Tom Graves / Tetradian

Seems that that Twitter-conversation about principles and decision-making just keeps on rollin’ on. Stijn Viaene kicked the ball rolling again with the following Tweet:

• destivia: @ebuise @tetradian @richardveryard Never forget a ‘model’ is always only a preliminary version of how we see or want to see reality.

After which, yes, the whole happy ‘passel o’ rogues’ piled in, all in their different ways:

• richardveryard: @destivia @ebuise @tetradian We can only replace a model with a better model, despite what Saint Paul says (1 Corinthians 13).
• ebuise: @destivia @tetradian @richardveryard Nice! In a way, a (coherent) set of principles is a special kind of model… #insight
• richardveryard: @ebuise @destivia @tetradian I have difficulty with the idea that a set of principles is supposed to represent some aspect of reality.
• destivia: @ebuise @tetradian @richardveryard Indeed.
• ebuise: @richardveryard @destivia @tetradian A few hours ago @krismeukens tweeted: “The core of strategy work is discovering the critical factors and designing a way of “coordinating” and “focusing” actions to deal with them.”
• Aren’t principles derived, directly or indirectly, from this proces? And as such related to reality and steering into future realities?
• ebuise: @richardveryard @destivia @tetradian Can’t aspired directionality of the future be related to reality?
• krismeukens: @ebuise (cc @richardveryard @destivia @tetradian) indeed, that is my current thinking
• krismeukens: @tetradian In near-realtime would sensemaking not just be limited to deal with it as either simple/chaotic?  Sense-catorize or just act?

I caught up with the conversation at this point, and given that my name had been invoked right the way through the above – even though I hadn’t been there – I thought I’d better join in:

• tetradian: @ebuise cc @richardveryard @destivia ‘aspired directionality of future’ – agreed: that’s a primary role of principles

And, of course, the ongoing problem with Cynefin had been invoked as well:

• tetradian: @krismeukens Cynefin’s Act>Sense>Respond is inadequate/incomplete – see later part of http://bit.ly/AxCDSB and posts linked from there

I ought to expand that Tweet here, because the above ‘explanation’ suffers from the dread 140-character limit on Twitter. As described in the SCAN posts – perhaps particularly in ‘Comparing SCAN and Cynefin‘ and ‘Belief and faith at the point of action‘ – I would answer ‘Yes’ to Kris Meukens’ question “In near-realtime would sensemaking not just be limited to deal with it as either simple/chaotic?” (‘Chaotic’ being the nearest Cynefin equivalent to what I’ve termed the ‘Not-known/Faith’ domain for sensemaking and decision-making respectively). The point is that in near-real-time, there isn’t time for anything else: in particular, no time to think, hence, no time for Complicated or Complex (the equivalent of the latter described in SCAN as the ‘Ambiguous/Use’ domain).

The catch is that whilst Cynefin’s definition for tactics for the Simple-domain – ‘Sense-Categorise-Respond’ – does match up quite well with what happens on the Simple/Belief side, the defined tactics for the Chaotic side – ‘Act-Sense-Respond’ – for the most part do not line with what actually happens. Or rather, they sort-of-describe one particular type of tactic that can be used in that domain, but in many if not most cases those tactics are exactly what not to do.

More on that in a moment; for now, back to the Twitter-stream:

• tetradian: @krismeukens one-liner: Cynefin is to Chaotic as SixSigma is to Complex: its basic concepts dont match to the needs of the context
• transarchitect: @tetradian @krismeukens True Tom.
• krismeukens: @tetradian @richardveryard I have the impression that often the ‘dynamics’ aspect of cynefin is forgotten http://bit.ly/sXeDBp [PDF]
• tetradian: @krismeukens it’s the ‘dynamics’ of Cynefin that are the problem… for Chaotic, they all consist of ‘running away’… //  Cynefin’s so-called ‘Chaotic’ is domain of uncertainty in real-time action: ‘running away’ is not sustainable/viable tactic…

This obviously needs some further explanation, so we’ll go to the original source as pointed in Kris Meukens’ link above: Kurtz & Snowden, ’The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world‘ (2003). The following (presumably (c) Kurtz & Snowden, used here under ‘fair use’) is its Figure 4, ‘Cynefin Dynamics’:

The Simple and Chaotic domains are on the lower-right and lower-left respectively. For now, we’ll ignore the paths that only go between Complex, Complicated and/or Simple (3, 4, 5 and 6), and focus only those that apply at real-time, Simple<->Chaotic (1, 2) and Chaotic<->Complex (7 and the various orange-line paths).

