Prote Gra Case 3

Travica PROTEGRA Case 1

PROTEGRA: CULTURE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND GROWTH IN A SMALL CANADIAN CONSULTING COMPANY

Dr. Bob TravicaUniversity of Manitoba, Canada

Note: This article is provided online exclusively for members of the CAMIM project, under the conditions of Canadian Fair Use legislation.

Commercialization of any part of the article is prohibited and is sentenced by the International Copyright Law.

Wadood Ibrahim was looking through the window of Protegra’s business building, focusing on a duck pond that employees made last summer for hosting a family of jolly birds that somehow landed on the company premises. The CEO of this growing consulting firm had many reasons for satisfaction. In 2008, Protegra celebrated its 10th birthday with good financial results, added prestigious awards to its already rich collection, maintained employees that come happy to work, attracted new talent, expanded the project portfolio, acquired a small software development company, and advanced its national and international recognition. The Protegra employees embraced two strategic thrusts that made the Protegra way: a unique organizational culture of a flat, professional organization, and the combining of two areas of consulting – business performance and software development.

A seasoned business leader and entrepreneur, Ibrahim knew that strengths and opportunities were usually countered by challenges. He knew that the steady increase in the company’s size and international expansion of operations could challenge the Protegra way. The question ringing in Ibrahim’s mind was, How to keep growing while maintaining the culture of a small organization and the overall unique organizational design?

BACKGROUND

Protegra was established in 1998 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, when three friends decided to deploy their rich experience from the information technology (IT) industry to build a dream company. Ibrahim explained:

“We wanted to create a place where we actually wanted to work, where all the organization members could be what they wanted to be. The other motivator was to create quality software, while delivering on schedule and budget. We stated these intentions in the very name of the company, which joined the words ‘professional’ and ‘integrity.’ ‘Protegra’ stands for ‘professionals with integrity’.”

Before turning entrepreneur, Ibrahim worked as an IT professional in several organizations, after immigrating to Canada and obtaining his computer science degree and the M.Sc. degree in Industrial Engineering.

Protegra started out with the three founding members and a few employees by developing software for the gaming and financial industry. Until 2004, the strategic direction was toward developing software products for sale. Then after some heated discussion, a majority in the company decided against that course. The new course was toward developing custom software to be offered along with business


performance consulting. The later competence emerged opportunistically out of the company’s effort to engineer its own processes according to a lean methodology. After implementing lean operations, one client asked if Protegra could customize internal processes in the client’s organization. Protegra took on the challenge and provided a process improvement solution, accompanied with custom-built software and training. The client was satisfied. Protegra realized from this experience that there existed a market for offering both the business performance and information systems consulting.

In the mid 2000s, Protegra had been one of the fastest growing small companies in Canada, expanding its client base into the United States, Europe, and Japan. Its clients were both for-profit and non-profit organizations. In 2008, the company had 67 employees and generated about $7.8 millions in revenue. Protegra had achieved a number of awards, including the Best Small and Medium Employer in Canada in 2009, and Manitoba’s awards for the project of the year and for best business practices in 2006.

PROTEGRA’S STRUCTURE

Protegra was a flat organization. There was just one level of management represented in the operations team that oversaw projects, financial results, and anything else requiring immediate attention, and the client relationship management team that oversaw sales and marketing. Ibrahim, the only remaining founding member of the company, served on both teams. While working in a collaborative, peer-based fashion that defied titles, the team members used some traditional titles in communication with external parties (e.g., manager and director). The intention was to avoid confusing the clients and partners with their unorthodox organizing and management philosophy.

Darlene Smith, Director of human resources, explained that the term management had a different meaning in the company:

“We don’t actually have people who manage people. Nobody really reports to the one who happens to have that title of manager. Our management is about managing the responsibilities in a particular area – not people.”

Protegra had no external stakeholders, as it was entirely employee-owned. Even the two retired founding members had to sell back their shares before leaving. Shares were offered to all the employees, and a half of them had chosen to buy. A share of profits had been regularly distributed to the shareholders after the annual employee bonus had been covered. The remaining profits were reinvested in the company for future growth.

