工作op是什么意思,工作中的op是什么意思

当企业数字化转型过程中改变了组织的运营模式，将团队调整为产品而不是项目之后，会遇到一个不可避免的问题：“下一步该做什么?”在许多可能的答案中，有一些人选择将他们的员工分成两组：负责运营的和负责创新的。

在许多组织中，同一组、团队甚至个人同时承担这两种责任这种方式也很好。但是如果将这些职责分配给不同的资源，一些组织可以集中精力，提高能力计算，简化战略规划，特别是在产品主导的运营模式中，这可以使这样的部门更具吸引力。

首先，这是一个直截了当的命题，其最终状态相对容易想象和衡量，对于那些仍在思考更广泛的运营模式转变的人来说，这是一个很好的味觉清洁剂。其次，因为产品团队是永久性的，不像临时的项目团队，产品主导的运营模式更适合于更有条理、更持久的责任分工。最后，在产品团队中分离这两个角色可以让个人更加清晰和专注，主要是通过减少多任务处理。

然而，如果没有清晰的愿景和仔细的计划，将这些责任分开，可能会带来灾难，逆转新运营模式所带来的进步。如果你正在考虑在自己的组织中分离运营和创新责任，那么在做出决定之前，请权衡以下利弊。如果你继续拆分，让下面的原则指导你的行动。

www.cxounion.org

一、权衡利弊

（一）优势

1、增强专注可以简化运营：增强的专注力可能是团队从责任分工中获得的最大好处。这种专注可以简化运营，并为用于探索新想法的时间带来急需的结构，这对公司的长期成功至关重要。同时负责创新和运营的员工经常被迫(通常是他们自己的经理和技术领导者)牺牲前者，转而支持后者。按工作类型分工有助于防止这种情况。

2、精简的容量管理和资源规划：当容量管理被分割成更小的部分时，它变得更容易，特别是当按工作类型进行分割时。一旦发生火灾，运营永远比创新更重要。问题是总是会有问题:服务器需要恢复，计算机需要修复，安全漏洞需要修补。如果负责维持运营的资源与负责改造公司的资源相同，那么公司的创新活动将停滞不前，其产能计算将被证明是其战略和预算的不可靠输入。对于那些考虑将IT的关键功能外包或离岸外包的人来说，这种分离可以揭示哪些功能是商品化的，哪些功能是差异化的。

3、分离可以使依赖关系更容易协调，能进行更清晰的战略规划：分离运营和创新并不能消除彼此之间的依赖关系，但分离可以使这些依赖关系更容易协调，部分原因是通过精简的能力管理和预算获得了清晰度。路线图规划和转换也变得更容易，因为每个小组都可以承担对其分配的成功指标影响最大的工作。当运营和创新活动处于同一保护伞下时，这些指标可能不一致，例如可靠性和稳定性的衡量标准与实验的衡量标准。华东CIO大会、华东CIO联盟、CDLC中国数字化灯塔大会、CXO数字化研学之旅、数字化江湖-讲武堂，数字化江湖-大侠传、数字化江湖-论剑、CXO系列管理论坛（陆家嘴CXO管理论坛、宁波东钱湖CXO管理论坛等）、数字化转型网，走进灯塔工厂系列、ECIO大会等

（二）缺点

1、如果领导者无法跨越鸿沟，将造成信息孤岛：划分职责的最大缺点是，这样做会引入一个明确的鸿沟，团队及其领导者必须跨越这个鸿沟。如果他们做不到这一点，就会造成工作孤岛，稀释责任。创新团队一旦开发出可行的产品，就必须抵制“将工作抛给运维团队”的诱惑。这种诱惑与当今最好的以产品为导向的运营模式的精神背道而驰，屈服于这种诱惑将使组织回到原点。建立规范，具体说明新产品将由创新拥有多长时间，在过渡之前必须满足哪些绩效指标，以及知识转移过程对于成功地跨越鸿沟的组织至关重要。

2、关系管理会变得复杂：在没有正式职责划分的产品团队中，团队成员通常会就谁负责什么达成某种默契。在某种程度上，这是因为他们作为一个团队要承担责任。但是，一旦出现正式的分歧，协议可能会解散，从而需要进行刻意的协调。如果有这种需求，那就解决它。任命一名经理监督双方。或者是让他们保持一致的程序或节奏。无论解决方案是什么，都必须明确无误地明确谁该为什么负责。

3、会使得运营倦怠：虽然很多人喜欢专注于运营，但也有一些人鄙视它，认为这是一个限制职业生涯的举动。和你的团队讨论。看看哪些举动对个人的职业抱负有意义。考虑轮换计划的思想，以提供在不同领域工作的选项或要求，以开发“全堆栈”技能集。