[Path 3 links to Simple, but tends to occur at significant distance from real-time: it's typified by PDCA-style learning-loops and the like.]

Paths 1 ‘Collapse’ and 2 ‘Imposition’ are generally well-known and (fairly)-well-understood. When the expectations of Belief (Simple) don’t match up to reality, there’s often some kind of ‘Collapse’. (That’s actually a failure-mode: it doesn’t describe how we can intentionally move into the ‘Chaotic’ when we acknowledge that the current belief-set doesn’t work.) Once in the Chaotic, and if panic is allowed to take hold, very often there’s an attempt at ‘Imposition’ of order – an assertion of ‘truth’ that pulls the context back into the Simple. (This too is often a failure-mode, by the way – especially if the imposed ‘truth’ likewise doesn’t match up with reality.) That Imposition typically occurs because someone decides to ‘take action’, the Act-Sense-Respond sequence: but what it causes is usually a failure-mode, a collapse back into the over-Simple.

The unnumbered orange-line paths illustrate well what I mean by ‘running away to the Complex domain’. Having arrived in the Chaotic domain, the Act-Sense-Respond tactic is used to elicit and grab at a momentary idea or sense-item and ‘escape’ to the Complex domain, to assess or analyse or analyse what it is or how it could be used. Rather than ‘holding the space’, the Act part of the tactic itself causes the retreat to the Complex. And in doing so, it moves out of real-time: it doesn’t work with the Chaotic as it is.  We might also note that whilst some of the orange pathways dead-end in the Complex domain – for example, ideas that, once assessed, turn out to be unusable – the paths that do ‘succeed’ all end up in the Complicated-domain. In effect, what the Cynefin-dynamics are suggesting here is that the only valid place for new ideas is ultimately in the domain of Complicated ‘control’ – in other words, right back in the same old trap of Taylorism and ‘scientific management’ again.

[This is one of several aspects of Cynefin that make it all too easy to misuse to delude worried business-folk into believing that the the deep complexity and chaos of the real-world can indeed all be subject to 'control'. Still seems to me that there are some real ethical concerns about the structure of Cynefin that really do need to be addressed... but that's just my opinion, of course...]

Path 7 ‘Divergence-Convergence’ indicates a slightly more refined version of the orange-lines paths: iterative rather than ‘one-shot’, but still centred on the Complex-domain, away from real-time action and real-time decision-making. This is what I mean by ‘dipping the toes into the chaos’: it’s a useful and valid way to garner new ideas, yet it still doesn’t work with the Chaotic as it is – like a mouse snatching the cheese, it’s grabbing some tasty morsel and then running away as fast as it can.

What there isn’t in any of the Cynefin-dynamics or other Cynefin descriptions is anything that does work with the actual nature of the Chaotic mode: for example, all the classic tactics for keeping the panic at bay, such as meditation and so on – and also ‘pre-seeding’ the space with principles and the like (which is where we started this long Twitter-conversation ). In fact many of these tactics are the exact inverse of the Cynefin pattern: rather than the “don’t just stand there, do something!” of Act-Sense-Respond, what we often most need is “don’t just do something, stand there”! That’s what I mean when I say that the Cynefin required-tactics are too limited here: Act-Sense-Respond does apply in certain cases, but it only matches up with a small subset of what we need to do (or not-do), and often it is just plain wrong.

Note too that, in terms of the Cynefin-dynamics above, the only pathways that remain in the near-real-time space are the Collapse/Imposition pair – which happen to represent a classic cyclic failure-mode.