Protegra’s flat organizational structure was supported by intensive horizontal communication. Ibrahim explained:

“We don't hide data. We all share both the good news and the bad news. Assuming that employees are unable to handle bad news is condescending. The only data that we don't share is private and personal one.”

Every Protegra employee could freely talk to anyone else, ask questions, make proposals, and initiate communication via different channels for the sake of professional development and other shared goals. Dan Perron, practice leader for business performance consulting, explained how horizontal communication had been deployed in tracking organizational performance:


“The operations team had a very rigorous planning process. We use our balanced scorecard to track our performance, and every month we report on it. Every employee can see the reports anytime. As well, everybody can provide feedback.”

This flat organization was also flexible since Protegra did not have many rules and regulations. “A lot of organizations react to a few ‘bad apples’ that can land in any organization, and in defence they create all sorts of procedures and policies,” commented Ibrahim. “However, I think we should make the organization work for the majority, and then the ‘bad apples’ will be squeezed out anyway.”

Even though it offered consulting services in two areas—information systems and organizational performance—and had clients in several industries, Protegra was not differentiated on the functional basis. Rather, the basis to its organization was the project team. Usually engaging between two and five members, a project team was assembled of professionals with competencies fitting the project needs. Competencies were the skills falling into three categories: technical, critical thinking, and interpersonal. Combinations of competencies provided the basis for roles a team member could fill, such as application developer (programmer), technical architect, application architect, business analyst, consultant, and project manager.

Although these different roles existed, collaboration rather than hierarchy reigned in the team context. For example, an application architect, who took care of the overall design of application software and the coordination of work, usually had as much say in project decisions as a project manager. A technical architect, who was closest to developers and could do some coding, also participated in making important decisions within a project team. Terry Bunio, internally known as delivery lead and externally as delivery manager, remarked:

“Project managers and architects are on equal footing at Protegra. This is different from the industry practice that puts a project manager above everyone else on the team. A project manager should be a supporting role not a directing role. The direction should come from your team.”

Sean Bueckert experienced this democratic, shared leadership in many projects he worked on in different roles: “When some big technical decision came up, we would some people together and start discussing what our options were, what was good, what bad… And then we made a decision as a team.”

In project-driven organizations, project staffing has usually been a challenging task, particularly when different projects had to compete for the same resources. At Protegra, there was a resourcing process that took advantage of the shared leadership practice. This process specified objectives to be rated in deciding on team member assignment. The employee-related objectives included the employee's career goals, expertise, as well as wishes. Other criteria were the growth of Protegra’s sales and portfolio, and the value the company was able to deliver to the customer. Members of the operations team and leaders of affected projects individually rated a professional to be assigned, and then they discussed the ratings.

Differences in ratings were always reconciled, noted Bunio, since Protegra professionals shared an understanding of priorities. For example, a more demanding project that involved solving of a business problem had usually got a competent professional on board even though this person could be already engaged in some simpler work in another project. Once an assignment was decided, the professional was asked to join a team. But the assignee could refuse the assignment. However, nobody had ever used this right. Bunio explained: “I’d have a good discussion with them, and if the assignment was not great, I’d let them know that this fact was noted and that it would be taken into consideration the next time we make assignments.”


PROTEGRA’S CULTURE

Protegra had a strong organizational culture that influenced many other aspects of the organization. This culture was in many respects unique, and it had been a major attraction point for a number of job applicants as well as a key to retaining and engaging the existing employees. Protegra’s culture had three focal points – employee, client, and professionalism.

The employee focus was expressed in the saying “People come first,” which Ibrahim and other Protegrans had readily cited on many occasions. Built into foundations of the company since its inception, the employee focus was equally shared by new organization members. Jennifer Glen, who filled a new role of employee relationship facilitator, explained what part of the Protegra culture attracted her: “I was looking for a place where I could submit my ideas and feel like they were being heard, where I could work autonomously and feel that the company was about more than earning a profit.” She pointed out that Protegra’s culture was not bound to limitations of traditional organizations in which managers assumed that people’s abilities were much more limited than they really were.

