Transparency

ss is a proponent of transparent projects, those where the management can see exactly what is going on. it has a number of advantages:

• less management intervention as they can see what is going on without having to poke it.


• it builds trust.


• it encourages openness.

however, it has at least one drawback. imagine an outsource type situation. if the outsourcing (sponsor) organisation has a large and complex set of processes and metrics, and the outsource organisation does not, then the sponsor is likely to consider its own processes and metrics to be crucial elements in establishing transparency. the sponsor will wish to drive these elements and other forms of governance into the outsource organisation.

if the outsource organisation is lightweight and agile then the transparency can have a negative effect. in the agile organisation all the joints are a little loose, there is room for manouvre, a little chaos.

as the sponsor organisation drives its capital M methods and metrics into the outsource organisation it slowly removes the degrees of freedom in the outsource organisations joints. as the joints stop moving smoothly in many directions the outsource organisation starts to lose its adaptability and ability to innovate. The result will be an outsource organisation that will likely move as slowly or slower than the sponsoring organisation.

to avoid this the sponsoring organisation needs to accept that the outsource organisation is different, and is efficient because it is different. the sponsor needs to turn a blind eye[1] to the micro-level chaos and slack in the joints. it needs to allow the outsource organisation to operate in an effective, adaptable mode, recognising there will be some chaos and flex. to do this it has to ensure that measures and methods it puts in place are macro level indicators, guidance and governance.

this balance is key to successfully outsourcing to significantly smaller and adaptable organisations.

[1] or maybe observe and learn.