二、主要原则和注意事项

责任分割不应掉以轻心。这样做可能会破坏向以产品为中心的运营模式转变所取得的成果，其后果会影响到组织的每个部分。如果你决定划清界限，请将这些原则放在首位，以帮助确保拆分保持势头并交付价值。

（一）建立一个“一个IT”的心态：分割责任不应该等同于分裂团队，至少在精神上是这样。在这里，用体育运动作类比可能是恰当的。虽然运动队的队员有不同的职责，但他们作为一个整体比赛。同样，一个运营和创新分开的团队必须作为一个整体，追逐相同的目标，参加相同的战略会议，并预测彼此行动的后果。

（二）确定划分的适当级别：你不需要对所有团队的职责进行相同的划分;它们通常可以在一个操作模型的多个级别上进行划分。考虑这样一个模型，在这个模型中，产品团队按照价值链中的各个环节松散地分组。对于一个环节，比如市场营销和销售，你可能会决定在该环节的最广泛层面上划分运营和创新，在组成市场营销和销售的所有产品团队中共享运营资源。但是对于另一个链接，比如Corporate Financials，您可以在更细的级别上划分职责，可能是由各个产品团队来划分。在这种情况下，运维资源不是跨链接共享的，而是专用于特定的团队。这里的考虑与所有集中化与去中心化的权衡相同:标准化与定制化。

（三）花时间清楚地定义运营和创新工作：准确地定义什么是运营，什么是创新;模棱两可会导致混乱和紧张。我们在医疗保健行业的一个客户与其工程师密切合作，将工作分类到票证类型。

（四）专注于敏捷性和业务价值：两个团队的目标和速度会有所不同，但这不是孤立运作的借口。各队的行动必须协调一致。产生这种协调的两种有效方法是:第一，使团队与相同的业务目标保持一致。如果团队的工作最终不能转化为客户价值，那么它就没有意义。第二，如果团队遵循不同的敏捷方法，那么就调整他们的关键元素:他们的发布时间表，他们的PI计划，甚至可能是他们的回顾。这些仪式就像一首歌中的节拍;他们会让团队保持同步，即使他们跳舞的旋律不同。

（五）拥有无懈可击的ITSM：如果你划分了职责，而其中的一方在斗争，那么另一方就会承担责任，这样你就会在承担成本的同时失去拆分带来的好处。所以，在你拆分之前，磨练你的ITSM。雇佣具有正确技能的资源，用正确的工具武装他们，并制定严格的升级路径，当他们需要创新团队的帮助时，他们可以遵循。

拥抱api和微服务:在分离运营和创新之后，将会有一个不断发展的需求来协调管理这两个组的系统和流程。一个强大的api和微服务目录可以通过授权团队自己处理这种分裂，而不是让协调从上层传给他们，从而减轻许多这些压力。

按照他们负责的工作类型划分资源，运营和创新，可以放大以产品为导向的模式的好处。但这个动作需要精准。明确每种类型的工作的资格，在op模型的正确级别上进行划分，协调团队作为一个单元移动——如果漫不经心地处理，这些只是可以压制op模型的好处的几个变量。此外，划分责任并不一定更好，即使做得对。这样的分裂是愚蠢的还是明智的，取决于该组织的特点。如果你的直觉敦促你保持团队团结，那就听从它。我们列出了一些建议，我们只想说:如果你决定拆分东西，那就认真地拆分。

原文：

This article was co-authored by Duke Dyksterhouse, an Associate at Metis Strategy.

After transforming their organization’s operating model, realigning teams to products rather than to projects, CIOs we consult arrive at an inevitable question: “What next?” Of the many possible answers, some of our clients elect to carry the transformation further by separating their employees into two groups: those responsible for operations and those responsible for innovation.

By operations, we mean work that fixes or hones the processes and tools already employed in an organization. You might know it by one of its aliases: sustain, keep-the-lights-on, run-the-business, or support. By innovation we mean transformational work, the construction of new processes and products, often of the sort that generate revenue, improve experiences, or pivot the enterprise.

In many organizations, the same group, team, or even individual handles both responsibilities, which is fine. But by assigning these responsibilities to different resources, some organizations can drive focus, sharpen capacity calculations, and simplify strategic planning, especially amid a product-led operating model, which can make such a division more attractive for several reasons.