The focus on employees surfaced in several values. One was the Respect for Others. Bueckert commented:

“And even if you enjoy the work in a company, the people might ruin it. But they can also make it better. So I think the people have to be friendly, respectful, good to get along with, and provide a comfortable, respectful, enjoyable work environment. And we have that here at Protegra.”

Protegra had a formal process of complaining for the employees who felt offended by the language or acts of others. A team of peers with a changing membership considered the complaint and ensured that the case was brought to a resolution in compliance with Protegra’s culture.

While many organizations could be touted for nurturing respectful employees, at Protegra this value dove-tailed with a less usual one – Avoid Bad Politics. Protegrans believed that talking about others behind their back, manoeuvring to promote one’s agenda, blocking others, and similar acts belonged to bad politics that had no place in their company. Director of human resources Smith admitted that, right at her start at Protegra, she took this aversion to bad politics with caution: “I quickly realized that there was indeed no backstabbing at this place. I wasn’t getting employees coming into my office to talk about a conflict they were having with other employees.” She explained that bad politics was blocked by several characteristics that made Protegra a different place. One was a lack of hierarchy that otherwise would could facilitate building personal empires around a rank. Other blockers of bad politics were peer-based decision making, collaboration, and teamwork. Since people were moving from one team to another, an employee would ultimately get to know everyone else. This dynamic facilitated self-control and self-awareness of one’s reputation on the part of every Protegra employee.

Protegrans believed that “the world was your oyster.” The professional world was there for everyone to discover, open, and explore. This was yet another aspect of employee focus, which could be translated into a value of Empowerment and Self-Actualisation. Ryan Caligiuri, who right after gradation became communications coordinator at Protegra, noted that taking on leadership responsibilities was an important expectation that Ibrahim and the company set before him:

“They looked to me for guidance on the things I was hired for. If I didn't know something, I had to get myself educated. This has really made my job fun, opened it up, and empowered me as a person because I've been in charge of my career. The world


really is my oyster!”

Uwe Schmitz, technical architect, provided more illustrations of the value of Empowerment and Self-Actualization:

“I think that everyone at Protegra had the freedom to exercise as much creativity, to take as much ownership, and to guide different parts of the organization as they wish. We can bite off as much as we wish. I don’t ask anyone for permission. I just do it, and then I shop it around with my colleagues. Honestly, I don’t think I’m working, I’m having fun.”

Another pillar of Protegra’s culture was the focus on the client. In their consulting engagements, Protegrans were expected to do their best in order to deliver the best value for their clients. This implied creating quality software and business solutions that were based on advanced knowledge and technologies and that made a beneficial difference on the client’s side. Protegrans believed that the foci on the client and on the employee were complementary. This was formulated through the value of Three Wins. If employees enjoyed their project work, they won. If employees won, the client won too, because they had gotten the best value from such a project work. The third win resulted from these two and applied to Protegra as a whole. A happy client acted as the best advertisement and usually came back for more.

Schmitz interpreted the effect of the Three Wins-equation on the software development:

“If our developers can solve a programming problem in three lines of code rather than 30, that’s in everybody’s best interest because every line of code costs money to create and to maintain.”

Protegra had discovered that a repeat customer was most likely to accept this entire equation. The repeat customer was able to understand that Protegra also needed to win by making a profit, or the company could not be around when its service was needed again.

The atmosphere of a professional organization was the third pillar of Protegra’s culture. Its foundations were in project-based teamwork. Perron learned teamwork flying on the C-130 Hercules, a 14,400 horsepower-military transport aircraft. Through his military experience Perron developed an unshakeable creed in teamwork:

“It was amazing what a small team could accomplish while handling the gigantic aircraft in all kinds of situations, including missions to perilous combat zones. We aviators shared principles of self-discipline, leadership, team problem solving, and team-based performance evaluation. These principles equally apply to consulting work at Protegra.”

While being the foundation of organizational structure, the project team had been supported by a set of values favouring peer-based relationships over hierarchy. One such value was Open Communication. Perron explained how it worked for him: “I'd come and have a conversation with anybody, and ask them what they think. And people would give me their opinions, as everybody here was free to say what they think, and there was no fear of failure.”

