The problem

The communications industry is undergoing profound change: Constant changes and innovations require a new way of organising work in communication departments.

The solution

The 3A model. The organisational model for communication departments that makes constant change the norm. In doing so, it promotes and challenges employees to a whole new level.

Digitalisation and globalisation also present communication experts with new challenges. However, old solution models are often used in response to these requirements. Another department, an additional hierarchical level or a new process set in stone cannot solve the problems of a world that is characterised by continuous change. Therefore, it is time to stop working on ever new structures; instead, we need to change the way work is done within existing structures.

komm.passion has developed the first organisational model specifically designed to meet the needs of communications departments and agencies. It uses elements of the most important agile organisational forms, but integrates them into an independent, communications-oriented overall concept. And it already has the ‘proof of concept’ through a inhouse experiment that has now lasted more than five years. During this time, we have learned so much about agile working that we have also made our approach usable other agencies and in the communication departments of companies. We call it the ‘3A model’. The 3 As stand for ‘Agile, Adaptive, Accountable’. Before we explain our model in detail, we want to present its origins and present the building blocks we have adopted from the management and agility models of the past decades.

The first and historically earliest concept is associated with the buzzword ‘lean’. As the globalisation of value chains and the digital disruption of proven business models cut swathes through the global economy, the first demand was for lean structures. In good times, organisational uncontrolled growth emerges that can quickly push a company to the brink of the abyss as competition intensifies. Intermediate levels that are as highly paid as they are purposeless dwell as parasites in the corporate hierarchies and tasks are gladly carried out in parallel in several departments. This fact makes it possible to create a third department that controls and manages the duplication.

Long before the term ‘agility’ was widely used, lean management had already taken on the task of thinning out this thicket and trimming the organisation down to the leanest, most efficient bare minimum possible. This is barely newsworthy any more, and a corresponding lecture hardly stands a chance of being accepted as a keynote address at Davos. Nevertheless, the systematic thinning of grown organisational structures and decision-making processes is still surprisingly often necessary today. Lean management concepts provide the right toolbox for this. In particular, we use the RACI analysis (who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted or just Informed in a decision-making process?) to uncover redundancies and encourage their elimination. We have already successfully used this approach several times as a tool for advising companies on streamlining structures and processes.

Kanban – Japanese for ‘signal card’ – originated in the automotive industry and is a reaction to the discovery of the customer in the value chain. In the Land of the Rising Sun, they were fed up with the West regularly laughing at their automotive products. So, they launched a successful project and had the last laugh. Kanban breaks with the tradition of producing in stockpiles with blind faith and hoping that all these products would eventually sell. Instead of push, the focus is now on pull and the entire value chain is organised backwards from the customer order. This includes amazingly simple visualisation tools from the eponymous signal card for pre-product ordering to the kanban board that illustrates the status of the production process in a way that is suitable for forklift drivers. These tools have ensured that Kanban has made a follow-up career in IT as an agility tool.

Parallel to and inseparable from Kanban is the ‘Continuous Improvement Process’ (CIP), which also originated in Toyota. Like Kanban, CIP means a fundamental change of perspective. The optimisation of processes is no longer a final process that ideally reaches an optimum level and is then completed, but is considered a continuous task. In addition, the direction of action is reversed. The driver is not the leadership, but the person in direct contact with the task. He has the right and the duty to stop the entire production if he sees a quality problem, and his countless suggestions for improvement drive the optimisation process. What he does not have is the right to archive his job description and wait calmly for the next promotion – CIP always keeps the adrenaline level in the company at an exceptional level.

No matter how optimised a process may be, it always remains a rigid grid and all task accomplishments are subordinate to it. The more dynamic an environment and more innovative a challenge are, the more clearly concepts fail that try to squeeze a process with largely unknown parameters into a fixed flow chart even during the planning phase. Agencies in particular are often forced onto this slippery slope when the client wants a cost exposé including a schedule even before the briefing.

