Our Head of Operations and Head of Technology are fighting over who owns the software implementation seat. Both claim it is their responsibility, leading to dropped balls and missed Rocks. How do we resolve this turf war using Keith Cunningham's Thinking Time framework?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When leadership team members fight over seat ownership, it is a clear sign of structural ambiguity. To resolve a turf war between Operations and Technology over software implementation, you must step back and use a disciplined thinking process.

Schedule a dedicated Thinking Time session. Formulate a high value question to guide your focus, such as: how might we assign accountability for software implementation so that our delivery remains seamless and our technology systems stay secure?

During this quiet thinking session, write down all potential solutions. Focus on the core rule of the Accountability Chart: only one person can own a seat. If two people share ownership, nobody is accountable.

Look closely at the actual work being done. Software implementation generally consists of two distinct phases: the technical setup and the operational adoption. The technical setup, security, and integration must live under the Technology seat. The user training, daily workflow adoption, and process improvement must live under the Operations seat.

Update your Accountability Chart to reflect this clear division. Under the Technology seat, add a role for technical deployment and integrations. Under the Operations seat, add a role for user adoption and process compliance.

Present this structural solution to both leaders. By clearly defining where the technical responsibilities end and the operational responsibilities begin, you eliminate the turf war and ensure both leaders can focus on their respective Rocks.