Like the crew of a Hercules aircraft, Protegra nurtured Shared Leadership that materialized in the peer-based decision making in project teams as well as in the operational team. Leadership was also shared in the entire organization among professionals initiating some action that others responded to. Glen provided several examples of shared leadership practices:


“Anyone can become an internal or external thought leader in some area. The internal thought leader is considered the go-to-person for a particular methodology or technology. That person might give our internal Lunch-and-Learns, do coaching and mentoring on that particular area, or maintain our internal wiki on that subject. The external thought leader may give presentations at conferences on behalf of Protegra, create an external blog, or write a white paper.”

Trust was another salient value in this professional culture. It stemmed from Shared Leadership and Open Communication as well as from the people focus. Trustfulness pre-emptied the space for individual competition and bad politics.

Part of this professional culture was the management of material resources. For example, a programmer could have an office because the work involved extensive confidential communication with a client. However, the project manager on the same project could be seated in an open cubicle. Protegrans maintained that this allocation of offices should not be a matter of entitlement but rather result from common sense and real needs.

Continuous Improvement was another aspect of Protegra’s professional culture. “That's where we really get a lot of joy here, as people keep thinking of how to make things better,” remarked Bunio. Perron explained that Continuous Improvement was practiced both at the strategic and operational level. The former began with the strategic planning process that involved all the employees in a process ending with an annual launch conference. Starting from broad targets for the year, everybody was to reflect on the previous year, and to share what was learned and how to build on that knowledge in the next year.

Continuous Improvement pertained to the individual level as well. A good professional was deemed the one who continually improved personal knowledge. Protegrans regularly used organized knowledge sharing events. They also learned on their own at home or in the office when there was no immediate project work to be done. Since the learning time was not billable and Protegra lived on billable hours, knowledge acquisition required a delicate balancing with the consulting work.

The professional culture at Protegra was rounded up by a set of beliefs and practices characterizing the company’s way of working. These were based on the assumption that a lean approach was the desirable way of operating for both Protegra and its clients.

LEAN APPROACH TO CONSULTING

In its consulting practices, Protegra used a Lean methodology. Perron recalled that this methodology had developed early in Protegra’s life by combining concepts from Toyota’s lean manufacturing approach, some methods described in the consulting literature, and the professional experience and ideas of Protegrans of the time. Essentially, Protegra’s lean methodology tended to streamline the job on the consultant side as well as to provide streamlined solutions to the client. Put another way, both the consulting process and the result of consulting were to maximize efficiency.

The consulting process aimed at identifying a gap between goals and reality. This gap constituted the problem to solve. Analysis then turned to discovering a root cause to the problem. “Usually, data exchange, translation, retrieval and structure were root causes of problems, which then call for looking for IT solutions,” noted Perron. Still, Protegra consultants would not come to an engagement with the intention of merely selling yet another piece of software. The informational part of the solution first had to be conceived in terms of the lean principles of value for the end-client and waste elimination. An


example was the practice of re-entering the same data, which reduced the efficiency of the pertinent work task or process. The software solution had to eliminate the redundant data entry as the root cause.

The lean methodology involved examining into various aspects of the client organisation, including governance, reward mechanisms, remunerations, and incentives. It also engaged the client in problem solving. Perron pointed out that organisations were often unaware of the problem solving capabilities of their own staff. Why employees were not identifying problems or solving problems? Not because they could not do it, but because they were not asked to do so.

A showcase of the lean methodology was the project for Loewen Windows, a large manufacturer of wooden windows and doors for the luxury market, located in Steinbach, Manitoba. The goal of the project was to enhance lean manufacturing by improving the efficiency of key organizational processes and quality assurance. In accord with the lean principle of high bandwidth communication and collaboration with client, Protegra’s consultants worked with many employees at Loewen to document and define the client’s measures of success and the value delivered to customers. Consultants also collaborated with a client’s multi-occupational team to identify root causes to problems and to solve them.

