Quite a lot, as it happens – though we might need to take a detour or two to get there, of course.

One point is that it’s not quite as simple as ‘thesis, antithesis, synthesis’. In the classic formulation, the antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis: it doesn’t really add anything, and the so-called ‘synthesis’ is then little more than ‘the thesis after we’ve gotten the antithesis to shut up’, which doesn’t add anything much either. All a bit pointless, really.

So to make sense – to get some real value out of it – we need, as usual, to go back closer to the source. And as the Wikipedia page on Dialectic puts it:

Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel’s most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete. Sometimes Hegel would use the terms, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.

The formula, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, does not explain why the Thesis requires an Antithesis. However, the formula, Abstract-Negative-Concrete, suggests a flaw in any initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error and experience. The same applies to the formula, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete. For Hegel, the Concrete, the Synthesis, the Absolute, must always pass through the phase of the Negative, that is, Mediation. This is the actual essence of what is popularly called Hegelian Dialectics.

In other words, the antithesis is not a negation of the thesis, but a challenge to the assumptions on which the thesis is based – which then leads to a synthesis that makes real practical sense. And that starts to look a lot more like enterprise-architecture.

Or, more precisely, in the business context, the three distinct roles of business-analyst, business-anarchist, and enterprise-architect.

Which might need a bit more explanation.

The business-analyst role is well-understood, I think. That’s the ‘thesis’ part of the triad, the Abstract, the Immediate. As the name suggests, it’s all about analysis, often about what can be seen in ‘the Now’, about order, certainty, honing the algorithms, defining the ‘best-practice’ methods for making decisions. It’s very good at enhancing efficiency through careful calculation; very good at doing things right.

The catch is that the real world is not just about efficiency, nor only about doing things right: it’s also about doing the right things, about bringing it all together to enhance overall effectiveness. And with analysis alone, it’s all too easy to create something that is extremely efficient at going off at full-tilt but in the wrong direction – which, in terms of its effectiveness (or lack of it), can easily be worse than doing nothing at all.

Oops…

Which is why analysis alone is not enough.

Which is why we need those other two roles: the anarchist, and the architect.

The business-anarchist role is perhaps the least-understood of the three – certainly the least-popular, anyway. It’s the ‘antithesis’ part of the triad, the Negative, but also the Mediated. One of the key problems for analysis is that it’s entirely dependent on its assumptions: everything within that frame of assumptions would be valid enough if the assumptions are correct, yet analysis has no means within itself to test those assumptions, and make sure that they do indeed align with the real world of “trial, error and experience”. If no-one is willing to question the assumptions – or even admit that they are just assumptions - things can get kinda risky, or worse, very quickly indeed…

That’s a really crucial problem there, right at the core of all analysis; yet unfortunately it’s one that’s evaded all too often in a business context. And that’s especially true where the drive for ‘efficiency’ is allowed to override everything else. So if we’re going to get things to work well in the real world, we need some definite means to face those often rather unpalatable facts. And that’s where the business-anarchist role comes into the picture.

It’s an extremely important role, and also an extremely responsible one, too: namely, challenge every assumption. It’s not about ‘order’, but about ‘unorder‘ (to use Cynthia Kurtz‘s valuable term). It’s about challenging, but it’s not negative, not merely challenging for the sake of challenging: it’s about creating space for mediation, for sensemaking in a deeper, more directed sense. It’s not just about doing things right, but also about being sure that we’re doing the right things, too, making sure that every assumption has a solid basis, so that the analysts can do their job well.

And the architect role is about bringing it all together again. It’s the ‘synthesis’ part of the triad; but it’s also about the Concrete, about making things real, being effective – about doing the right things right in a concrete, practical way. It’s about bringing things together such that everything workswell  together, responsive to change as required, and as a unified whole. Where the analyst takes things apart, and the anarchist takes apart the thinking that takes things apart, the architect brings everything together again, by resolving the fragmentation in new, more effective ways.

Some people seem to think that the architect role is rather abstract. But it’s not abstract at all, because the architect is responsible for bringing everything in scope to real, usable, useful completion in the real world. It’s not abstract: in many ways it’s perhaps the most concrete that anything can get.

