Tom Graves / Tetradian

Any competent observer of economics would acknowledge that the money-based model on which most current economics is based is in deep trouble right now: somewhere between seriously-dysfunctional and completely broken. Many of the purported key-metrics such as GDP and GNP don’t really tell us anything useful at all about the actual functioning of the economy: all they describe, really, is the potential tax-base, in monetary terms – and the distortions that this introduces into the economic picture are the direct cause of many economic problems. Banking and, especially, finance have moved so far from their functional roots that they’re now little more than engines for embezzlement on an almost unimaginable scale. And the preferred ’solution’ to the fact that many, many things cannot be meaningfully described in monetary terms is simply to declare that such things do not exist or, if they do, they cannot conceivably matter within the overall economy.

(I won’t give links for any of those assertions above: we’d be here all day. They’re all well-known and long-proven problems, as a few hours’ worth of careful web-searches will demonstrate all too clearly. Just take it as read for the moment that that’s so, because the details as such aren’t that relevant right here.)

Given that there’s a perceived problem with the ‘money-economy’, what can we do about it? Well, the usual ’solution’ – and I use that term advisedly – is to rush out and devise some form of alternative-currency. I’ve seen dozens of these so far, and apparently there are actually thousands of these projects, across a whole spectrum from simple barter to community-based currencies to time-based currencies. But they all have one thing in common: they won’t work.

Not just ‘won’t work’: they actually can’t work. They can’t solve the problems that we face.

No form of currency will satisfy all of the requirements for managing an economy, without requiring distortions to the economy itself that will render that economy non-viable or non-sustainable, especially over the longer term.

And there’s no way round that fact.

My apologies if that fact offends anyone, but it is indeed a fact. And refusing to face that fact is not going to help anyone. Sorry.

Read more…

Been having a fairly intense (but good ) discussion on the LinkedIn Enterprise Architecture group, about standard economics and its impact on enterprise architecture. This is one of the many side-threads popping up off Kevin Smith’s now long-running discussion on “EA is not the glue between IT and ‘The Business’, EA is the glue between strategy and execution”. I don’t know whether this set of posts from various participants will make much sense to anyone else, but it seems worthwhile to post it where others can see it if they wish.

(Note that I’ve done a small amount of editing of the original posts by trimming and snipping ['...'] and, in one case, concatenating posts from the same person. I believe I’ve kept the sense intact in each case, but if not, please let me know straight away? Thanks.)

For me, in this case, the start-point was a post by Harold ‘Hal’ Stull:

When in doubt I always think Econ 101. An organization manages three resources (capital, labor, and material) to produce a product. If a customer pays more for the product more than the value of the resources consumed, the company shows a profit for its risk and will continue operating. As an architect of any kind, I have to discover the “Who, what, when, how, where, and why” of the client’s operation and add something that may possibly increase the perceived value of the product to his customer or reduce the resources needed to produce it.

I also try to stay away from absolutes: Truth, Best, Optimum, Consistent, etc. I can do a whole lot with organizational and interface symantics. I would never say “ontology” in front of a client, but being able to work with higher abstractions helps me choose and squeeze value from tool kits. (But I see there is another thread for that topic).

As you’d probably guess, given some of the other posts on this weblog (such as ‘Economics: the worst term-hijack ever?’), I kind of jumped at Hal’s comment about ”When in doubt I always think Econ 101.”:

Hmm. That assumes that ‘Econ 101′ makes sense and works in the real world, which it doesn’t. That’s the problem.

You say: “An organization manages three resources (capital, labor, and material) to produce a product.”

The answer would be “Sort-of…”. More accurately, Econ 101 treats all of those items (including non-financial capital, such as conceptual and/or social capital) as ‘possessable objects’ that are the ‘property’ or ‘possession’ of an individual or of an organisation-as-corporate-person. Unfortunately this would take a long post to explain, but in essence the ‘possession’-based concept of economics is a parasitic overlay on the actual economy, which operates on mutual-responsibility rather than possession. The quickest summary is that Econ 101 is inherently dysfunctional and inherently unsustainable: so if we’re to build an enterprise-architecture that will work for an organisation, we need to focus on the responsibility-based economy behind the possession-based delusions of Econ 101, and not allow ourselves to be distracted by those delusions.