First, it’s a straightforward proposition whose end state is relatively easy to envision and measure, making it a nice palate cleanser for those still wrapping their heads around the broader operating model shift. Second, because product teams are permanent, unlike temporary project teams, product-led operating models are more amenable to a division of responsibility that is more methodical and longer-standing. And finally, separating the two roles within product teams can give individuals more clarity and focus, primarily by reducing multitasking.

Splitting these responsibilities without a clear vision and careful plan, however, can spell disaster, reversing the progress begotten by a new operating model. If you’re considering separating operations and innovation responsibilities in your own organization, weigh the following trade-offs before deciding. And if you proceed with the split, let the principles below guide your moves.

Trade-offs

Advantages

Focus: Enhanced focus is perhaps the greatest benefit teams stand to gain from a division of responsibilities. That focus can streamline operations and bring much-needed structure to the time spent exploring new ideas, vital to a company’s long-term success. Employees responsible for both innovation and operations too often are forced (usually by their own managers and technology leaders) to sacrifice the former in favor of the latter. Dividing the labor by work type helps guard against this.

Streamlined capacity management and resource planning: Capacity management becomes easier when it’s split into smaller pieces, especially when the split is by type of work. Operations will always take priority over innovation whenever there’s a fire. The problem is that there’s always a problem: a server to be restored, a computer to be fixed, a security flaw to be patched. If the resources responsible for keeping things up and running are the same as those responsible for transforming the company, it stands to reason that the company’s innovative activities will stall, and its capacity calculations will prove an unreliable input to its strategy and budget. For those considering outsourcing or offshoring key functions of IT, the split can shine light on which capabilities are commoditized and which are differentiating.

Clearer strategic planning: Splitting operations and innovation doesn’t erase each one’s dependencies on the other, but the split can make those dependencies easier to coordinate, in part due to the clarity gained through streamlined capacity management and budgeting. Road-mapping and transformations also become easier as each group can undertake the work that will most affect its assigned success metrics. When operations and innovation activities reside under the same umbrella, those metrics might be at odds, such as measures of reliability and stability versus those of experimentation.

Disadvantages

Navigating the divide: The biggest downside to separating responsibilities is that doing so introduces an explicit divide that teams and their leaders must navigate. Their failure to do so can create work silos and dilute responsibility. Innovation teams, once they’ve developed a viable product, must resist the temptation to “throw their work over the wall” to the ops team. That temptation runs counter to the spirit of today’s best product-oriented operating models, and giving in to it will return the organization to square one. Establishing norms that specify how long a new product will be owned by innovation, what performance measures must be met before it is transitioned, and the knowledge transfer process is critical for organizations that successfully navigate the divide.

Relationship Management: In product teams where there is no formal split between responsibilities, teammates will often come to some tacit agreement of who’s responsible for what. In part, this is because they are held accountable as a team. But where there is a formal split, that agreement may dissolve and thus introduce a need for deliberate coordination. If that need exists, address it. Instate a manager to oversee both parties. Or instate procedures or cadences that keep them aligned. Whatever the solution, it must make unmistakably clear who is responsible for what.

Operations Burnout: While many will love focusing on ops, there will be others that despise it and view it as a career-limiting move. Have discussions with your teams. See what moves make sense for individuals’ career aspirations. Consider the idea of rotational programs to provide the option or requirement to work in different domains to develop a “full-stack” skill set.

Key principles and considerations

Splitting responsibilities should not be taken lightly. Doing so can destroy the gains made in the shift to a product-focused operating model, with the consequences reverberating across every part of the organization. If you do decide to draw the line, keep these principles top of mind to help ensure the split preserves momentum and delivers value.

Create a “One IT” mindset: Splitting responsibilities should not equate to splitting the team, at least in spirit. A sports analogy might be appropriate here. While the players on a sports team have different responsibilities, they play as a single unit. Similarly, an ops-innovation divided team must play as a single unit, chasing the same objectives, attending the same strategic meetings, and anticipating the consequences of each other’s moves.

Determine the appropriate level for the split: You needn’t split the responsibilities of all teams identically; often they can be split at multiple levels in an operating model. Consider a model in which product teams are loosely grouped by links in the value chain. For one link, say Marketing & Sales, you may decide it’s appropriate to divide operations and innovation at the broadest level of that link, sharing the operations resources across all product teams that compose Marketing & Sales. But for another link, such as Corporate Financials, you might split responsibilities at a more granular level, perhaps by individual product teams. In that case, operations resources are not shared across the link but dedicated to a specific team. The consideration here is the same as all centralization-decentralization trade-offs: standardization versus customization.