And yes, it does indeed all start from the abstract. Sort-of.

Yet the point here is that this is also a triad: thesis, antithesis, synthesis; analyst, anarchist, architect. None of these roles stands alone: each depends on each of the others, always in dynamic tension with each other, dynamic balance: “the Concrete, the Synthesis, the Absolute, must always pass through the phase of the Negative, that is, Mediation”. And yet they’re also distinct and often very different roles. Tricky, that…

One way to resolve the architecture of that architecture is to have just one person doing all of those roles – after all, they’re different roles, not necessarily different people. But that can sometimes be quite a ‘big ask’, because each of the roles does demand different skillsets, different paradigms, even different worldviews – again, somewhat tricky. (It’s true, though, that the real ‘business analysts’ of the 60s, 70s and 80s used to do all of that, and many advocates of ‘design-thinking’ and the like would do much the same now. Most advocates of ‘real enterprise-architecture’, too.) But there are many different ways to do it, of course: “whatever works” is probably the best guideline here.

In a small organisation, or a country that has only a small pool of specialist staff, we might not have much choice, because there simply aren’t enough people around to do all the roles required – that was certainly my own experience in Australia over the past decade or so. By contrast, in a large organisations, we might well have the luxury to have separate jobs for separate roles. But whichever way we do it, we have to make sure that all three roles are adequately covered, are adequately supported, and that they do indeed work together in a unified way.

Analyst, anarchist, architect; thesis, antithesis, synthesis. What part(s) do you play in that triad, within your own work? And what happens if any part of it is missing, or out of balance, within your overall enterprise?

Over to you for comments and suggestions, perhaps?

[Many thanks to Anthony Draffin for the initial Tweet that triggered the idea for this article. ]

Whilst writing an article on the enterprise-architecture and the Shirky Principle that I’ll post later today, I needed to add a reference to my old Sidewise article about the role of the business-anarchist. So, like anyone else would, I did a quick Google search for my own post. Didn’t find it at first (turns out I needed to refine the search with ‘sidewise’). But up near the top of the results, I found an interesting-looking article: ‘The Rise of the Business Anarchist – R2 Global Meshwork‘, dated 31 May 2011. The first few words, as shown in the Google search-results, looked interesting too:

If you work in a large organisation, no doubt you’ll have analysts everywhere; you may well be one yourself. You know who they are, …

So click on the link. Look at the first few sentences. Then realisation: wait a moment, this looks a bit familiar, doesn’t it…? Very familiar, in fact?

Yup. It’s scraped, word for word, line for line, format for format, from my original Sidewise post ‘The Rise of the Business Anarchist‘, dated 24 Aug 2009. But in this case, credited solely to Robin Wood, the apparent owner of that website. No attribution, no link to the original, no nothing.

Not impressed.

Seems that the only way on the website that I can complain about this somewhat extreme example of plagiarism is by becoming a ‘member’ of the ‘R2 Meshwork’ – which means that I need to be personally approved by the perpetrator of the plagiarism itself. Hmm… don’t think that’ll work… Hence the only option I have left is to make it public here.

Oh the joys of plagiarism… hey ho…

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!

This existing weblog has developed a more technical emphasis around enterprise architecture, together with an assortment of other personal themes, all of which would best be described as somewhat esoteric. The new weblog is for a more general business-executive audience, exploring how to create new possibilities, new opportunities and options in business by ‘thinking side-wise’ about the structure and nature of business, and its role within the broader enterprise of society at large. Some of these ideas will no doubt seem strange, confusing, controversial, provocative, even downright disruptive – but that’s the whole point when we’re aiming to create constructive change, surely?

So to start off in the right spirit, the first main post should be suitably challenging for most business execs: “What do shareholders own?” (The question itself should seem harmless enough; the real answer isn’t – especially for business. )

Please let others know that these ideas are out there: Share and Enjoy, if you would?

Every culture has age-old tales about rulers disguising themselves to pass among their subjects, often learning vital lessons about policy and behaviours that otherwise go unreported.