In short, the Cynefin-dynamics give us a very incomplete picture and, at best, rather unhelpful picture of decision-dynamics at real-time, and tell us almost nothing about what actually does work in the near-real-time space.

So I hope you can see from this that there are some serious problems here that are just not being addressed in Cynefin: this is serious critique, and certainly not deserving the kind of petty personal putdown-attacks that have been the usual response from that direction. Sigh…

Anyway, back to the Twitter-stream:

• krismeukens: @tetradian it is not exactly running away, it is approaching it for the moment being in a “simpler” way through a reduction of reality
• tetradian: @krismeukens ‘reduction’ – sort of. I’ve gone into this in a lot of detail in my SCAN posts http://bit.ly/wSOAm0 (still a work-in-progress)
• krismeukens: @tetradian categorization versus sensemaking?
• tetradian: @krismeukens categorisation is sensemaking – (mostly Simple-domain sensemaking, in essence, but still a form of sensemaking)
• krismeukens: @tetradian Well yes // But there are 2 things here: 1 categorize in which domain the problem is, the meta-level so to say. 2 how the make sense of it.
• tetradian: @krismeukens ’2 things here’ – yes: recursion. without which Cynefin doesn’t make sense. and which it apparently does not allow. go figure? // ”does not allow” – at least, I’ve been savagely attacked each time I’ve tried to introduce the topic. Your Mileage May Vary etc
• tetradian: @transarchitect addendum to one-liner: Cynefin fits well with Complex, as SixSigma fits well with Simple: problems arise when out of scope
• transarchitect: @tetradian @krismeukens let’s not get too academic about this. C. is just another usable lens. #complexity
• tetradian: @transarchitect yeah, true. it’s just I’ve been attacked so often about trying to make it work that it’s something of a red-rag now…
• transarchitect: @tetradian above understands what’s below; not the other way around. I’ve been defending myself #complexity 2 decades: useless
• tetradian: @transarchitect “defending myself” – my commiserations, good sir… [don't quite agree re 'above/below' - more like mis-intersecting sets?]
• krismeukens: @transarchitect @tetradian yes, lens that is excellent metaphor
• tetradian: @krismeukens @transarchitect “lens” – yes – which brings @richardveryard’s concept/practice of ‘lenscraft’ back into this picture? // problem with Cynefin is that it claims to have full lens-set for all contexts, but does not cover ‘Chaotic’
• krismeukens: @tetradian @transarchitect this must be an attractive discussion as it gains new followers in search of a? date fo?r this w?eekend haha
• tetradian: @krismeukens are there other followers to this? – i thought we were just having a Standard Academic Argument between ourselves…

I had to duck out at that point, to do some promised tech-support for a colleague: we parted, with quick thanks shared all round. But a few other Tweets popped up in the stream somewhat later:

• hjarche: @tetradian just dipping into this discussion but “Act = running away” not an inference I ever made w/ Cynefin // I’ve no time to get too deep on this today but I will dig through all the refs & links later @transarchitect @snowded
• ImaginaryTime: @hjarche @tetradian @transarchitect @snowded Neither did I. Important to note one can also enter Chaotic domain intentionally (innovation).

Innovation is described above: quick summary is that it’s sort-of implied in the Cynefin-dynamics path 7 ‘Divergence-Convergence’, but note that it only links to the Complex: there’s no path described for innovation at real-time, the Simple <-> Chaotic link.

On “Not an inference I ever made w Cynefin” – a valid point, though I hope from this post above that the reasoning behind that inference is now clear. And, in turn, the reasoning why I now strongly recommend to not use Cynefin in its standard form in enterprise-architecture.

Anyway, enough for now: over to you, perhaps?

Not quite sure where this one started: probably from this Tweet a few days back by Anna Mar (@simplicableanna):

• simplicableanna: 7 Reasons You Need Architecture Principles http://bit.ly/xqzDkl #entarch

Gerold Kathan retweeted it, and I passed it on again as what I thought of as a useful summary. Nothing unusual there. But then one of my favourite EA thinkers, Richard Veryard, suddenly weighed in, in typically contrarian mood:

• richardveryard: @tetradian @gkathan @simplicableanna Have difficult #entarch decisions ever been resolved by appealing to bland uncontroversial principles?