To give one very quick example, most conventional ‘business-models’ that I’ve seen assume a very simple Econ 101 market-sequence of:

attention (via advertising) > transaction (via sales) > profit

For enterprise-architecture, we need to deal with a much broader range (e.g. including non-active stakeholders [e.g. government, community, non-clients] and also anti-clients and others who are active participants but who are not involved in sales-transactions), and a much more complex market-sequence, such as:

reputation > trust > respect > attention > conversation > relationship > transaction [ > profit] > reputation > …

We also need to understand that ‘the enterprise’ is not the same as ‘the organisation’: an organisation is bounded by rules, roles and responsibilities (e.g. legal responsibilities), whereas an enterprise is bounded by vision, values and commitments (see my presentation ‘What is an enterprise?‘)

True, an organisation is a type of enterprise, but for most enterprise-architecture the relevant enterprise is typically at least three steps larger in scope than that of the organisation in scope. (We develop an architecture about an enterprise for an organisation.)

Using the assumptions of Econ 101 will guarantee that we will deliver an ‘enterprise’-architecture that will fail in the longer term. To build an architecture that works, we must think wider than that.

Read more…

Finally got round to uploading to Slideshare my old (2006) slidedeck ‘Introduction to SCORE‘.

SCORE (Strengths, Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, Effectiveness) is a kind of ‘upgrade’ to the good ol’ SWOT strategy-assessment framework.

I developed SCORE perhaps a decade ago when I got fed up of the limitations of SWOT, especially in enterprise-architecture assessment. There are a few minor-yet-significant changes to the language, but the main change is addition of a new focus on impacts on overall effectiveness, and the explicit search for usable metrics. I’ve also reworked the method so that it’s used in an iterative, re-entrant way rather than solely as a ‘one-shot’ checklist.

The slidedeck includes a worked-example, based on a real project that we did for a utilities company several years ago.

Here it is, anyway: Share and Enjoy?

One of the comments on the previous post on the unacknowledged risks of  ’cooperative IT’ triggered off an essay-length response that really deserves its own post. So here it is.

The comment that started it off was from Ric Phillips. (I’ve trimmed it slightly, but you can see the original here.)

The innovations that led to mini-computers led to the increasing importance of information processing based on the technology’s ability to capture and model transactions (atomistic events). It really did change the nature of work and organisations and made a new kind of information available.

It wasn’t really the advent of PCs that changed things. If the information about the world that could be stored in them and used had not changed radically they would have simply replaced the niche occupied by terminals. But they allowed people to simulate sheets of paper and type writers. And spreadsheets – which were existed prior to software and were done on very large sheets of paper. Later came sound files, photographs, building designs, industrial machinery, complex electronics (like audio mixing decks) and a thousand other things that are now simulated in software.

In this wave computers became personal productivity tools. The changes to how personal productivity expressed itself in our lives when assisted by the new ‘virtual’ things PCs could provide is what changed our jobs, our professions and be extension our lives.

The internet started out as an extension of publication and communications models that already existed. But (in this case much more slowly that in previous transformations) our activity on the internet started to capture large amounts of information that previously wasn’t subject to computation – social information, information about opinions, subjective value, and what we might call (tentatively) knowledge.

There are intersecting trends (consumerisation for example). But mobile computing, ubiquitous data, web 2.0 and so on are all converging to create a new domain of information – information that allows us to model and manipulate in computers new and extremely complex things. Once again this will transform organisations. But this time maybe even whole societies.

I don’t see this as an impending disaster. Our world is changing again. As a strategic profession EAs need to get their heads around this. We are leaving the era of ‘information processing’ and ‘ICT’ and entering the era of social computing and Knowledge Technology.

