Horizontal is the future.

We’ve processed so many workflows through event modeling. They start general - with a clear beginning and clear intended result. That’s logical since we can all imagine start/finish lines….and in general terms, we all know the expectations of our actions at work…the deliverable, the report, the conclusion….or in the case of start/finish lines, win, place or show. Results.

The interesting part of event modeling is the middle. Since we’re trying to break the results down into the sum of their parts, reverse thinking the process leads to confusion - especially if the ‘team’ required to get to the intended result doesn’t clearly understand each other’s COMPLETE role in the process. Passing the baton means that each participant is in total sync. Failure to understand that synchronicity results in cumbersome transitions, often causing the expense of time.

The goal in the relay analogy is to maintain fluidity throughout the transitions - in hopes of consistency. So if we go back to the top, and event model that we wanted to win the race, but didn’t pay attention to the transitions - we failed at fully understanding the KPI’s of the race. The details are in the gaps.

In this case, the team requires synchronicity and consistency through the transitions, coupled with speed to achieve measured time. The more consistent they are, the more successful they’ll be. The transitions need to be perfected before the speed can increase. No matter how much their coach yells at them to improve, their success or failure is still based on their fluidity.

This team is working horizontally. There’s a start/finish and a goal to complete three transitions quicker than their opponent. Their individual contribution, once aggregated, leads to the fate of the contest. This is a horizontal, distributed, contributor workflow team.

The future of work looks different - but the models are all around us.

Horizontal is the future.

We’ve processed so many workflows through event modeling. They start general - with a clear beginning and clear intended result. That’s logical since we can all imagine start/finish lines….and in general terms, we all know the expectations of our actions at work…the deliverable, the report, the conclusion….or in the case of start/finish lines, win, place or show. Results.

The interesting part of event modeling is the middle. Since we’re trying to break the results down into the sum of their parts, reverse thinking the process leads to confusion - especially if the ‘team’ required to get to the intended result doesn’t clearly understand each other’s COMPLETE role in the process. Passing the baton means that each participant is in total sync. Failure to understand that synchronicity results in cumbersome transitions, often causing the expense of time.

The goal in the relay analogy is to maintain fluidity throughout the transitions - in hopes of consistency. So if we go back to the top, and event model that we wanted to win the race, but didn’t pay attention to the transitions - we failed at fully understanding the KPI’s of the race. The details are in the gaps.

In this case, the team requires synchronicity and consistency through the transitions, coupled with speed to achieve measured time. The more consistent they are, the more successful they’ll be. The transitions need to be perfected before the speed can increase. No matter how much their coach yells at them to improve, their success or failure is still based on their fluidity.

This team is working horizontally. There’s a start/finish and a goal to complete three transitions quicker than their opponent. Their individual contribution, once aggregated, leads to the fate of the contest. This is a horizontal, distributed, contributor workflow team.

The future of work looks different - but the models are all around us.