Which triggered off one of those interesting back-and-forth enterprise-architecture debates:

• EricStephens: @richardveryard @tetradian @gkathan @simplicableanna #entarch Principles provide objectivity for decisions, even if pedestrian in nature
• richardveryard: @EricStephens @tetradian @gkathan @simplicableanna Is there objective evidence that principles improve decision-making? #entarch #groupthink
• chrisdpotts: Yes. #strategy | RT @richardveryard Is there objective evidence that principles improve decision-making? #entarch #groupthink
• EricStephens: @richardveryard @tetradian @gkathan @simplicableanna I have anecdotal stories only. Great question and research topic. Need to define metrix
• tetradian: @richardveryard: @EricStephens @gkathan @simplicableanna Is there objective evidence that principles don’t improve decisionmaking? #entarch
• richardveryard: @tetradian The lack of evidence that something doesn’t work is not a good enough reason to waste time on it.
• tetradian: @richardveryard plenty of anecdotal evidence (eg. I use principles often in my own decisions) – claims of ‘objective’ may be spurious here
• richardveryard: @tetradian I guess there are many popular #entarch beliefs that would be impossible to disprove. #pseudoscience

I would agree there – though it’d be the popular belief in the efficacy or even the possibility of  ’control’ that would be my first pick to question in this sense, with use of principles quite a long way down the list. But never mind – others continued the debate, anyway:

• BakedIdea: @tetradian @richardveryard where i work discussion +agreement on principles is essential part of decision making process… // not sure how youd empirically prove their value though. more, quicker, better decision? no way to measure success
• tetradian: @BakedIdea @richardveryard “no way to measure success” – yes, exactly. (or even ‘non-success’, in many cases)
• leodesousa: @richardveryard @tetradian in the early days of our #entarch practise principles helped us manage complexity – reduced dev platforms 7 to 3
• BakedIdea: @tetradian @richardveryard imo if you view part of #entarch as movin down a funnel of possibility then agreement on principles help movement
• krismeukens: @tetradian (cc @BakedIdea @richardveryard) So we’re actually in the chaos domain? No causality. Just act? Act-Sense-Respond? Mmm #cynefin
• tetradian: @krismeukens (cc @richardveryard @BakedIdea) principles are most use in ‘chaos domain’, as ‘seeds’ to provide equiv. of causality in Simple
• krismeukens: @tetradian (@richardveryard @BakedIdea) ok, makes sense, I’ll think about that.
• tetradian: @krismeukens (@BakedIdea @richardveryard ‘Act-Sense-Respond’ a bit misleading re principles: see http://bit.ly/w5kU1r , http://bit.ly/zQKAWi

I’ll admit that that last point from Kris Meukens about the Cynefin ‘Act-Sense-Respond’ sequence in the ‘Chaotic domain’ is a mild red-rag for me, given that I’ve spent literally years now trying to resolve the consequences of that one subtly-misleading mistake… I’ll agree that the sequence does occur, and is sort-of valid in its own way, as a sort-of method for sensemaking and decision-making in a high-variability context (i.e. ‘chaos’). But in essence that ‘method’ consists of ‘running away’ from the chaos as fast as possible, or preferably never be there at all. Which isn’t really much use for dealing with chaos as it is - and it also kind of defeats the object of the exercise anyway when we need to go into that chaos, intentionally, in order to create new ideas and options.

[For more on this, perhaps take a look at some of the posts on sensemaking with SCAN, such as 'Comparing SCAN and Cynefin', or the posts on belief and faith, decision-making, and the series on linking intent and action (Part 1), (Part 2), (Part 3), (Part 4).]