In the Loewen project, the consultants also addressed the governance of the organization, following the principle that root causes could be in that area. Loewen’s information systems were thoroughly examined as well. The solutions rested on engaging the resources of the organization to train and empower employees, reengineering processes, and innovating information systems. The client was satisfied with innovations that fit their strategy. Loewen particularly praised Protegra’s expertise and a partnership-creating capability.

Part of the lean methodology was the process for developing and maintaining software – Protegra’s Lean Software Life Cycle. Schmitz explained the principles behind this cycle. One was iterative development that created system functions and user interface through iterations, while using the client’s continuous feedback to improve the computer code. The client would get to see and evaluate code early and often, thus helping developers avoid delivering something that was not desirable, which would be considered waste from the Lean perspective. The client had the opportunity to test the prototype and figure if something needed to be changed.

The Lean Software Life Cycle welcomed changes of system requirements. While this principle would usually complicate the developer’s job, it was used to increase the quality of software and its value for the client. Another principle was to defer commitment to technical details until the last responsible moment in order to provide the user with flexibility. For example, instead of predefining certain parameters and thus forcing always the same way of running software, design allowed for configurable settings that the user could enter while the software was running. Deferring the decision to the last responsible moment also applied to the selection of technologies to be built into an information system.

The development process included meetings devoted to reflecting on the accomplishments and deciding on necessary adjustments. This principle stemmed from the cultural value of continuous improvement. Lastly, the software package had to be optimized as a whole, which included answering questions: How to update the software? How to feed the data? How to adapt the solution with the changing business requirements? The software was thoroughly tested before the final release. Schmitz stressed that the quality test went beyond determining if the software performed the required work for the client. Complying with functional requirements was rather assumed, and the real measure of quality was the reliability, performance and other non-functional requirements of software.

The overarching value of waste elimination or efficiency maximization drove continuously the system development work. For example, the Lean Software Life Cycle prescribed a number of project


documents, but just some were considered critical and thus mandatory, while others were left to the discretion of project teams.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AT PROTEGRA

Protegra was a paperless company. One could search in vain for paper folders in offices and cubicles of the company’s building. The employees would get their pay stubs emailed to them. Even family photos were usually maintained on small digital displays rather than in paper photo frames. Developed in house, all information systems were customized to internal needs. Microsoft technology was the main development platform, while Java and other platforms were used when it was appropriate.

Reporting Systems

Protegra’s information systems enabled its unique organization design. The flat organization and the cultural focus on people had strong support in reporting systems that were accessible to all employees. There was a whole range of dashboards that one could view via the company’s intranet. These covered finances, client relationships, offerings, sales, project delivery, human resources, building management, and so on. For example, the dashboard for client relationship management showed the forecast for sales and weekly reports on the realization. The human resources dashboard provided, among other content, an updated picture of the assignment of employees to projects. Every employee was authorized to access these dashboards at any time.

Every dashboard showed goals based on the internal balanced scorecard methodology and the actual achievement. For example, the users could monitor the project delivery dashboard to understand where a particular project was in terms of planned/accomplished billable hours and budget. Colours were used to indicate how plans related to reality: red meant a gap between the realization and a goal, while green indicated a goal achievement.

With the exception of the parts based on face-to-face communication, the sales process was entirely electronic. The sales management system was based on a particular sales methodology, and it supported the entire sales process. Its start point was a set of steps creating an “opportunity pipeline.” The system user filled online templates for sales opportunities in order to identify a buyer prospect. Meetings, decisions and other subsequent steps were tracked in succession, and a resulting sales plan was posted. This system contained all potential opportunities and provided current sales forecasts, win/loss ratios, and other details.

Particular data were entered in the sales system by those responsible for performing particular steps in the sales process. This principle applied to other systems as well, thus supporting the Protegra culture in which process drivers were trusted and empowered to handle the data they create. From the perspective of information system use, this principle meant that many systems in the company were used in the self-service manner. Another example of self-service systems was the entering of billable hours directly by members of project teams. This was done through a project management system. Data from it fed into the project delivery dashboard, which was also used on the basis of self-service. The human resource director used the evidence of billable hours too, and created utilization reports showing every employee in the company along with the billable percentage of their transpired work hours.

