Many of the ideas in this article may appear to be commonplace, but that is what happens with any new way of looking at things. So much has been written and said about virtually all subjects that absolute originality is becoming rarer and rarer. And there is merit in taking a different perspective, rotate things around and see them in a new light that yields new insights and improve our functioning ever so slightly.
I have earlier written about modular approach, and I am convinced that this approach gives to our planning process a quality of completeness. This approach applies a few basic tenets of OOP (Object Oriented Programming) approach of creating computer programs to the planning process.
Some Conceptual Basics:
We generally plan structures and processes. Structures provide the human and material equipment required to achieve a set of objectives and define functional and administrative relationships among them, while processes lay down the flow of activities among these units of human and material equipment.
Some of these terms must be considered in greater detail before proceed further. When I talk of “units of human and material equipment”, I mean it to refer to individual human beings and items of machinery on the one hand and clusters of these on the other. Conceptually, whenever we consider a structure in an organizational setting, we should be able to move among different layers, where individuals may be considered at the level of one conceptual layer and clusters of humans or humans-cum-equipment on the other.
Structure also includes physical layout of the human and material equipment, their capabilities to deliver when the structure is first put into operation, although I would wish to include any training or learning or updation of machinery after the system becomes functional as a part of the process rather than structure. More logically, we may take it as a process that improves the structure.
Apart from the physical layout, structure includes distribution of authority in terms of the power to use monetary resources (what we generally call financial powers) and the authority of one to decide what another would do or avoid doing (what we generally call administrative power). This aspect of the structure is often modified to a greater or lesser degree during the process because of “informal” arrangements by which someone in the organization may allow someone else to exercise his or her authority, or because of personality differences because of which some may exercise the authority which in the structure of the organization is meant to be exercised by someone else.
Processes are the activities performed by the system. While elements of the structure can be described with the help of nouns, the elements of the processes are more easily described with the help of verbs.
Defining the Module and its Functionality:
The structure and the processes do not exist for their own sake: they are meant to produce results. The final results to be achieved are the goals and objectives. But what is more important in the modular approach is the functionality of the module.
It is essential to understand the difference between goals and objectives of the module on the one hand and its functionality on the other. Goals and objectives are the static ultimate end-result achieved when the entire process has been completed. Functionality is dynamic and is the minute-by-minute output of the process as the process takes place. For example, the goal of a manufacturing process is to produce a product of a certain quality, but one of the functionalities of the module designed for it may be to impart a certain skill in the process of the manufacture.
When you conceive of the module as performing a function, you are able to apply the concept of module to several different structural components of the overall structure. Thus the entire structure can be visualized as a Module of Modules, where each module has a functionality within the overall function of the whole module.
Let me explain this with the help of the police department. The police department of a state can be visualized as one big module which performs a set of functions: maintenance of public order, detection and prevention of crimes, regulation of traffic and prevention of accidents etc. etc. Within this module there are a number of modules that perform their functions which must fit into the overall functions of the whole module. A small crime-detection team is a module which performs a set of functions. Within this module, a pair of two constables might act as a sub-module which performs the function of verifying the activities of persons with past criminal records.
Within the traffic management unit that I now manage, a small group that manages the State Traffic Control (STC) works as a module. The goal of the STC is to ensure that the Highway Patrols are utilized effectively as a component of our MARS (Monitoring and Response System) and the module performs the functionality of monitoring the Highway Patrols in order to achieve this goal.
From the above discussion it should be clear that an organization operates as a module of modules. Within a higher level module there are lower level modules that perform functions that add up to the overall function of the higher level module.
Why call it module and not team:
A module is not just the team but a structural-functional unit that includes the human, material, financial and technical resources. It is not necessary that the human, material, financial or technical resources should be a part of the module, but they should be accessible with such ease as to prevent hurdles in smooth operation of the module. For example, it is enough that a trainer from a training centre is available when required by a particular module even if such a trainer is not a part and parcel of the module. Similarly, a consultant whose services can be utilised whenever required is as good as a part of the module.
As I said earlier, the concept of module derives from the computer programming concept of OOP. A module has the quality of encapsulation and independence. It is provided everything required for performance of its functions. It works as an independent self-sufficient unit which does not have to depend upon others for its functionality. Within the organization when you create a module, you must give it all the authority and all the funds required to perform its functions.
Plans become either unsuccessful or end up in partial success because they are not built as encapsulated modules. They have to depend upon clearances and approvals from agencies outside the group. This results in situations where either the group must wait or may get sanctions which do not exactly fit the plans conceived by the group.
The system of external sanctions is inherited from the pre-IT days when the flow of information was always from top to bottom and rarely lateral or bottom upwards. Therefore, the top people in the hierarchy knew more than those lower down and were in a better position to take decisions. Now, the situation has changed. IT and the free flow of information through networks has made it possible to fragment the entire functioning of an organisation into independent modules which can be provided all the information required to take decisions. These modules have the advantage of functional proximity to the day-to-day functioning of the module. Thus, they now possess the macro-level view (which the higher management earlier possessed as an advantage) as well as the micro-level knowledge which is not available to the higher management.The decision-making by the module is likely to take into account a larger number of factors than the decision-making by the higher levels.
Modules and the advantage of Functional Proximity:
Elsewhere I have talked in detail about the concept of Functional Proximity. Here, let me mention it briefly.
You may be physically proximal to a situation and yet be functionally distant from it. For example, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Food Cell) posted in Madurai will be physically proximal to a law and order problem in a village in Madurai district but will be functionally distant. By contrast, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) posted in the headquarters at Chennai is physically distant from the problem but is functionally proximal. Similarly, the Personal Assitant General to the Collector of a district who has watched the Collector handle a number of situations has a type of functional proximity to such situations which is different from officers who might have actually handled such situations.
A situation is capable of giving innumerable types of experiences to persons who come in contact with that situation. Each of these ways of contact with the situation imparts to the person a specific type of functional proximity. During a Tsunami, for instance, what the press-reporter sees of it is different from what a rescuer sees. Both attain a different type of functional proximity.
Functional proximity is not just a synonym for what we generally understand by experience. A person who has stayed in a job for two years might acquire greater functional proximity to its situations than another who has been in that job for twenty years.
To take further the concept of functional proximity, I wish to share with the readers of this blog an experiment on enhancing functional proximity. I will shortly put up the detals and the results of this experiment.
