8-2 Benchmark Study - Skunk Works

docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

580

Subject

Management

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CountHawkPerson852

Stokem 1 8-2 Benchmark Study: Skunk Works 8-2 Benchmark Study: Skunk Works Organizational Structure Company’s tend to follow a specific innovation structure set by their organization in order to continuously grow and be successful in their industry. After reviewing the case study, Skunk Works, it is evident that the innovation team at Lockheed Aircraft Corporation (Lockheed) took a different approach towards innovation (Bessant, 1970). Lockheed was tasked with creating an airframe capable of using the goblin jet engine, something that the United States had not done. The innovation team was led by Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, in which the innovation approach differed from Lockheed’s standards. The project was run in secrecy, only allowing members who are working on the project to enter the location. Two major elements that contributed to the success of the XP80 project included keeping teams much smaller than the normal engineering teams, along with the contractual right to perform testing and prototyping. Kelly Johnson created an environment that influences psychological safety which resulted in the innovation team to challenge pursuits to reach impossible goals (Bessant, 1970). Comparing the innovation team’s organization structure to those of our organization, it is clear that there are many similarities and differences. Lockheed worked out of an old circus tent that smelt like the animals that were previously housed by the circus. This scent, in addition to the comic strip called “Lil Abner”, the name Skonk Works was adopted to identify creative and collaborative, innovation site; which was later used by a variety of popular organizations (Bessant, 1970). Our organization follows a complex structure compiled of various levels of hierarchy that operate under a tall matrixed structure design. Designs throughout the company are often done by those who are furthest from customer engagement. In addition, there are many functional centers of expertise (COE), which demonstrate structure, governance, and control

Stokem 2 8-2 Benchmark Study: Skunk Works allow for resource and process efficiencies. These COE’s however, have the ability to create functional silos, reducing cross functional coordination and lack of connectedness. Both organizations use cross functional teams for projects where specialized personnel are needed. The structure of both organizations provide the ability to innovate by allowing teams to work together and collaborate ways to ensure the projects are successful. Shared Vision Comparing the innovation team’s shared vision to our organization, there are similarities and differences. Kelly Johnson’s team consisted of individuals with experience of similar projects with a corporation at a similar caliber, expressed value of autonomy, had clear goals, and shared focus creativity (Bessant, 1970). It is extremely important for each team member to have both extensive knowledge and passion for aircrafts. Our organization has a centralized and standardized approach where the top levels of the hierarchy make decisions. Unlike Kelly Johnson’s team, the COE’s are not able to become as independent and “rule breaking” due to the centralized and standardized approach; but are able to collaborate efficiently within their specialized teams. This gives both organizations the ability to innovate by following the common policies and practices of their defined company: while simultaneously collaborating on teams interdepartmentally to complete tasks and projects. An important element in successful innovation within an organization includes the team to have shared values. Creative Climate Comparing the innovation team’s creative climate to our organization, there are similarities and differences. The innovation team highly displayed the risk taking dimension throughout their innovation process. As stated in the case study, “The design involved

Stokem 3 8-2 Benchmark Study: Skunk Works challenging many principles in aerodynamics and airframe design; the result was the world’s fastest fighter capable of 400mph speed” (Bessant, 1970). This shows that without taking the risk, the innovation team would have never innovated the fastest fighter aircraft. Our organization mostly demonstrates the challenge dimension. Since there are a decent amount of COE’s that follow the matrixed structure, there are many members contributing to multiple projects on a variety of teams. This gives Kelly Johnson’s innovation team the ability to truly create products explore a multitude of ways to innovate. With the innovation team being condensed: experimenting, failing, learning, and implementing is supported by all. Effectiveness of Teamwork Comparing the innovation team’s effectiveness of teamwork to our organization, there are similarities and differences. The innovation team led by Kelly Johnson is extremely uniformed in terms of project knowledge and disclosed information. The team is small, diverse, and selected upon highly valued credentials. Our organization pulls specialists from various functional departments resulting in individuals working on multiple projects and reporting to two managers. There is an abundance of cross functional collaboration which allows for fluid communication and project discussion, something unavailable to Kelly Johnson’s innovation team. This gives both organizations the ability to innovate by working with members outside of their current department. Cross functional collaboration ultimately encourages relationship development and exchange of knowledge, which will aid in the overall success of the organization.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Stokem 4 8-2 Benchmark Study: Skunk Works References Bessant, J. (1970, July 11). Skunk Works . Managing Innovation. Retrieved July 25, 2022, from https://www.johnbessant.org/

Related Documents

PSY278H_wk7_assn_DLedwell_11182023..docx

Dedrick Ellis HRM Unit IV.docx

Ellis HRM 3301 Unit V.docx

MATH302 Wk5 Knowledge Test.pdf

ITMG624_W7_Nance.docx

ITMG624_W8_Nance.docx

Signature Assignment Starbucks.docx

Screen Shot 2024-01-06 at 10.43.55 AM.png

Wk 3 Summative Assessment Business Strategies Proposal mgt526.docx

MKTCB574 Competency 2 - Reflection.docx

INTD670_U1_IP_Morgan_Weckesser.docx

LDR week 6.pptx

Recommended textbooks for you

Management, Loose-Leaf Version

Management

ISBN:9781305969308

Author:Richard L. Daft

Publisher:South-Western College Pub

Understanding Management (MindTap Course List)

Management

ISBN:9781305502215

Author:Richard L. Daft, Dorothy Marcic

Publisher:Cengage Learning

MARKETING 2018

Marketing

ISBN:9780357033753

Author:Pride

Publisher:CENGAGE L

Purchasing and Supply Chain Management

Operations Management

ISBN:9781285869681

Author:Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry C. Giunipero, James L. Patterson

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Principles of Management

Management

ISBN:9780998625768

Author:OpenStax

Publisher:OpenStax College

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS

Recommended textbooks for you

Management, Loose-Leaf Version
Management
ISBN:9781305969308
Author:Richard L. Daft
Publisher:South-Western College Pub
Understanding Management (MindTap Course List)
Management
ISBN:9781305502215
Author:Richard L. Daft, Dorothy Marcic
Publisher:Cengage Learning
MARKETING 2018
Marketing
ISBN:9780357033753
Author:Pride
Publisher:CENGAGE L
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Operations Management
ISBN:9781285869681
Author:Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry C. Giunipero, James L. Patterson
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Management
Management
ISBN:9780998625768
Author:OpenStax
Publisher:OpenStax College