Reading it again, I now realise that this critique has completely missed the point: all it’s doing is extolling the virtues of each of the transformations in technology, yet seemingly ignoring any possibility that there might also be vices associated with those virtues. Yes, each of those transformations are real and valuable to some context, and that is indeed a key driver for change. Yet the change itself is not the risk, and neither is the technology: it is the dependence on that technology that creates the risk.

So, as I put it in my response, I strongly agree that “mobile computing, ubiquitous data, web 2.0 and so on” are not in themselves an impending disaster. The same applies to their initial impact on organisations and “maybe even whole communities” – in general I see those impacts as desirable, even if certainly not something we can ‘control’.

What does worry me is what happens next. As an EA I’ve spent many months at clients tracking down all those small private-to-a-workgroup spreadsheets and databases and log-files and the like that were a) business-critical and b) unmaintained, undocumented, not backed up, inherently fragile [such as trying to use MS Access as a multi-user database, which it was never designed to do], unregistered, and in many other ways a real business risk. Whenever some key person changed jobs, or a single hard-drive failed, or a sysadmin triggered an automated application-upgrade, or any other of a myriad of seeming-trivial events, that business-unit would literally lose that part of its mind – and an entire business-process, affecting an entire cross-functional workstream, would grind to a halt until someone could work out what had gone missing and how to set up yet another kludged workaround.

When the business-application is non-critical, kludges usually don’t matter: it’s how people learn, it helps get things done, and it’s exactly what ’shadow-IT’ is for. The new mobile technologies and the like are brilliant for this – just as spreadsheets and single-user databases were (and still are). Everything’s fine as long as they’re essentially used in the same way as Lego bricks or a Meccano set or the like – a ’serious toy’ that can be used to knock out a quick prototype to test out an idea, or perhaps even to keep around as a vaguely-useful tool and talking-point. And as long as they’re used for that kind of purpose, it shouldn’t matter much when they do fail – especially if we can use that failure as a way to learn what to do differently next time. In other words, we accept failure as part of the deal – it’s ’safe-fail’.

But don’t try to use a ’serious toy’ for anything that’s business-critical. It’s not inherently wrong, but it’s simply not ‘fit for purpose’: they’re not robust enough, resilient enough, agile enough, secure enough, and so on – which means that as a system we cannot set them up to ’safe-fail’ in such a context. Sure, you could use Lego to build a house (it’s been done), or Meccano to build a bridge (that’s been done, too), but the effectiveness of doing so is questionable at best, especially over the longer term.

It’s the ‘-ilities’ that usually matter most in architecture. The functional requirements for a system are usually much the same at any scope or scale, but the qualitative or so-called ‘non-functional’ requirements are what will usually make or break the system in practice. Building an IT system that can handle half a dozen strictly-sequential requests in half an hour or even half a minute is relatively trivial; building one that can handle thousands or even millions of parallel, interleaving, fragmented, potentially-incomplete requests every second is not trivial at all; and yet the functional requirements are essentially the same. That’s the difference between a ’serious-toy’ prototype, and serious engineering with serious architecture and serious service-management and support behind it.

What we have right now in mobile-computing, ubiquitous-information and cloud is a whole bunch of serious-toys desperately pretending to be more than they are, and – more worryingly – being sold and used as if they’re more than they are. Sure, the function is there – but that’s easy. It always is. Getting them beyond that ’serious toy’ stage is not easy – and because it’s hard work to get there, it hacks into the short-term profits, too, so it’s not exactly popular amongst the money-obsessed.

So we have here all the ingredients for a ‘perfect storm’: more and more of individual people’s lives and livelihoods being placed onto platforms that are inherently unstable and unsustainable, because little or none of the work to make them stable and sustainable is as yet in place or even in progress. If you’re not already seriously worried about what will happen when large chunks of our society literally lose their collective mind and memory through the failures of these kludged-together toys, you’re not thinking hard enough about the architecture of the enterprise… 

The lessons of history are plain to see, and it’s also plain to see that the level of unaddressed risk has been raised each time, with even the earliest-period risks still not fully addressed even now. You Have Been Warned?

