Improve Workflows by Managing Bottlenecks
Understand whether process or resource constraints are stalling work.
Tang Yau Hoong
Bottlenecks are a common source of frustration in organizations. A company’s legal review process may delay the execution of high-value contracts, or a shortage of computing resources may slow progress on a new digital initiative. Such constraints can cause tasks to pile up and hinder teams’ abilities to move forward with their work, costing companies time and money. When leaders encounter a bottleneck, they may dedicate resources to addressing it only to find that the process in question is still stalled by other bottlenecks. Our research has found that organizational bottlenecks can be best managed or avoided not by addressing them piecemeal but by taking a holistic view of work systems and resource portfolios and aligning them in ways that improve organizational performance.
Bottlenecks manifest as tasks that are stalled for one of two reasons: because they depend on the output of other tasks that have not been completed, or because the resources required to complete the task are not available. Task bottlenecks frequently occur as teams wait for approvals from legal or compliance departments, for example. Resource bottlenecks happen when there is a lack of resources necessary to complete a task or process — say, if a construction project has only one crane available and there are competing demands to use the crane.
Task bottlenecks may emerge when more time is needed to complete the activity than has been budgeted, even if all necessary resources are available. While resource bottlenecks can be solved by investing in more resources, task bottlenecks cannot necessarily be solved by simply throwing more resources at the problem. Let’s explore the nuances of these two forms of bottlenecks.
Task Bottlenecks: Centralization and Complexity
Task bottlenecks are dependent on two factors in a work system: centralization and complexity. Centralization refers to the degree to which a work system contains tasks that serve as connecting mechanisms between other tasks in a sequence, creating dependencies between activities, or, more specifically, the extent to which many activities within a system flow into or out of a few other tasks in the system.1
A hospital in which every specialty has its own blood lab is an example of a decentralized system. In contrast, a hospital with a single blood lab that handles all specialties is a more centralized system.
References
1. H. Mintzberg, “The Structuring of Organizations” (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1959); and C. Baldwin, A. MacCormack, and J. Rusnak, “Hidden Structure: Using Network Methods to Map System Architecture,” Research Policy 43, no. 8 (October 2014): 1381-1397.
2. P. Puranam, M. Raveendran, and T. Knudsen, “Organization Design: The Epistemic Interdependence Perspective,” Academy of Management Review 37, no. 3 (July 2012): 419-440; N. Siggelkow and D.A. Levinthal, “Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation,” Organization Science 14, no. 6 (November-December 2003): 650-669; and R.P. Smith and S.D. Eppinger, “Identifying Controlling Features of Engineering Design Iteration,” Management Science 43, no. 3 (March 1997): 276-293.
3. P.R. Lawrence and J.W. Lorsch, “Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration” (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1967); and J.D. Thompson, “Organizations in Action” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
4. J. Anand and J. Singh, “Asset Redeployment, Acquisitions and Corporate Strategy in Declining Industries,” Strategic Management Journal 18 (July 1997): 99-118; C.A. Maritan and G.K. Lee, “Resource Allocation and Strategy,” Journal of Management 43, no. 8 (November 2017): 2411-2420; and D.A. Levinthal and B. Wu, “Opportunity Costs and Non-Scale Free Capabilities: Profit Maximization, Corporate Scope, and Profit Margins,” Strategic Management Journal 31, no. 7 (July 2010): 780-801.
5. E.T. Penrose, “The Theory of the Growth of the Firm” (New York: Wiley, 1959); G. George, “Slack Resources and the Performance of Privately Held Firms,” Academy of Management Journal 48, no. 5 (August 2005): 661-676; and C.N. Pitelis, “A Behavioral Resource-Based View of the Firm: The Synergy of Cyert and March (1963) and Penrose (1959),” Organization Science 18, no. 3 (May-June 2007): 478-490.
6. J. Avila, “The JetBlue Post Mortem, Part 1: What Went Wrong?” CBS News, Feb. 22, 2007, www.cbsnews.com; and R.S. Huckman, G.P. Pisano, and V.A. Fuller, “JetBlue Airways: Valentine’s Day 2007,” Harvard Business School case no. 608001 (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2007).
7. S. Kalloch, A. Silver, and Z. Ton, “How the Food Industry Is Using Cross-Training to Boost Service,” Harvard Business Review, Sept. 22, 2023, https://hbr.org.
Comment (1)
Stuart Roehrl