This is where principles and the like come into the picture, because they provide a means to ‘pre-seed’ the variability, leveraging Gooch’s Paradox that “things not only have to be seen to be believed, they also have to be believed to be seen”. In effect, the principles provide a stabilising anchor in the midst of chaos, reducing the natural tendency to panic and ‘run away’.

The panic-state often triggered by the infinity (or near-infinity) of possibility within a chaos tends to be expressed in the classic adrenalin-responses: fight, flight or freeze.  In practice, the functional purpose of the Cynefin Act-Sense-Respond sequence is to provide a means to shift the response-mode from ‘freeze’ to ‘flight’. What it doesn’t do is allow any option to remain in the chaos-space.

A much more useful approach is to centering-disciplines and the like to keep the panic at bay for as long as practicable, in conjunction with vision, values and more-actionable principles to provide a form of guidance within that space, all of it taking place in real-time.

The Act-Sense-Response sequence is only helpful in a high-variability context where principles are not used, and hence no guidance or ‘pre-seeding’ to re-constrain the variability towards a more useful outcome. As the published dynamics in the Cynefin framework make clear, the real risk of the Act-Sense-Response sequence is a collapse back to over-simplistic concepts of ‘control’; at best, it delivers a rather thin form of iterative sensemaking that kind of ‘dips its toes’ into the chaos and then runs back to the Complex-domain to make sense of what it’s seen – a cumbersome process that really slows things down. Hence, not recommended.

Given all of the above, I still don’t know why Richard Veryard was/is so vehement against the use of principles in real-time sensemaking and decision-making in enterprise-architecture. He didn’t seem to say much in those Tweets, other than that he sort-of regarded them as ‘pseudo-science’, without saying why. No doubt we’ll find out, here or elsewhere? But it seemed a conversation worth recording, anyway – I hope you find it useful!

[Update: later the same day]

Another Tweet came through from Kris Meukens, via Gerold Kathan:

• krismeukens: #principles are invariable inclusive/exclusive statements as a tool to constrain the space for emergence in a complex domain #cynefin

Yes, in Cynefin that’s true, and as far as it goes, I’d agree with it. However, there are a couple of very important points that are glossed over in Cynefin, which to me seem part of the cause for Cynefin’s fundamental flaws in what it labels the ‘Chaotic-domain’.

First, although we might say that “principles are invariable/exclusive statements … to constrain”, that’s not actually how it works in practice: in fact that’s more a Simple-domain true/false concept of principles than a fully-modal Complex-domain one. (Again in my experience, Cynefin’s structure makes it all but impossible to see the recursions that apply here.) Principles are the actionable expression of vision and values, and there’s always a set of trade-offs that we need to make between them – a contextual prioritisation that varies with every context, in line with Requisite Variety and the like. Which means that whilst the principles themselves may purport to be “invariable/exclusive”, the way we use principles is not. That’s a rather important difference.

Second, although Cynefin does work well for ‘considered’ sensemaking (i.e. in what it terms the Complex and Complicated domains), there seems to be no grasp at all in Cynefin that the ‘decision-physics’ change as we approach close to real-time – almost exactly analogous to the shift from Newtonian-physics to quantum-physics at very small scales. (The distinction may not be so obvious with sensemaking, but it’s absolutely crucial in decision-making – summarised by a phrase I used throughout the last series of posts on decision-making, that at the moment of action, no-one has time to think.) Cynefin seems to try to treat the sensemaking/decision-making processes as if they’re exactly the same at ‘considered’ and real-time timescales, which does not work in practice: hence why its handling of the Simple-domain is poor, and its handling of the Chaotic-domain woefully-inadequate.

Unfortunately it’s proved impossible to discuss any of this with Snowden – a fact illustrated all too well in his comments on this website. Since there’s no way to resolve these glaring flaws in the framework, I have, somewhat sadly, had to give up entirely on Cynefin, and restart from scratch. To be frank, I would strongly recommend that others in EA and related disciplines should do the same: useful as Cynefin may be in some other contexts, it’s simply not worth the problems that it creates in ours. Your choice, of course.

What are principles? And are they ends or means?