A couple of weeks back, Gabriel Morgan of Microsoft’s internal Enterprise Strategic Planning unit posted an article on what he described as a ‘breakthrough’ in enterprise-architecture, “A Breakthrough: Maturing EA to be a Catalyst to Transform the Company“:

It’s time to rethink enterprise architecture people. Well, at least here in Microsoft IT’s Enterprise Architecture Team it is.

… For the past year or so, I’ve led a crack team of experts focused on aligning IT and the Business, and from this journey I wanted to share with you my current thinking. My team is called Enterprise Strategic Planning and it is a service team dedicated to enterprise-wide strategy and planning. Our initial goal is to become critical to the planning process with the intention of providing data to qualify an optimal set of IT Programs to invest in. … In this article I wanted to share with you something that has occurred to us during our journey and describe some changes we are making that I think is ground-breaking in the Enterprise Architecture domain.

Assuming a primary goal of EA is to align IT to the Business, the problem is that most, if not all, EA Frameworks are not equipped to actually deliver on this goal. They are limited to drawing associations from IT things … to Business things … . Some of the more mature EA teams have partnered with their finance department to apply financial modeling … to these associations to help describe business value in monetary terms and possibly start a chargeback model. These are all great accomplishments but at best they only capture how IT ‘relates’ to the Business. That is, these EA Frameworks and methods are more about IT transparency, not alignment.

I would have to admit that my first response to this would best be described as ‘unprintable’…  (The polite version of ‘unprintable’ would look at certain key phrases in the above, such as “It’s time to rethink enterprise architecture, people”, “a crack team of experts” and “Assuming a primary goal of EA is to align IT to the Business”, and thence to make extremely disparaging remarks about Microsoft, about apparent arrogance, about a supposedly innovative company being literally years behind the leading edge of enterprise-architecture, about breakthroughs that aren’t, and about the vapidity and shallowness of IT-centric assumptions… Oh well…)

My second response, after I’d had a chance to calm down a bit, was perhaps a bit more charitable, if still more than a little sarcastic: something more along the lines of “Welcome to the club, glad to see you’ve woken up at last, any chance we can actually talk about enterprise architecture?” – because to most of us who have been working at that leading edge of EA-development, this supposed ‘breakthrough’ is very old news indeed. It’s actually the understanding that existed decades ago, before IT-architects came in and hijacked the entire industry; several of my IT-oriented clients had each reached that same point independently half a decade or more ago; and even the Open Group, after we’d nagged and bullied and cajoled them for so long, finally ‘got it’ late last year, with “evolving EA from IT to business” now becoming an explicit key theme of current Open Group (TOGAF) conferences. So in terms of the overall EA industry, there’s not a single thing that’s actually new in that Microsoft ‘breakthrough’: and hearing someone call it a ‘breakthrough’ is frustrating in the extreme.

But that second response still misses the point: this actually is a breakthrough – for Microsoft. Which, because of who Microsoft are, means that it’s also a real breakthrough in another sense as well.

Yes, it’s frustrating to note that, from what appears in the article, Morgan and his group seem not to know that much about any ‘prior art’ – not even from other Microsoft EAs such as Nick Malik, who writes a very good ‘Inside Architecture‘ column at the same MSDN weblog-host, and is even listed in the links on Morgan’s weblog. Yet there is real change here: important change. Take a look, for example, at the business-architecture references that Morgan lists later in the article:

• Porter Five Forces
• Balanced Scorecard
• Business Model Canvas
• Geoffrey Moore ‘Core vs Context’

There’s no IT directly involved in any of those models (unlike, say, Ross, Weill & Robertson’s much-lauded ‘Enterprise Architecture as Strategy‘, which still takes a strongly IT-centric view of business-strategy). For someone like Microsoft, whose whole business-focus is and revolves around IT, that absence of IT-centrism is huge… definitely a real breakthrough.