Therefore, it comes to no surprise that ‘Lean’ was followed by a second, current wave of change that is dedicated to the battle cry of ‘agility’. Core elements of the lean concepts (such as customer orientation and the process character of the organisation) are retained, and a large number of techniques from the toolbox of the corresponding schools are also adopted.

What is new, however, is the radical departure from rigid hierarchies in favour of flexible teams and the detachment from the linear planning process in favour of incremental, interactive procedures. In simplest terms, people who work on a task in an agile project are no longer those who are on the organisation chart, but those who can do it best for that exact task. Perhaps even more important: in unfamiliar terrain, progress is made in stages, learning is allowed along the way, and therefore it is also okay to run in circles on difficult stretches of the way.

Scrum is one of the dominant denominations of the agility world. While the Kanban approach (from which many elements are adopted) aims at making the process agile, Scrum focuses entirely on the team and thus intervenes deeply in the organisation of a development department. In the interdisciplinary team, there are only equal members and a product owner who is responsible for the functionality and economic viability of the product. In addition, there is a Scrum Master who works with the team from the outside as a ‘servant leader’ and is responsible for the success of the overall process. This process is broken down into increments, so-called ‘sprints’, each of which is planned in sprint backlogs. During the project, the overall plan, the so-called ‘product backlog’, develops dynamically from an initial task description to a complete, retrospective report that can be used as a case study for subsequent projects. There are also strict guidelines for the meetings – referred to as ‘events’ in Scrum – from Sprint Planning at the beginning of a Sprint and the Daily Scrum during processing to the Sprint Review of the content and the Sprint Retrospective at the end of the Sprint.

For many tasks in the company, the presented agility models can be a perfect solution. However, in the creative and extremely unpredictable communication business, even the dogmas of agility prove to be disruptive shackles. If every structure – from the paramilitary corporate hierarchy to the equally rigid Scrum mechanism – slows down an agency or a communication department, a new, communication-specific organisational concept must be found. This concept must be more radical because the unpredictable and diverse world of corporate communications demands faster and more efficient responses from us than is standard, for example, in the much more structured and manageable IT division.

We often have to react at extremely short notice without being able to plan a specific action or visualise it in individual steps. At the same time, the concept has to be more pragmatic and comprehensive in order to be able to react flexibly to the most diverse challenges. Sometimes (for example, in case of a crisis) it is actually not agility that is needed, but firm hierarchical leadership. Furthermore, the concept should help not only to handle tasks and projects better, but also to promote a more transparent feedback culture and faster staff development. This is also an important driver of success in times of change.

In the 3A model, there are four defined roles at three structural levels. From RACI we learn that it must be clear who has which role in the process. However, in our view, the roles should be constantly changing. In addition, each role model should have a territory associated with it. The 3A model defines three central roles at the project level (project owner, supervisor, staff) and one central role at the meta-level (leadership).

LEADERSHIP: The management (also temporarily as Managing Editor) is responsible for the overall success of the entire department. Usually, the head of corporate communications takes on this role. However, he can also deliberately delegate the task to several colleagues, such as the Head of Internal Communications or the Head of Digital Communications, for example if the overall department has a particularly large number of employees.

PROJECT OWNER (PO): The PO is responsible for the success of the project and is evaluated by this success. He takes care of organisational issues such as the distribution of tasks and timings, as well as accounting matters such as calculations or obtaining offers. In addition, he steers the project – similar to the product owner in Scrum.

SUPERVISION (SV): Supervision is the strategic backup for the PO. He is his sparring partner as well as impulse driver and supports him in critical issues, important deadlines or relevant queries.

EMPLOYEE (EM): The employee is part of the project team. He receives tasks from the PO and works on them in the given timing. At the same time, he is a proactive input provider and pushes his own sub-topics in the project. He is often an absolute expert in a certain field and therefore essential for the success of the project. The roles can be very different for each project. One and the same employee can therefore be working on three projects in three project roles at the same time. Another special feature is that individual employees should no longer be confined to their unit. Communication requires more and more integrated thinking. For example, an employee can be involved in an internal, an external and a human resources communication project at the same time.

