More on why methods and tools, and metrics and rewards, should be late in an organizational strategy....

Methods and tools: Some methods and tools are applicable to many different jobs in the organization. These can be introduced at any time.

But methods and tools which are profession specific need a home -- a group dedicated to perfecting those specific methods. Thus, this is best done late in the strategy, at least waiting until after structure defines groups that specialize in each of the needed professions and hence are eager for the tools of their trades.

Methods and tools may also await work on the internal economy, so that staff have time and money to invest in these internal improvements.

Metrics and rewards: The role of metrics in transformations is often overstated. The adage, "If you want to fix it, measure it," applies to incremental change -- fine tuning an organization -- but not to transformational change.

In fact, metrics can make people less open to change, and more focused on maintaining the known status quo so that they can more easily achieve their objectives. Imagine people saying, "Don't change the rules on me, boss. I'm trying to make my numbers."

Beyond that, metrics are not as powerful as structure, internal economy, and culture. Here's why:

Metrics help when people don't know what they're supposed to be good at, or don't know whether they're succeeding or failing.

The primary purpose of rewards (consequences) is to amplify the power of the metrics. Rewards are important only when people don't care how well they're doing.

Most people know when they're winning or losing, and they care about their work. Thus, metrics and rewards are not strong transformational tools.

For these reasons, metrics and rewards are best addressed very late in an organizational strategy, after the new paradigm is in place. At this time, they're useful to institutionalize the changes and drive continuous improvements.