I also need to remember that my own role in enterprise-architecture is very different from theirs. Morgan and his team are practitioners, dealing with the day-to-day realities of real-world architecture in a very large organisation. I’m a practitioner, too, yes, but my own work these days is mostly about setting-up architecture practices, troubleshooting, and doing practice-refresh for existing architecture groups – it’s consultancy, not mainstream production-level architecture. So although I’m a practitioner, my practice is mostly about theory, futures, creating new tools and techniques: which means that if my work isn’t well ahead of the mainstream, I wouldn’t be doing my job properly. Yet that view gives me a rather jaundiced perspective of the industry: too easy to forget that it does take years – several years at least – for the ideas and themes and concepts that we’re working on now to filter down into everyday EA practice. In short, too easy for me to become arrogant about what I see as other people’s ‘arrogance’… Oops…

Coincidentally, Gartner published their current ‘EA Hype Cycle’ this week, described in a press-release and a one-page graphic. They state that there are now two distinct generations of EA: the ‘traditional’ IT-centric one, which has now reached what Gartner term ‘the Plateau of Productivity’; and an upcoming “more business-focused” version that will help to prevent EA from falling permanently into ‘the Trough of Disillusionment’.

To me, though, these two ‘generations’ respectively represent maturity-levels 2 (“clean up the mess”) and 3 (“top-down strategy”), out of five distinct maturity-levels, as described in my book ‘Doing Enterprise Architecture‘. There are at least two more ‘generations’ to go before we reach a fully usable architecture for the enterprise; and, worryingly, far too few architecture-teams seem to have properly implemented maturity-level 1 – “what business are we in?” – which in the longer term places the entire architecture at risk. (It’s not adequately addressed in either TOGAF or FEAF: TOGAF 9 does sort-of include part of it in a kind of half-baked form in the muddled mess that it describes as ‘Business Architecture’, but that’s about it. To me, the only major framework that does cover it properly is Kevin Smith’s Pragmatic EA, which is still not as well-known as it deserves to be.) So there’s a long way still to go – and a lot of repair-and-refresh to do, too, to clean up the problems caused by the IT-centrism of the existing ‘enterprise’-architecture frameworks.

But I’m wondering just how much this article of Morgan’s should change the view that Gartner shows us. Gartner shows ‘Business-Driven Architecture’ as having only just reached ‘the Peak of Inflated Expectations’: yet the TOGAF conferences, and now Morgan’s article, seem to show it much further on, more like the start of ‘the Slope of Enlightenment’. Fact is that Microsoft is just about as mainstream as they get: so if Microsoft’s EA has now turned beyond IT-centrism to a more explicit whole-of-business focus, what it really tells us is that business-driven architecture has just gone mainstream.

It’s still not a ‘real’ enterprise-architecture as I would understand the term: but it’s a heck of a lot better than than the old IT-centrism. That is a real breakthrough – and very good news indeed.

Watch This Space, at last?

Self-doubt.

It can be a real killer – in many different senses. A killer of ideas. Of motivation. Of hope, or joy. In extreme cases, even of people themselves.

For once, I’m very glad to say, it’s not me that’s in the throes of self-doubt here. But I’ve been watching several other colleagues go through it this week, in several different domains: narrative-enquiry, archaeology and enterprise-architecture, to name just a few of their respective work-contexts.

Not fun at all, for any of them. Not easy to help them, either: almost by definition, self-doubt is a very personal struggle…

Yet in some ways it seems an oddly necessary stage in the development of new ideas, or whatever: in the labyrinth, it’s the ‘Dark Night of the Soul’ (also known as the ‘”Oh, sod it…” point’ ), where we either have to face the darkness or throw away everything that we’ve gained.

It’s called the ‘dark night’ for a very good reason, because it can be real dark in there, real lonely… Oftentimes in ideas-development we’re assailed by others’ doubts, others’ over-certainties, but here it’s our own doubts that assail us:

• Is this idea any good?
• Will it ever be useful?
• Will it ever make sense to anyone else?
• Will it ever make sense to me?
• Am I just wasting everyone’s time with this?
• Am I just wasting my time with this?
• Am I just a waste of time?

…at which point it tends to go darker still… Yes, not fun…

What’s interesting here is that those who never have to face this space – or who shy away from it – are unlikely to ever create anything new. The ‘best’ that they can do is prevent others from creating anything, developing anything – a ’skill’ that’s of questionable value in the broader scheme of things, perhaps?

