I was reading a Linkedin post by Steve Bockman about Siloing versus Specialization a couple of days back and it triggered this blog.
We have a team built from people of various specializations, typically we may not be able to deliver as a team and Cross-functionalism is seen as a desirable attribute within agile teams. Stretching the arguments for cross-functionalism do we imply that specialization is undesirable within a team?
Specialization in the Industrial age meant that the person focuses on one area of the Production process and because of the skill and felicity built over practice, the productivity is enhanced. So to enhance the overall output we need to have specialists and the specialists were grouped into horizontal groups and so on. As we could imagine in a production set-up the work items were homogeneous and work was repetitive in nature.
This same word takes a different meaning when we apply it in the Product development space. Specialists provide technical or domain excellence needed to develop products. They are not there because they can do things merely faster but because of the skills and expertise they bring to the product development set-up. So to succeed in the product development game we need specialists who can help implement cutting edge features which provide competitive advantage.
But specialists being specialists often confine themselves to their own areas and have a narrow view. It is tackling this that I see cross-functionalism coming in. They still retain their specialization but build up skills in related areas,
So in the end we want to have a team with complementing specialist skills so that as a team it has all the relevant skills suitably distributed that it has all the ingredients to develop a world class product. So somewhere there is an "adequate" or "sufficient enough" clause coming in for cross-functionalism.
Cross-functionalism cannot become an objective by itself. It has its value when it is placed over a team which has sufficient specialization with complementing skills. If we were to interpret it as "anyone on the team can perform any needed function" then ultimately we will turn a team of 'complementing specialists' into 'generalizing specialists' that they will lose their domain or technical edge and move the product towards mediocrity.
This is the point emphasized by the T shaped skills as well - they specialize in one area but have basic skills in other areas as well.
We have a team built from people of various specializations, typically we may not be able to deliver as a team and Cross-functionalism is seen as a desirable attribute within agile teams. Stretching the arguments for cross-functionalism do we imply that specialization is undesirable within a team?
Specialization in the Industrial age meant that the person focuses on one area of the Production process and because of the skill and felicity built over practice, the productivity is enhanced. So to enhance the overall output we need to have specialists and the specialists were grouped into horizontal groups and so on. As we could imagine in a production set-up the work items were homogeneous and work was repetitive in nature.
This same word takes a different meaning when we apply it in the Product development space. Specialists provide technical or domain excellence needed to develop products. They are not there because they can do things merely faster but because of the skills and expertise they bring to the product development set-up. So to succeed in the product development game we need specialists who can help implement cutting edge features which provide competitive advantage.
But specialists being specialists often confine themselves to their own areas and have a narrow view. It is tackling this that I see cross-functionalism coming in. They still retain their specialization but build up skills in related areas,
- to collaborate
- to reduce handovers
- to able to see the big picture
- to understand the different dimensions so that suitable trade-offs can be made and so on.
So in the end we want to have a team with complementing specialist skills so that as a team it has all the relevant skills suitably distributed that it has all the ingredients to develop a world class product. So somewhere there is an "adequate" or "sufficient enough" clause coming in for cross-functionalism.
Cross-functionalism cannot become an objective by itself. It has its value when it is placed over a team which has sufficient specialization with complementing skills. If we were to interpret it as "anyone on the team can perform any needed function" then ultimately we will turn a team of 'complementing specialists' into 'generalizing specialists' that they will lose their domain or technical edge and move the product towards mediocrity.
This is the point emphasized by the T shaped skills as well - they specialize in one area but have basic skills in other areas as well.
