. In order to ensure that these valuable lessons are
captured, it is recommended that Lessons Learnt sessions are built into the original project program as an organisational gateway. This will ensure that time is allocated to undertake this review, and it becomes a part of the team culture as opposed to an obscure task, sitting outside of the Project Management Plan.
Although lessons may not be immediately relevant to all departments, project management is a transferrable skill which sits across all aspects of business operations. Too often project teams analyse their project in isolation, failing to see the transferable and valuable lessons which could be shared to assist their colleagues or other stakeholder organisations. It could be argued that even in the case of highly confidential projects, a lessons learnt piece can be developed which redacts all specific or technical information and focuses on the transferable learnings which may be valuable to reflect upon.
3. Putting it all together
Ensuring that these systems and processes become a regular part of the project management process within organisational teams is critical for project success. The act of identifying all stakeholders early, establishing structured knowledge sharing forums and reflecting upon shared learnings, means that stakeholders are empowered to own and deliver 'best for project’ outcomes.
This results in the disruption of organisational silos in the context of collaborative project teams and focus is brought back to the overall project purpose rather than independent team drivers. A best- for-project approach should be at the forefront of all collaborative forums, with risk management front of mind. By opening communication channels early with genuine intention to learn and
collaborate, risks can be identified, managed, and escalated as required, saving time and money, whilst assisting to deliver more aligned, considered and valuable infrastructure for our stakeholders.
Acknowledgements
This paper was developed collaboratively following a review of best-practice project management techniques as seen in the infrastructure consulting industry, in which all IN4 Advisory employees contributed (2020). This paper is a reflection on the most impactful stakeholder engagement activities that we have undertaken with our clients since January 2019.
We also reflected on successful project teams that we have worked with in the past, analysing their strengths and noting that those teams with the best project outcomes, and team culture, were often those teams that proactively engaged and consulted with their project stakeholders throughout the entire project lifecycle. It was these activities that inspired this paper, in the hope that we could create more tangible tools to assist future clients.
References
[1] Diamond, M.A.; Allcorn, S. (2009) Private Selves in Public Organizations-The Psychodynamics of Organizational Diagnosis and Change; New York, NY, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.