Collaboration on individual projects always follows a rigid grid. Within this grid, however, different degrees of weighting are possible.

1. PROJECT CLASSIFICATION: The overall responsible persons (e.g. Head of Corporate Communications) classify a new project. They structure it according to criteria such as priority, timing, strategic relevance, staff resources or budgets.

2. ROLE ALLOCATION: Based on the classification, management determines the supervisor and the project owner. This three-person constellation then decides on the number and skillsets of the other staff members for the project.

3. SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP: The SV and PO choose a sensible leadership style for the project based on the preliminary discussion. Does the project need a hierarchy chain of command or does it need maximum participation and openness? In addition, the SV and PO agree on appropriate documentation or visualisation of the project (e.g. Kanban).

4. PROJECT START: The SV and PO round up all employees to start the project. The PO has already prepared the briefing, timing, distribution of tasks and the first relevant interim goals. The capacities of the employees are committed, and a schedule for regular coordination is set.

5. PROJECT WORK: The actual project work begins. It naturally follows the respective rules of the game. Depending on the type of project and the management style, agile collaboration can take place on the project via a variety of standard processes.

6. READJUST: During the project, readjustments should be made regularly if problems arise, more capacity is needed or the project develops differently than originally expected.

7. PROJECT CLOSURE: At the end of the project, the PO and SV are responsible for discussing relevant learnings and potential improvements with their staff and management; they must also document them for follow-up projects.

In addition to those responsible for the project and daily operations, there is always a need for the ‘overall person responsible’ (management). Depending on the size of the department, this can be the head of corporate communications or, as already described, an extended management team; in komm.passion’s case it is the management. It is responsible for ensuring that the overall department functions across projects. It leverages synergies, distributes capacities and prioritises the individual projects across various departments. Last but not least, it makes sure that all projects mesh and work towards the strategic corporate goal. This way, it remains in its hierarchical role for the department as a whole. Within a project, however, the management can also be involved in an agile way as SV, PO or employee.

The central management tool is the project hub. All projects of the department and the respective employees working on these projects are visualised there. The project hub can be created digitally in the cloud, but can also be easily realised on a sufficiently large whiteboard. Each week, the individual POs are responsible for planning their projects for the following week. To do this, they schedule work hours of all employees they need for the project. If a staff member is scheduled too often, he is ‘overbooked’. If this happens permanently, it is an alarm signal for the management. Either the project is not sufficiently staffed or the overbooked staff member is overworked because of his high qualifications. If overbooking is not permanent, it can be compensated for weekly in the model.

For this purpose, there are so-called ‘weekly plannings’ and ‘weekly updates’. In the plannings, preferably right at the beginning of the week, the management discusses the upcoming week with all colleagues. If the overall workload is too high, individual projects are deprioritised. If individual colleagues are overbooked, they can be supported by colleagues who are not fully booked. A ‘weekly update’ should then follow in the middle of the week – after all, weeks rarely run as planned, and there can always be an emergency that was not foreseeable at the start of the week. In this case, capacities are reallocated, and other projects are deprioritised. The result is permanently transparent work and project planning. This meta-system works in group sizes from 15 to around 100 people. At komm.passion, three managing directors take care of about 90 employees at the meta level. If the company’s communications team should comprise considerably more employees, it is worthwhile to divide it more into individual units.