Both the process and the system for employee evaluation rested on self-service. Every team member evaluated the work of other team mates and of him/herself. The evaluation form was online and it asked


about a qualitative evaluation of performance and of possible areas of improvement. These evaluations were later used for various purposes, including the calculation of bonuses at the end of the fiscal year. The culture of trust ensured the evaluations’ validity.

Project Management Systems

Every project, internal and external alike, had a SharePoint site for storing and sharing the project documentation, such as announcements, diagrams, change requests, status reports, financial aspects, milestones, and completed work. Configuration management was also supported. Microsoft Team Foundations Server was used for work item tracking, source code repository, build management/continuous integration, and bugs tracking.

Part of project management system was also the test servers and Websites that supported high bandwidth communication with clients in the course of a project. Thus, the client could get online access via a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to certain project documentation and preliminary deliverables. In the Loewen project, the client could access remotely the drawings, communications, and other relevant project documents. The client reciprocated by providing Protegra’s consultants with online access to floor maps, databases, scheduling, and any other details the consultants requested.

Bueckert noted that keeping the communication with clients this way was important particularly when developing enterprise level software. This software demanded that an extensive system infrastructure was built first, which then allowed developing functionality that made sense to the end user. Letting the client see by themselves the progress of the work on the system infrastructure did help to maintain trust on client side.

Knowledge Work Systems

Dedicated information systems expanded the scope of practices in the area of knowledge acquisition and sharing. One such tool was called “Idea Funnel.” The front end was an online form that any employee could use to submit some innovation-relevant idea. A two-member team with a changing membership would receive the proposal and perform a triage by assigning the proposal to some employee that the proposal could concern. The recipient of the proposed idea would, then, decide on taking ownership over the idea and on implementing it. The following downstream steps were the defining of a solution, collecting the feedback to it, and the final go/no go decision. All these steps were recorded in the Idea Funnel. The ideas submitted ranged for work process improvement to augmenting the space for socializing.

A content mapping application was available for facilitating learning from past projects. The user could run a search based on keywords and identify projects that accrued with the relevant experience. For example, if one wanted to learn about challenges related to partner engagement, the search would result in finding the relevant lessons learned in the previous projects. Every employee could access this application via the company’s intranet.

Protegrans used blogging for sharing knowledge. This was also deemed a good way of getting thoughts of those colleagues that were either uncomfortable with public speech or that might not be able to be heard. In addition, blogging was considered a good way of developing written communication skills. Finally, wikis were used in order to convey and document knowledge in a more systematic way.

Communication Systems


Email was the major communication channel, second only to face-to-face communication. It provided an electronic trail to the project work, meetings, decisions, company events, and the like. Email was the system of choice during a multi-year project for a client in Luxembourg in Europe. It helped coping with the time difference and establishing a good rapport with the client, in spite of the inherent limitations of email technology. The use of email was enhanced by applying a desktop search engine for searching through email messages, attachments, and files in various formats that were stored on the hard drive.

Protegrans also used an instant messaging (IM) system based on Microsoft Communicator software. Being fully integrated with a calendar application, the IM had the awareness capability. This meant that the availability status of every person logged into the intranet locally or via a VPN connection was shown by an indicator. Thus, it was clear if a person was available for contact or perhaps he/she was at a meeting, the location and timing of which were also tacked.

An electronic bulletin board based on the SharePoint platform was also available for teamwork and company-wide discussions. The telephone technology of choice was voice over IP (VoIP). It allowed employees to deploy soft phones on their laptops and to phone from any place where the Internet connection was available.

Other electronic tools at Protegra included several locators, mapping spatially the people and professional development books that were in circulation. The intranet also supplied complete coverage of meetings, presentations, and social life (events, announcements, birthdays, anniversaries, etc.).