(One key cultural point is that the unwitting providers of those often painful ‘lessons’ must be protected against punishment for their honesty. Much the same theme is echoed by Oscar Berg’s recent post ‘Management by Listening Around‘ on his “The Content Economy” blog, about the processes, practices and ethics of using social software to ‘listen around’ in anonymous fashion for real-world management review.)

Many other traditional contexts have an explicit role to provide that ‘alien view’ function: the court jester, for example, or the formal appointment of an ecclesiastical lawyer as ‘Devil’s Advocate’ in reviewing the life and works of a proposed candidate for Catholic sainthood. In both those cases, though in different ways, one function of the role is to disrupt the groupthink and the ‘yes-men’ mentality, and, if possible, provide a palatable way to break through wishful thinking and face the more subtle complexities of reality. In short, to be an anarchist in the midst of the wishful groupthink-’rules’ and regulations of the realm. Enterprise alien as business anarchist.

Which leads to another theme: the roles of analyst and anarchist within enterprise architecture, and within business in general. To use the mediaeval court metaphor, most of the king’s advisers and elders are analysts: they assess best practice from the past, and extrapolate those lessons to the future. The jester’s job is to think sideways, to parody, critique, disrupt – in short, to be an anarchist – and we might note that whilst there may be dozens of elders all jockeying for the prime positions, there’s usually just the one jester. Sure, there’s humour in the act, but often it’s there only to make the critique more palatable, to use self-deprecation to deflect attack: it’s a serious role with serious responsibilities.

The analyst as ‘insider’; the anarchist as ‘outsider’, alien, Other. For each analyst role in business, there’s a matching anarchist whose role is to bring the analysis down to the ground and get real. Compare the the opposing emphases of the roles:

• causality model
  • business analyst: linear – analysis in terms of assumed rules of derivation
  • business anarchist: non-linear – causal relationships either not identifiable or identifiable only retrospectively (“small pieces loosely joined … always a little bit broken”)
• temporal focus
  • business analyst: before action (plan) or after action (assessment / analysis)
  • business anarchist: during action (‘the Now’)
• management model
  • business analyst: top-down, controls for predictability – emphasis on machines or IT
  • business anarchist: bottom-up, direction for inherent uncertainty – emphasis on people
• scientific analogue
  • business analyst: Newtonian physics as metaphor – mass-markets, large-scale statistics, Taylorist ‘scientific management’
  • business anarchist: chaos-physics as metaphor – ‘market of one’, quantum effects, self-organisation, enterprise as ecosystem
• systems-development approach
  • business analyst: ‘engineering the enterprise’, Waterfall development
  • business anarchist: emergent systems, Agile development

Perhaps the simplest way to summarise is that the analyst relishes taking things apart, but purports to put them together; whilst the anarchist puts things together to work with the real context in real-time, but is blamed for taking things apart in ways that the analysts don’t expect.

That clash is also clear if we merge those summaries above in Cynefin terms:

• business analyst: rule-based + abstract time = ‘complicated’ or ‘knowable’ domain
• business anarchist: non-linear + real-time = ‘chaotic’ domain

…which, in practice, are almost diametric opposites – no wonder there’s a clash.

Yet a key aim of the enterprise architecture must be to provide a framework in which these inherent differences can be resolved. Too often, for example, I’ve seen examples where every nominal business-process is beautifully documented, but what they describe is not how the work is actually done in practice. Management relies on its analysts, but have no grasp at all of what the foreman or equivalent does to keep things moving along as smoothly as possible in the chaos of real-world practice. Anyone can analyse supermarket checkout queues en-masse – the statistics are easy enough to follow, to give average service-times, mean, standard-deviation and the rest – giving rise to the nice illusion of predictability, control. But in the chaos of real queue-flows, the ‘quick-service’ line can easily end up slower than the main checkouts – which hits hard on customer (dis-)satisfaction, for a start. And when it takes longer to get out of the store than it does to select purchases – as seems to occur more often than not in one of this town’s supermarkets – potential customers soon learn to stay out in droves, whether the prices are good or not: price is not the only measure of perceived value here… But the sources of such business issues are all but invisible in statistical analysis: to see them, and to resolve them in business practice, we need the eye of the Outsider, the alien, the anarchist.

Seems an idea worth exploring further, anyway.