The flexible organisation system in the 3A model rises and falls with the employees. They must be mentally adaptable enough for their different roles and always be able to adapt to the changing demands. If they succeed, the highly integrated work with changing responsibilities guarantees a steep learning curve and maximum development of individual potential. To adapt staff management and development to the adaptive structures in the 3A model, we rely on consistent strategic mentoring. Every employee and manager, with the exception of the Head of Corporate Communications, has a mentor who is responsible for their development. The mentor can come from the next management level, but does not have to. Especially with young employees, other colleagues can also take on the mentoring role. Strategic mentoring is divided into four central areas:

1. GOAL AGREEMENTS: In an annual meeting, mentor and mentee agree on the goals for the year. They can be of a substantive or monetary nature. There are department-specific, binding guidelines for agreeing on goals, which are signed by the mentor and mentee. The target agreement also talks about meaningful projects that the mentee should undertake for his next career step.

2. SUITABLE PROJECT ROLES: Depending on the goals and development steps, the employee is prioritised for selected projects or roles in projects. For this purpose, there is a competence and target memory that can be accessed for new projects. The employee’s strengths profile is stored in this memory along with his wishes for future roles and projects. This way, each employee has a greater chance of being assigned to the projects that he wants and that best suit him. To get used to the responsibility in PO roles, employees can also be assigned as sub-POs. In this role, they are responsible for a sub-section of a larger project.

3. FURTHER TRAINING: If the project situation allows, the employee regularly takes part in further training in order to be able to face the continuous changes in a professionally adequate way. The mentee discusses all useful training options with his mentor. If the mentor determines that a particular training would be useful for several mentees, it may make sense to bring in an external lecturer. Each employee should participate in about five training sessions/seminars per year.

4. FEEDBACK TALKS: In addition to agreeing on objectives, feedback is also given in the annual appraisal. Such a feedback meeting also takes place at the half-year review. The mentee receives open and constructive feedback from the mentor using a special performance and target agreement form. To ensure that this feedback is valid, the mentor obtains information from at least three colleagues in different roles who work with the mentee. This gives him 360-degree insight and allows him to actually evaluate the mentee fairly.

Beyond the levels described above, there are parallel development options for professional and leadership careers in the 3A model. This approach prevents excellent professionals from being promoted to management positions for which they are unsuitable according to the Peter Principle. After all, there are terrific editorial writers, copywriters, designers or people with a great penchant for analyses and numbers in communication departments for whom a conventional career via leadership roles – including the role of PO – makes no sense. With the 3A model, these people get the chance to start a professional career in which they are well paid and promoted according to their actual qualifications. In the project, however, they are only ever deployed in the employee role.

When employees are no longer limited to their unit within the communication department, but work together across units in the future, knowledge management becomes more important. Therefore, there are competence drivers in the 3A model. The head of internal communication, for example, can be an ‘internal’ competence driver. Another specialised colleague can in turn be a ‘Text’ competence driver – regardless of his hierarchy level. The competence drivers are responsible for developing their colleagues in their areas of competence. To this end, they hold several seminars every year, in which they introduce colleagues to selected topics.

Of course, this was only an initial overview of the 3A model. For each of the three levels – project, staff and meta – there are numerous sub-processes, documents and digital solutions that improve workflows in communication departments. The approach offers two key benefits – compared to all other forms of organisation:

1. The 3A model makes communication departments more flexible and agile. But it provides for much more: CHANGE – a condition people are usually afraid of – becomes the norm. In the 3A model, all colleagues are active in different roles; they must constantly adapt to leadership styles and teams or even take the lead themselves. When change is the norm, it enhances performance instead of weakening it. Not a bad sign for an industry in transition.

2. The 3A model ENCOURAGES AND FORCES employees in equal amounts. It forces them to constantly adapt to new issues and situations. It motivates them to constantly develop and improve. In a traditional, rigid structure, an employee may work the same tasks for years. This makes the work feel dull, even in the face of change. Only employees who are used to learning on a daily basis can fulfil the complex tasks that communication poses today. At the same time, it provides more room to show appreciation to employees for good work. A promotion is often not possible for organisational reasons, but the creation of a PO role in a strategically important project always is. And because professional careers are also equal, no employees are forced into roles that do not suit them.