So yes, sure, there are plenty of people who are always certain of themselves (or who are careful, perhaps, never to show their uncertainty in public…). Yet in many ways that certainty can perhaps be best understood as a peculiar kind of cowardice, because it takes real courage to face the unknown; it takes real courage to face the dark pain of self-doubt, and keep going through to the other side.

One way to deal with those doubts is to note that often it’s not about us at all: it’s about the idea that we’re working on, trying to find some means to express that idea in a meaningful way. What the labyrinth-model tells us is that that ‘dark night’ is a normal part of the process – an unavoidable stage that we must pass through in order to bring that idea to fruition. The way to break out of the ‘dark night’ is to care for the idea for its own sake – not for what it might bring us. The more we focus on ourselves in the ‘dark night’, the longer we’ll be stuck there.

Self-doubt is an occupational hazard for anyone creating anything new, whether for ourselves alone – such as in development of new understanding, or a new skill – or to be shared with others – such as a new product or process. For those of us whose work revolves around innovation, chronic self-doubt is often our common condition. It’s often made worse by a concomitant feeling that we’re ‘the Outsider’ – yet that ‘Outsider’ is exactly what we are whenever we’re developing something new. But that’s the nature of the work: painful as it is, there’s nothing wrong with self-doubt – in fact if we don’t experience self-doubt in this kind of work, that’s when the alarm-bells should sound.

What helps most, perhaps, is knowing that everyone who creates anything will suffer the same pangs, the same pain, the same inner struggles against a seemingly all-pervasive inner panic. That’s why and where a supportive peer-group will help so much: not just with whom to explore and test ideas, but to remind us that we’re not alone in this.

Self-doubt is hard; yet self-doubt is also good. We need self-doubt in order to create well. When the doubt hits hard again – as it always does, from time to time – it can help a lot to remember this!

[Update: a friend reminded me about Derek Sivers' great TED video, Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy, which seems particularly pertinent here. (The full transcript is on that link, too: well worth reading.) The 'lone nut' who started dancing on the hill-slope probably suffered a few pangs of self-doubt (if perhaps masked for a while by a sufficient overload of alcohol? ) - but kept on dancing anyway, for the joy of the dance itself. Sometimes - as in this example - we gain a 'first follower' who helps us past the self-doubt, sometimes even moving on, as here, to a landslide of response; but sometimes it doesn't - sometimes (often?) there's no response at all. Either way is fine, in the larger scheme of  things: after all, once the dance ends, we're right back where we started (though perhaps a little happier, we'd hope? ). And since either way is fine, self-doubt is fine too - it's a necessary part of doing anything in depth, doing anything worthwhile. Rather than trying to fight against self-doubt, learning to work with it will certainly prove more useful - and probably less painful, too. Enjoy the dance! ]

Development of new ideas, processes and practices will always be a social process, and always somewhat messy.

To enable that development to happen, we need social conditions that can support it – and screen out behaviours that prevent it.

Those social conditions can best be described in terms of policy, which from my experience I would summarise as follows:

The debate needs to be respectful of the process – the fact that, by its nature, much of the work must pass through periods of inherent uncertainty. For example, see my Sidewise post ‘On innnovation, foundations, scaffolding and Portakabins‘ for some suggestions on how to handle this.

[Update in response to comment #1 below - many thanks to Paul Jansen for the critique]
The debate needs to be respectful of emotion – the fact that, by its nature, development and debate is inherently challenging, and will hence trigger many different emotions as positions and views are put forth, defended, argued, abandoned and so on. We need to ‘play fair’, ‘be reasonable’, allow ourselves and others to make mistakes, to stumble, to get things ‘wrong’, to feel embarrassed yet still feel safe in being embarrassed, yet also to keep moving towards the desired or emergent aim.
[end of update]

The debate needs to be rational – by which I mean an ability and willingness not only to test the internal logics of the ideas in scope (which in some cases may not follow simple ‘true/false’ binary-logics, by the way), but also to move outside of one’s own assumptions, theories and beliefs.

The debate needs to be honest – by which I mean that each party will need to focus strongly on facing their own personal challenges from the requirements for respect and rationality, both of each other and of respect to the ideas themselves.

The debate needs to exclude all forms of violence and abuse – or at least, given the realities of social interactions in often-challenging circumstances, that all parties in the debate must actively address and minimise these concerns to the maximum extent possible, both within themselves and with and/or from others. (The more positive form of this point is that we should always aim maximise each person’s ‘ability to do work’ in the respective context: see my ‘Manifesto on power and response-ability in the workplace‘.) ‘Violence’ is any attempt, in any form whatsoever, to prop oneself up by putting others down (or the ‘lose-win’ variant, putting self down to prop others up); ‘abuse’ is any attempt, in any form whatsoever, to offload responsibility onto others without their engagement or consent (or the ‘lose-win’ variant, taking responsibility from others without their engagement or consent). This requirement was famously summarised by Bob Sutton in ‘The No-Asshole Rule‘:

Two tests are specified for recognition of the asshole:
1. After encountering the person, do people feel oppressed, humiliated or otherwise worse about themselves?
2. Does the person target people who are less powerful than themself?

If we wish to be engaged in meaningful debate, it is the responsibility of each of us to uphold that policy to the best of our ability.

In my own case, I challenge myself constantly on that policy. I know that, like everyone else, I will often be ‘wrong’ about some aspect of application of an idea; I know that, like everyone else, I will never have sufficient complete, accurate and final information needed to make concrete, unchallengeable decisions; and I know that none of this process is easy, for anyone.

It is clear, however, that some people, for various reasons such as excessive ego, assumed ‘authority’ or mistaken notions of ‘possession of the truth’, seem to believe themselves to be exempt from such policy, and instead believe that they have the ‘right’ to override others in any way that they wish. The result in each case is failure of the debate, and damage to or destruction of the development in scope – a circumstance from which everyone loses.

It is therefore our unfortunate but necessary responsibility to exclude such people from debate, until such time as they can demonstrate that they are able to hold to that policy.

In some cases we can do so by removing ourselves from the debate: I have had to do so quite often in discussions on LinkedIn, for instance, where there are all too many infamous examples of ‘debate-destroyers’.

Yet in other cases – and a personal weblog is one of them – there is no way to withdraw, and hence the only option is to explicitly exclude the offender.  I’m glad to say that over the past couple of years I have only been forced to do so here on two separate occasions, with two different people: yet it needs to be understood that it unfortunately is necessary in each case, for everyone’s sake. It also needs to be understood that in each case it is solely that that person’s behaviour makes it impossible for the debate to continue: it says nothing about the person as such (a crucial distinction between what they do versus who they are).

Similar policies are in place elsewhere, such as this extract from one of the LinkedIn discussion-groups on enterprise-architecture:

If you are not willing to have a civil discussion, you will not be permitted to play in this educational playground to further the cause of EA. No one that attacks will be permitted to play. This is a healthy environment to exchange ideas … not to better your cause at the expense of others.

I would urge everyone to consider and apply such policy on their own weblogs, on their Twitter-conversations, and everywhere else where difficult discussions need to take place.

This one’s for Oscar Berg, who this morning sent out the following Tweet:

My best ideas that I use at work are born outside of office hours. Who owns these ideas?

I commented on my reTweet that this was a “key fail of possession-economy”. It’s actually much more serious than a mere ‘fail’, but we’ll come back to that in a moment. First, some more follow-on Tweets from Oscar as he mused further on his experiences:

With social media people have tools that can serve as evidence that they got an idea outside of work before they used it at work

Here’s my idea: if my ideas are free & available for anyone to use, noone can own them -> I can use them as well for whatever purpose

Organizations are obsessed with owning ideas & knowledge

Enterprises should focus on becoming the best environments for ideas to be born, grow and successfully be brought to the market

RT @tdebaillon: “Claiming to own an idea is a political matter, a will to stay in control-and-command logic”

RT @EskoKilpi: “attribution is the new ownership” #ideas

This is indeed a question of ownership – and a highly political one at that, as Thierry de Baillon explains above. Perhaps the key point here is that there are two fundamentally different concepts of ownership: possession, and stewardship (the latter sometimes referred to, perhaps more usefully, as responsibility-based ownership).

Read more…

If the enterprise is a story, what is its backstory? Where does the enterprise come from? What are its deep drivers and experiences that form the foundation for its choices in the present?

This came up last night whilst watching a BBC interview [BBC iPlayer: UK only, until 20 May 2010] with the British character-actor Timothy Spall [Wikipedia, IMDb], talking about his work with the social-realist film-director Mike Leigh [Wikipedia, IMDb]. Leigh’s method for developing a script has some strong resemblances to running a business, in that, as the Wikipedia entry, describes, it’s a mixture of careful preparation for real-time improvisation:

Leigh uses lengthy improvisations developed over a period of weeks to build characters and storylines for his films. He starts with some sketch ideas of how he thinks things might develop, but does not reveal all his intentions with the cast who discover their fate and act out their responses as their destinies are gradually revealed. Initial preparation is in private with the director and then the actors are introduced to each other in the order that their characters would have met in their lives. Intimate moments are explored that will not even be referred to in the final film to build insight and understanding of history, character and inner motivation.

The critical scenes in the eventual story are performed and recorded in full-costumed, real-time improvisations where the actors encounter for the first time new characters, events or information which may dramatically affect their characters’ lives. Final filming is more traditional as definite sense of story, action and dialogue is then in place. The director reminds the cast of material from the improvisations that he hopes to capture on film.

Some of that does sound very close to what happens perhaps too often in business: “does not reveal all his intentions with the cast who discover their fate and act out their responses as their destinies are gradually revealed”. But the real point here, as Spall described in the interview, is that there’s a vast amount of work on backstory – the history behind the character. Leigh often recommends that an actor should pick almost anyone as the base for the character – Spall said that he based one of his key characters on a person he’d once met in real life for little more than half a minute – and then explore every possible facet of who that character might be, what makes them tick. As the actors do this, images come up, seemingly from nowhere, that form a ‘true history’ for each of the characters. The result is something much more ‘real’ than a predefined script.

So, following the same improvisational logic, the same would seem to apply to the collective ‘character’ that is each organisation and enterprise. The surface culture, the ‘espoused culture’ is visible to all, and probably much-paraded via PR and the like: yet what is the deeper culture, the backstory, that drives the real choices, especially under stress? That’s where things get interesting for enterprise-architects – especially if we’re concerned with the structure of the enterprise as a whole, rather than solely the enterprise-IT.

Read more…

Another of those first-thing-in-the-morning ideas, which arose in part from a conversation on social-architectures that I’ve been having with gift-economy maven Alpha Lo.

Our whole economy is built around the idea of possession, and exchange of possessions; yet what do we really possess?

Things? Not really – a point made all too evident by the phrase “you can’t take it with you”…

Ideas? We don’t even know where they come from, so the whole concept of ‘intellectual property’ is a bit moot anyway.

Relationships? They only exist when maintained by both parties, and they usually fail if anyone tries to possess them, so that option doesn’t work either.

Faith? Hope? Belief? A more likely kind of ‘possession’, though it tends to break down for the same reasons as for relationships.

What else?

The only themes I could find were time and responsibility.

We each have a certain amount of time. We have no idea how long that might be, or what will happen in that time, but it belongs to us alone. We can give our use of that time to someone else – hence all the mess of ‘employment’ and ‘compensation’ and ‘familial duties’ and the rest – but we can’t give the time itself to anyone else. It’s our possession alone: our responsibility as to what we do with it.

And we do each have our own responsibility, as ‘response-ability’ – our ability to choose appropriate responses within and to the context. Through responsibility, and through our responsibilities, we express who we are in what we do, how we think, how we relate, what we choose.

We possess our time, and our responsibility. They possess us. Everything else seems to be an option.

Comments/opinions, anyone?