Take the time to clearly define operations versus innovation work: Define precisely what qualifies as operations and what as innovation; ambiguity will lead to chaos and strain. A client of ours in the healthcare industry worked closely with its engineers to classify work right down to the ticket type.

Stay focused on agility and business value: The goals and tempos of the two groups will vary, but that’s no excuse to operate in isolation. Teams must be coordinated in their moves. Two effective means of engendering that coordination are: one, align teams to the same business objectives. If the teams’ work don’t eventually translate to customer value, then it’s moot. And two, if the teams follow different Agile methodologies, align their key elements: their release schedules, their PI planning, perhaps even their retrospectives. These ceremonies are like the beats in a song; they will keep teams in sync even if they dance to different melodies.

Have impeccable ITSM: If you split responsibilities and one side of the division struggles, the other side will absorb the load, and you’ll lose the benefits of the split while still incurring its costs. So, before you split things, hone your ITSM. Hire resources with the right skills, arm them with the right tools, and lay tight escalation paths that they can follow when they do, in fact, need help from the innovation teams.

Embrace APIs and microservices: After splitting operations and innovation, there will be a constant and ever-evolving need to align the systems and processes that govern the two groups. A robust catalog of APIs and microservices can alleviate many of these pressures by empowering teams to navigate this split for themselves, rather than having the coordination handed down to them from the top.

Dividing resources by the type of work they’re responsible for, operations versus innovation, can amplify the benefits of a product-oriented model. But it’s a move that requires precision. Articulating what qualifies for each type of work, dividing at the right level of the op model, coordinating teams to move as a unit—these are but a few of the variables that can squelch an op models’ benefits if handled nonchalantly. Also, to divide responsibilities is not categorically better, even when it’s done right. Whether such a split is silly or sage depends on the idiosyncrasies of the organization. If your gut urges you to keep teams together, listen to it. We’ve laid out the advice that we have simply to say: if you do decide to split things, split them like you mean it.

CXO联盟（CXO union）是一家聚焦于CIO，CDO，cto，ciso，cfo，coo，chro，cpo，ceo等人群的平台组织，其中在CIO会议领域的领头羊，目前举办了大量的CIO大会、CIO论坛、CIO活动、CIO会议、CIO峰会、CIO会展。如华东CIO会议、华南cio会议、华北cio会议、中国cio会议、西部CIO会议。在这里，你可以参加大量的IT大会、IT行业会议、IT行业论坛、IT行业会展、数字化论坛、数字化转型论坛，在这里你可以认识很多的首席信息官、首席数字官、首席财务官、首席技术官、首席人力资源官、首席运营官、首席执行官、IT总监、财务总监、信息总监、运营总监、采购总监、供应链总监。

数字化转型网（资讯媒体，是企业数字化转型的必读参考，在这里你可以学习大量的知识，如财务数字化转型、供应链数字化转型、运营数字化转型、生产数字化转型、人力资源数字化转型、市场营销数字化转型。通过关注我们的公众号，你就知道如何实现企业数字化转型？数字化转型如何做？

【CXO UNION部分社群会员】碧水源CDO、嘉信CDO、三聚CDO、当升CDO、华平CDO、数字政通CDO、GQY视讯CDO、国民CDO、思创医惠CDO、数码视讯CDO、易成新能CDO、恒信东方CDO、奥克CDO、创世纪CDO、海默CDO、银之杰CDO、康芝CDO、荃银CDO、长信CDO、CDO、金通灵CDO、科新CDO、金刚玻璃CDO、国联水产CDO、华伍CDO、易联众CDO、智云CDO、高新兴CDO、精准CDO、双林CDO、振芯CDO、乾照光电CDO、达刚CDO、龙源CDO、西部牧业CDO、建新CDO、吉药CDO、新开源CDO、华仁CDO、向日葵CDO、万讯自控CDO、顺网CDO、中航电测CDO、长盈精密CDO、保力新CDO、嘉寓CDO、东方日升CDO、瑞普CDO、经纬辉开CDO、阳谷华泰CDO、智飞CDO、亚光CDO、汇川CDO、聆达CDO、锐奇CDO、银河磁体CDO、锦富CDO、泰胜风能CDO、新国都CDO、英唐智控CDO、青松CDO、华策影视CDO、大富CDO、宝利CDO、信维CDO、先河CDO、晨光CDO、晓程CDO、中环CDO、和顺CDO、沃森CDO、盈康生命CDO、宋城演艺CDO、中金CDO、汤臣倍健CDO、香雪CDO、天舟CDO、睿智CDO、世纪瑞尔CDO、昌红CDO、科融CDO、科泰电源CDO、瑞凌CDO、安居宝CDO等