Rule Change, Hierarchical Organization and Scrum

For example, a "pyramid" organization works very efficiently in a sales or production company. The president of the company only needs to give instructions to the head of each department, saying, "The budget and deadline are this, and you must produce this result.

On the other hand, I think agile development methods such as "Scrum" often work better in cases where policies change frequently, such as in GROOVE X's development department.

The reason for this is that in a "pyramidal" organization, for example, there is a tendency to protect one's own section, which is called sectionalism. As a result, the organization moves in the direction of "narrowing" its own domain whenever policies change.

The necessary countermeasure is "rules" that neatly define the boundaries between organizations and the scope of their defense. The "rules" should define the boundaries between organizations and the scope of their activities, such as "This work is under the jurisdiction of that organization. As long as this bridges the gap between organizations, there is no problem with a "pyramid" organization.

However, there is one pitfall, and as I mentioned earlier, in companies where policies change often, areas where "rules" are not set frequently appear. And often it gets overlooked. By the time they realize it, they have made up their minds not to pick up the gaps between departments, and no one is able to follow up in a positive manner, which leads to fissures in the organization.

---