CHALLENGES AHEAD

In 2007, Protegra doubled in size. One of the challenges engendered by the rapid growth was the preservation of the company’s culture. New employees were joining and Protegra professionals were increasingly dispersed in the global space. Protegra’s key challenge became, How to keep growing while ensuring the preservation of the organizational culture that made Protegra a special place and successful enterprise? In 2008/9, Protegra directly addressed this challenge through a strategy called enduring culture. Expected behaviours that reinforced cultural values were collaboratively defined in all areas of the company. A course for teaching the Protegra way was created. Key aspects of the culture were graphically depicted in an animated presentation called “Perpetual Culture Machine,” which provided an easy method for new employees to begin learning the company’s culture.

Organizational communication helped the enduring culture strategy by conveying the culture via new methods. These included the creation of cultural stories that conveyed main cultural values. Stories were published as cartoons in a new publication entitled “Planet Protegra.” For example, one story talked about teaming of two software developers on their own initiative in order to respond to a client’s request by working over a weekend. Another method was publishing the “Fact of Week” – a brief narrative that promptly conveyed some cultural value. One such narrative explained why some Protegrans had offices while others did not. While the enduring culture initiatives were helpful for new employees to adopt the Protegra way, the culture was likely to keep being challenged by the expected increase in the spatial dispersion of operations. Ibrahim and his team mates were aware that it might had been increasingly difficult to maintain the company’s culture if the personal contact among Protegrans was diminished. The key cultural values of open communication, trust, and shared leadership had been practiced just in the face-to-face setting. The lean methodology of system development also favoured collaboration through direct interaction as the way of working that allowed for quickest communication.


The tension between the culture and growth created a number of questions awaiting prompt answers. How could the values of the professional and people-focused organization be preserved when professionals were not located in the same space? Were some modifications of the culture needed? Did Protegrans need to go through some training for working in the distributed team mode? And crucially important for this technology company: How was Protegra supposed to leverage its systems for communication, knowledge work, and project management in order to preserve its culture while growing? Would Protegrans need to explore new information technologies and systems in the process of transforming into a larger high-touch and high-tech organization?


Exhibit 1

AWARDS

Protegra was recognized as one of 2009’s top 75 Best Workplaces in Canada.

In 2009 Protegra was selected as the #1 Best Small and Medium Employer in Canada by the Globe and Mail and Queen’s School of Business.

In 2008, Protegra was one of Manitoba’s 50 Fastest Growing Companies for the third consecutive year as ranked by Manitoba Business Magazine.

Protegra was recognized as one of Canada’s fastest growing companies as selected by Profit Magazine in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Protegra was awarded the Project of the Year (2006) by the Project Management Institute, Manitoba chapter, for the company’s online Parks Reservation System developed in collaboration with Manitoba Conservation.

Protegra was a finalist for the “Outstanding Medium Business Award” from the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce for the past four years (2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007).

Protegra received a 2006 “Best in Business Practices Award” from Manitoba Business Magazine, in recognition of its outstanding business management and industry success.

Source: http://www.protegra.com/News/AwardsAndDistinctions.aspx

http://www.protegra.com/News/AwardsAndDistinctions.aspx


Exhibit 2

PROTEGRA’S FINANCIAL RESULTS

2008 2007 2006Revenue 7,827,425 6,912,308 5,643,079Expenses 7,228,430 6,052,981 5,384,776Profit* 7.65% 12.43% 4.58%

* Profit before taxes, excluding tax credits for research and development


Exhibit 3

PERPETUAL CLTURE MACHINE


EXHIBIT 4

PROTEGRA’S OFFERINGS IN BUSINESS PERFORMANCE CONSULTING

(Source: Protegra, 2007)

Business Innovation Workshop for Executives and Senior Managers

Performance Consulting

Strategic Planning, including Balanced Scorecard

Organizational Design

Process Improvementt, including Analysis and Modeling

Change Management

Business and Data Architecture, and Unified Business Modeling

Value Stream Analysis

Business Analysis Survey Design, Development and Analysis

Workshop Design and Facilitation Training Design, Development and Delivery

Infrastructure Design, including Business Continuity Planning and Disaster

Recovery

Database Reviews and Operational Data Store Design

Gap and/or Fit Analysis Decision Making and Problem Solving

Documents

Prote Gra Case 3