This came up in a great conversation the other day with Kevin Smith, creator of the Pragmatic Enterprise Architecture Framework (PEAF). He’d been having a fairly intense online discussion with another EA colleague, who’d asserted that the set of principles in PEAF were not proper principles for architecture. But when I take a quick glance at the published principles in PEAF, they’re certainly part of what I would use in practice as architecture-principles: “think strategically”, “plan ahead and organise”, “have a sound business case”, and so on. It’s true that some are phrased more like tasks than principles – “manage enterprise debt”, “compliance”, “relationships and traceability” – but in general they conform well to the definition of the term ‘Principles’ in the TOGAF specification:

Principles are general rules and guidelines, intended to be enduring and seldom amended, that inform and support the way in which an organization sets about fulfilling its mission.

In their turn, principles may be just one element in a structured set of ideas that collectively define and guide the organization, from values through to actions and results.

(Given the clarity of that definition above, I can almost forgive the TOGAF crew for the absolute howler of a mis-definition that follows a few paragraphs later: “Architecture principles are a subset of IT principles that relate to architecture work.” That one sentence alone epitomises all of the asinine IT-centrism that permeates almost every part of TOGAF, and that renders it all but unusable for anything other than IT-architecture. Oh well.)

One of the key points here is the interrelationships between principles. There’s structure here, part of which, as TOGAF suggests, is a straightforward decomposition-hierarchy:

These sets of principles form a hierarchy, in that IT principles will be informed by, and elaborate on, the principles at the enterprise level; and [IT]-architecture principles will likewise be informed by the principles at the two higher levels.

But it’s not solely a simple hierarchy – in fact it’s more like a meshwork of hierarchies of values and principles, all competing for our attention, and all of which, as architects, we must somehow sort out into an appropriate priority-order. What we might think of as ‘the organisation’ is, in practice, an intersection of many, many distinct shared-enterprises at many different levels: not just the enterprise to which the nominal ‘the organisation’ is aligned, but the shared-enterprise of accounting and every other professional-discipline, of health and safety at work, of state-security and social-security, and so on and so on. The selection, implementation and prioritisation of principles is where an organisation connects with an enterprise. So it’s a kind of multilayered Venn-diagram of “general rules and guidelines” where what might seem to be ‘values’ to one person are ‘principles’ to another, ‘policies’ to another, and explicit instructions to yet another person again. No wonder it’s confusing; no wonder it seems a mess…

To take just one theme – which seems to be the point of contention between Kevin and his colleague – would we say that principles are ‘ends’ or ‘means’? The standard Business Motivation Model (BMM) might seem to imply that it can only be one or the other; but in reality, even in the BMM, the right answer is “Yes”. (In the BMM, Principle is an Influencer is a Directive is a Means OR is a Desired Result is an End.) So principles are both ends and means, depending on which way we look at them:

• an enterprise-vision is expressed by one or more values
• in essence, a principle is a practical expression of one or more values
• looking ‘up’ in the values-hierarchies, a principle or value ‘above’ will seem to be an End, pointing upward to enterprise values and vision
• looking ‘down’ in the values-hierarchies, a principle ‘below’ will seem to be a Means, pointing downward to policies, procedures, work-instructions and specific activities (as per ISO-9000, for example)

So in effect, a principle is a bridge between Ends and Means. The TOGAF specification again gives some useful advice on how to specify principles:

• name: the essence of the rule in an easily-remembered form – typically just two or three words
• statement: a succinct, unambiguous summary of the rule – typically one sentence only
• rationale: typically a single paragraph describing the reasons and benefits of following this principle
• implications: a brief summary of typical practical impacts of this principle on tasks, costs, opportunities, risks, responsibilities and so on – and the implications of what may arise from not following the principle

(Note, though, that this doesn’t indicate how to identify and describe the relationships between principles – especially the complex ‘multiple-inheritance’ relationships that usually apply to the detail-level principles that we need for real-world implementations. We’ll need some kind of meshwork-model to describe those relationships, much like a thesaurus linked to a standard glossary.)

One of the key practical differences between principles and explicit Ends (such as goals or objectives) is the way in which the classic SMART criteria will apply:

• Specific: the principle and its context and applicability should be specified unambiguously, as above
• Measurable: the principle is usually not measurable in itself, but defines the reason and context for metrics, and performance in relation to the principle must also be measurable
• Achievable: the principle is never ‘achieved’ as such, but remains as a constant guideline or aiming-point
• Relevant: the cross-linkages ‘up’ the values/principles hierarchies define ‘relevance’ for the enterprise
• Time-bound: a principle is “intended to be enduring and seldom amended”, hence time does not apply in the same sense as for a goal or objective – but metrics in relation to principles should usually be time-boxed

Crucially, performance in relation to a goal is typically measured at the end of execution, when the goal is (or should have been) achieved; but because the principle or value does not actually have an end-point, performance in relation to a principle should be measured during execution, typically at regular time-intervals or other identifiable reference-points.

So to answer Kevin’s specific question, principles are both ends and means – and hence also neither ends nor means. Since both and neither are true, it’s the way we choose to view them, and also view them in relation to each other, that determines whether we would use them as ends or as means in any given context. And clarity on how we describe them and link them together will help a lot in making an appropriate choice in each case, too.

Hope this helps, anyway.

[Update: 01 October 2010] A reminder from Kevin Smith that part of our conversation touched on KnowledgeGenes. In that model, each entity has four dimensions: Why (leftward), How (rightward), What-is (upward), and What (downward). Given that framing, the ‘hierarchy’ from vision to values to principles and so on would be shown as a sequence from left-to-right (Why to How) or right-to-left (from How to Why). The same point as above would apply: a principle in itself is neither an End nor a Means, neither a Why nor a How, but an identifiable point between them.

I’m not sure that KnowledgeGenes is complete enough for all enterprise-architecture needs, but it’s certainly one way to help clarify our thinking on the bridges between vision, strategy, tactics and operations. Well worth exploring further.

Reading James Taylor’s recent piece “Business rules are king“, pretty much every one of my enterprise-architecture alarm-bells went off.

Yes, it’s a good article – recommended reading. And I would strongly agree with its implication that there’s a real and urgent need for discipline around business-rules. But the reason for the alarm-bells is that it’s promoting business-rules as ‘the answer’ – and for the most part IT-based ‘business-rules engines’ at that.

Which us places straight back in Taylorist territory, along with all those other classic IT-driven business failures such business-process re-engineering. Not a good idea…

The reasons why it’s not a good idea are three-fold:

• placing all the business-rules into an automated system will lead to a ‘fit and forget’ attitude unless there is a very strong emphasis on rule-maintenance – one of many ‘human factors’ that were forgotten about in BPR’s rush to ‘IT-ise’ all business processes
• identification and codification of business-rules assumes that the rules that can be derived from the people who run the existing processes are sufficient, invariant, accurate and complete – which, as early-generation knowledge-management also discovered, they rarely are…
• the viability of using automation for decision-making is dependent on the context – a fact of which frighteningly few IT-system designers seem to be aware

There seems to be a view that everything can and must be reduced to simple rules, following a cart-before-horse thinking that everything should be done by IT, and simple rules are what IT handles best. In other words, dangerously back-to-front. It’s bad enough trying to get anything useful out of IT for decision-support; but using IT for all decision-making – which is the ‘nirvana’ that the article would evidently prefer – is likely to be lethal. And I don’t quite know what we as enterprise-architects can do to prevent this headlong rush into repeating the exact same mistakes as in BPR and the rest – all that’s different this time is that it’s more explicitly coming from the ‘rules’ part of the process, rather than process-implementation overall.

This is clear if we look at it from the perspective of context-space mapping:

The point is that there’s a spectrum of abstraction of rules: principles sit at the low-abstraction end of this spectrum, rules sit at the high-abstraction end – in fact a conventional ‘rule’ is actually an extreme abstraction of a principle that applies to a specific context. If we try to use the wrong level of abstraction, especially in the wrong context or wrong type of context, we are all but guaranteed to hit serious trouble. And I see little to no awareness of that fact in most of the current literature on business-rules: instead, there seems to be an assumption that just about everything can be reduced to simple binary rules that can be implemented by simple IT, because that’s what we want to happen. In other words, the entire approach seems driven by little more than wishful thinking – which again is not a good idea…

IT-systems and simple business-rules work well together: both operate on a binary true/false logic, and both will enable high-speed binary-logic decision-trees – in other words, over on the lower right-hand side of the usual Cynefin-derived context-space base-map.

Most IT-based analytics – over on the upper-right of the base-map – work on the same binary logic as the simple systems, but introduce the ability to handle more and more layers of complication. The catch is that each layer of analysis takes a finite amount of time – which takes it further away from the ‘Now!‘ demanded by real-time decision-making. And the only real result of increased computing-power has been to increase the levels of complication in the analytics, sometimes beyond anyone’s ability to understand it – as was the case with the software systems used in many of the risk-calculation models that drove the current financial crash.

IT-systems are still not good at handling non-binary modal-logics – “the logic of probability, possibility and necessity”, such as expressed in the MoSCoW set of requirements-priorities of must, should, could and can wait. Humans are very good at modal-logic; IT isn’t. James Taylor’s article refers to pattern-based decision-making, which places it somewhat on the upper left of the base-map – but note again that each pattern-match must always take a finite amount of time, and it does not fit well with the underlying binary-logic of current IT-systems. Using IT as decision-support for human decision-making is generally okay, but the more that IT is involved, the higher the risk of what Dave Snowden describes as ‘pattern-entrainment’ – in other words, premature selection of a pattern, trying to force-fit a pattern to the context rather than ‘listening’ to the context itself. Current IT is getting much better at near-real-time pattern-matching, such as face-recognition or smile-recognition on most present-day digital cameras. Yet as anyone who’s used such systems would know, they’re nowhere near accurate enough to decide when a picture is actually any good – and sometimes we don’t want a smile in the picture. Much the same applies in business: using automated pattern-matching is great for decision-support, but extremely dangerous for decision-making.

And no IT-system is likely to be much good at dealing with real-time chaos, ‘the new’, where no possible pattern exists because it is new – but again, real people can handle decision-making in such contexts via skills and principles. In those contexts, there are no rules – and yet business-rule proponents seem to promote the delusion that their ‘business-rule engines’ can handle everything.

So I’m wary: very wary. Before letting any of such systems loose on any real-world context, I would want to make very sure that they’ve done the appropriate context-space mapping, and matched the decision-making methods to the respective contexts. But I don’t see much evidence of that: what I see instead is way too much wishful-thinking, and an almost desperate desire on both the business-side and the IT-side to try to force the world to fit their respective delusory dreams of ‘order’ and ‘control’. Oh well… Guess we have to wait and let them fail yet again, even more expensively, and then set out to tidy up the mess? – though I do worry that we’re getting close to the point where we’re no longer able to afford such expensive mistakes, in any sense of the word…

Several people asked me to cross-post to other ‘economics’ sites the previous post on ‘Whuffie’ and currencies‘. I wasn’t comfortable doing so without editing-out the comments about the ‘Ready? Fire! Aim…’ syndrome, which were specific to the conversations to which that post referred: hence the re-work in this post here. I’ve also taken the opportunity to extend some parts, to link it more strongly to my ‘day-job’ of enterprise-architecture.

So: what can we learn if we tackle economics as enterprise-architecture? In other words, as if it was just another exercise in whole-of-enterprise architecture, the same as we would do for any large organisation (such as described in my book ‘Doing Enterprise-Architecture‘)? After all, ‘the economy’ is just another enterprise – it happens to be at a very large scale, but the exact same principles should apply.

(This’ll be another long one, hence I’ll place a ‘Read more…’ link here.)

Read more…

Spent much of the past couple of days getting overly-involved in two great threads on Venessa Miemis‘ ‘Emergent by Design‘ blog:

• