Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Scribbles / writing’

Notes on ‘Business Anarchist’

March 5th, 2010 3 comments

Several people have asked me for more information about the book I’m writing at present, ‘The Business Anarchist‘, so here’s a quick summary of the themes and structure.

Who or what is a ‘business-anarchist‘? Anyone who works with inherent uncertainty in business in an intentional, disciplined way – working with the uncertainty rather than trying to ‘control’ it. Often it’s not so much a person as part of a business-role – a necessary part of that business-role. (Most of the examples in the book will come from my own field of whole-of- enterprise architecture, but the same principles apply in just about every other type of business-role.)

Why ‘anarchist’? Anarchy is about working without rules, working ‘outside the box’. When ‘business as usual’ breaks down, a disciplined form of anarchy is probably the only way through to something new that works well in the new business context.

‘Kiddies-anarchy’ and real anarchy: Anarchy has had a very bad press in the past, mainly because of what I describe as ‘kiddies-anarchy’ – an overdose of presumed ‘rights’ without responsibilities, especially in terms of causing disruption and destruction without any awareness or respect of the consequences for anyone else. Real anarchy is very different – arguably the most difficult of all political forms, because there are no easy rules to fall back on or to blame. Some entire organisations have been run on anarchic lines – the Quakers have done so for centuries – and even some businesses – such as Ricardo Semler’s Semco Group – but here we’re mainly focussing on an often-unnoticed yet everyday set of roles and responsibilities within an ordinary, everyday type of business.

What kind of business? Any business, and any type of business – for-profit, not-for-profit, government or social – from a huge global conglomerate right down to the local bridge-club or the school parent/teacher association.

Business-analyst and business-anarchist: Business-analysts deal with certainty and predictability: they refine the figures, crunch the numbers, track the trends. When your business world is reasonably stable, you need your analysts to help you optimise efficiency and maximise returns. But when your business world is not certain, not predictable, that’s when you’ll need your anarchists. And you’ll need your anarchists then, too. Your analysts can only tell you how to do more of the same, better – which is good, of course, in its own context, but it doesn’t help when what you really need to do is something different.

What’s different about how business-anarchists work? The quickest one-line answer is that analysts rely on rules and algorithms; anarchists rely on guidelines and principles.

What principles should business-anarchists rely on? Obviously this varies from one context to another, but from my work in whole-of-enterprise architecture the three most important design-principles seem to be these:

  • There are no rules;
  • There are no rights; and
  • Money doesn’t matter.

These three principles, and a fourth follow-on principle, Always enhance adaptability, provide the overall structure for the book.

There are no rules: Rules provide a spurious sense of certainty that can let us down badly when our business-world changes around us. The real world is much messier and more complex than any system of rules that we could devise. Hence at times it’s necessary to start off from the assumption and expectation that there are no rules: instead, we have to rewrite the rule-book, by working back to the core-principles from which the rules originally arose. A simple everyday business-example of this is embedded in the ISO-9000 standard on quality-systems:  work-instructions provide ‘the rules’ that we need for real-time practice and process, but when the world changes, we need to rewrite the work-instructions by working upward to procedure, policy and, if necessary, overall vision.

There are no rights: ‘Rights’ are an important social fiction, but as with rules, they don’t actually exist in the real world, and in themselves they tell us almost nothing about how to create the conditions that such ‘rights’ would require. In practice, apparent ‘rights’ arise from mutual, interlocking responsibilities – so it’s those responsibilities, and not the purported ‘rights’, that are where we need to start. This has important implications for business-architecture and enterprise-architecture that will be explored in some depth in the book – for example, we need to ask serious questions about “What do shareholders own?” if they possess all the ‘rights’ for the business but without any real responsibilities.

Money doesn’t matter: Money is important for every business, of course, especially in a commercial context – but as with rules or ‘rights’, it’s not the place where we need to start. Money is also only one small part of the overall economy in which the business operates: reputation, trust, attention and respect all need to exist before any money will be placed on the table. And if we state – or show – that we’re only interested in ‘making money’ from our customers and community, why would anyone want to engage with us? As with other ‘rights’, money is solely a social fiction, and profit is an outcome of being ‘on purpose’ to values: to achieve the profits that we may desire, we first need to start from values, with a values-architecture that describes how we engage with everyone within the extended-enterprise of the business.

Always enhance adaptability: Change is the only certainty: we therefore need to design for that fact. Mistaken notions about rules, rights and money often serve only to slow us down, placing the business at risk as the world changes around us. This sections of the book explores how to embed the ‘business-anarchist’ principles into everyday business-practice, especially in business-architecture and enterprise-architecture.

More details to follow over the next few days, including book-cover, cover-blurb, ISBN numbers and so on. Publication-date is fixed as late-April, so I need to keep moving! :-)

The organization of the Organization

February 20th, 2010 No comments

Had an interesting question come in today from one of my Dutch colleagues, Bas van Gils:

I have to write a document and I’m kinda stuck. Time to ask for some help I’d say :-)

The issue with the document is that I want to make a distinction between ‘the organization as in: “the way in which some system / department / enterprise is organized” and “the organization as in: the legal entity”. I’ve had this issue before and I can’t figure out how to deal with this properly in documents. It just feels awkward to say Organization (with capital) for meaning one and organization (without) for meaning two…

Any thoughts?

This is a real doozy of a problem that really shows up the limitations of English as a language. It’s  hard enough for native English speakers to resolve, let alone those who only use English as a business-language…

I ain’t no linguistics specialist, but as I see it, the respective contexts for the two meanings are as follows:

  • Meaning 1 (’the way something is organized’): a nounal expression of the verb ‘to organize’, moving from the present-participle (’organizing’) to the adjectival past-participle (’organized’) to the verb-as-condition (’organization’) [there'll be a proper linguistic term for this nounal form, but I haven't a clue what it is :-) ]
  • Meaning 2 (’the legal entity’): a label for an abstract entity that is structured (’organized’) in some defined way

To me, Meaning 1 is still more related to the verb, a temporary condition of something dynamic (”the act of organizing”), whereas Meaning 2 is definitely a noun, something static. In Meaning 1, the structure could change – the outcome of a ‘reorganization’ – and it would still be ‘organization’; whereas Meaning 2 is defined and delimited by its legal boundaries, so if those were to change, the previous ‘the organization’ would cease to exist.

[A quick check at AudioEnglish.net throws up a total of seven meanings: Bas's 'Meaning 1' is somewhere between their 1 ("a group of people who work together") and 2 ("an organized structure for arranging or classifying"), whereas Bas's 'Meaning 2' is probably closest to their 3 ("the persons or committees or departments etc who make up a body for the purpose of administering something"). The built-in thesaurus in MS Word isn't much help, either. Overall, it's all too obvious that English is a confusing mess. :-( ]

I would probably try to juggle the phrasing so that I can avoid having to put the two meanings together in the same sentence, but I can see plenty of circumstances in which there’s no way to get round it.

If I did have to use both meanings in the same sentence, without any other option, I might well use Bas’s capitalisation kludge, though I would capitalise Meaning 2 rather than Meaning 1: “the organization of the Organization”. But as Bas says, it’s awkward and ugly: and whilst, to a native English speaker, the alternative uncapitalised “the organization of the organization” would probably be clear enough, it might not make sense to native speakers of other languages.

But as Bas again indicates, it gets messy when we try to distinguish the two meanings once we’ve bundled them together. And going back to the present-participle – “the organizing of the organisation” – is probably uglier still, although technically correct in English.

So the short answer is that I don’t see any easy way round this one. Sorry… :-(

Anyone else have any better suggestions?

Lightning Source lives up to its name

January 23rd, 2009 No comments

A very definite “Thank you” to POD printers Lightning Source, who’ve not only turned round my new book The Service-Oriented Enterprise in the startling time of just under four days from first uploading the initial source-files to the first box of books arriving at my door, but have also just notified me that my ‘low priority’ order for some other books has already been shipped after just two days, and should be with me tomorrow morning.

I’ve always been impressed by their service, but this time they’ve really done me proud. I was afraid I wouldn’t have the books in time before I had to leave for the TOGAF conference next weekend, but I’m now a week ahead of schedule on that. Many thanks.

Recommended.

Quietly busy

January 18th, 2009 1 comment

Apologies, have been a bit quiet of late, whilst recovering from my merry computer-crash (now fixed, with many thanks to the repair-crew at Colchester’s The Computer Shop), and working flat-out trying to finish off the current book – The Service-Oriented Enterprise: enterprise-architecture and viable services – in time to get copies printed for the TOGAF conference in San Diego in two weeks’ time. That means it really has to be be ready to go to press sometime tomorrow – which was asking a lot, since I started this weekend with almost four chapters still to write, and quite a lot of illustrations and other content still to do.

As of right now, that’s been hacked down to less than one chapter to go, and one illustration – though it’ll likely be one of the most difficult of the lot. But still, I do now have a better chance of meeting that deadline than I thought I had two days ago.

More details when it’s all done, anyway.

The pleasure of holding a new book

December 23rd, 2008 2 comments

There’s something special about holding a brand new book for the first time…

The first set of Silos came back from print-on-demand providers Lightning Source today – impressed, as I hadn’t expected them to deliver before Christmas. Quite odd, really – holding something so tangible that’s come out of a lot of hard work but has in many ways been otherwise entirely virtual.

Will be sending copies off over the next few days to various colleagues scattered around the globe who’ve contributed ideas and critique. But this one was hard in unexpected ways, and took a surprisingly long time – almost seventeen months from start to finish, compared to less than three months for Disciplines, and barely a month for SEMPER and SCORE (though that one was more of a glue-it-together process, since I had most of the material already in other forms). So yeah, an odd kind of extended labour: doesn’t compare in the literal maternal sense, of course, but a valid metaphor at least.

Odd… nothing quite like it… the pleasure of holding a new book…