DRAFT of wiki format for later posting on public wiki status-- waiting for staff comments -- PieterHartsook - 23 May 2003

---

OSAF ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT

May, 2003

[Written by Gail Kaplan at my request. Gail conducted two complete sets of interviews with OSAF in April and May 2003. -- Mitch]

Overview

OSAF has grown both in numbers and complexity over the past 6 to 8 months. For its age and size, the organization appears to be evolving smoothly. The atmosphere is still described as collegial and respectful and team cooperation is considered excellent. Project management has greatly improved with the addition of tracking tools and the presence of a Product Manager and more recently a Development Manager. The strongest aspects are still found in the organization's values, workplace culture and vision.

Improvement is needed mainly in the areas of execution, management and decision-making. General management issues, such as better coordination and tighter accountability, are likely to improve once the Development Manager has gotten up to speed. However general issues concerning execution will still need to be addressed. The major issues have to do with gaining traction. While staff appreciate the measured pace of the workplace environment, concern is expressed over the lack of consistent momentum. Some characterize the problem as a lack of urgency or passion, while others attribute it more to the confusion that still exist over the larger design issues. Regardless of the attribution, practically everyone expressed a strong interest in more efficient decision-making process, a clearer engineering roadmap, and more design specificity. They also stated a clear desire for being kept up-to-date on big picture issues as they emerge and change overtime. The need for clarity and inclusion is likely to become even more important overtime as the organization continues to evolve.

Summary of Findings

People/Team

• High regard for team: talented; diverse; accomplished
• President is well respected for vision and core values.

Structure

• Management structure is ambiguous and requires better definition; new hierarchy not yet integrated into organization.
• Challenges still exist in terms of integrating non-development and development functions; non-engineering management function may need to be added in the future.
• Consensus is that the volunteers should be included in engineering and coordinate via the Development Manager.

Workplace environment

• Autonomy and Flexibility are highly valued.
• Atmosphere of mutual respect and collegiality
• The norm of a 40-45 hour workweek is viewed as desirable.
• The pace of work is viewed as uneven and often slow.
• More regular face time may be required during design and development phase to improve teamwork and build momentum.

Leadership

• Top leadership is highly respected for their expertise, innovation and accomplishments.
• More transparency re: big picture was requested; the introduction of CEO weekly status report and roadmap has been well received.
• Leadership needs to take a stronger role in forcing resolution of big issues (see decision-making).
• Clarification is needed regarding the authority of certain key leadership roles within the organization e.g. ---+++++ Product Manager, Development Manager; President, and System Architect.
• Authority and ownership should be based on expertise and distributed more broadly.

Management

• Project management has greatly improved with the Product and Development Manager's involvement and use of tools.
• Development Manager has introduced structure and improved the quality of engineering meetings.
• Tighter project and people management is viewed as necessary as the organization moves past the design phase.
• Individual goals need to be aligned with project goals. Team members need to understand how their individual role supports the larger goals of the organization.
• Individual and organizational successes should be better managed.
• Management is viewed as too hands off and inaccessible (too busy).
• Management is seen as focused on broad results, not people.
• Regular in-person feedback is required for direct reports. Expectation should be set and reset.
• Non-engineering management needs/functions requires coordination and monitoring.

Roles and Responsibilities

• Roles have become much better defined as the organization has evolved.
• Marketing's role is the least understood and needs better integration into organization.
• Community development's role needs better definition.
• Role of volunteers and how they are structured within the organization requires better definition. Staff need to know what to expect from them and how, if at all, they will be held accountable.

Staffing Issues

• Diverse group with different areas of expertise is valued.
• A system to reward performance should be considered.
• Need better integration of volunteers and remote staff into team.
• Staff lack clarity about relationship between paid staff and volunteers.

Teamwork

• Cooperative group of sole contributors; carving out a discrete niche has defined success for engineers.
• Flexibility with regard to initiating roles and tasks is seen as desirable.
• Not a lot of ego among staff members.
• Lack of real cohesion as a team; need better integration and coordination to ensure that priorities are understood and roles and tasks are assigned to the appropriate team member (Product Manager has helped by coordinating internal deadlines).
• Release and CSG proposal had a positive effect on teamwork.
• More face-time may expedite team development.

Work processes

• Until Product Manager and Development Manager's involvement, work processes e.g. setting priorities, tasks and deadlines were determined by individual initiative.
• Tighter coordination has occurred since Product Manager has been driving internal schedule.
• Tools including weekly status reports are seen as effective and valuable.
• Transparency has been the predominant method of holding people accountable.
• Many staff requested more rigor with regard to accountability.
• Tighter integration of engineering function is desirable (e.g. peer review).
• Gaining traction is still seen as problematic. More consistent execution is desired by all.

Decision-making

• Decision-making is viewed as one of OSAF's weakest areas, especially with regard to forcing resolution on difficult issues. Leadership is thought to avoid making hard choices.
• Confusion still exists over who has ultimate responsibility for driving decisions to conclusion. Who owns the database? Whose opinion can be trusted to be the "truth"? Will the President override decisions?
• Clear decision-making process needs to be established with clearly articulated lines of authority and path to resolution.
• Decision-making relationship between the President and other leaders/managers needs clarification.

Communication Practices

• Meetings still provide a framework for discussions and problem solving.
• Status reports are viewed as a valuable tool to keep everyone informed
• Information is generally accessible to everyone; improvement is needed in the area of keeping staff current on decisions (big and small).
• Entire staff needs more regular communication from the President and other managers about big picture issues; roadmap helped somewhat in providing a framework.
• Information overload makes it difficult to keep informed; suggestions were made to create an internal summary of project progress.
• Stylist differences are seen as possible road blocks to internal communication and teamwork (e.g. formal development style of using functional specs vs. the more informal style of building and changing)

Meetings

• Engineering meeting are seen as greatly improved in efficiency.
• Meeting could be improved by circulating agendas beforehand and maintaining focus (has this already been done?).
• Suggestions were made to increase the use of small working groups in between larger group meetings to minimize time spent meeting.
• Most staff prefers regularly scheduled rather than ad hoc meetings.
• Regularly scheduled "all-hands" meetings were considered important.

Best and Worst Aspects

• Best: clear vision, Diversity of talents, potential impact and values
• Worst: execution not up to par, better coordination, more drive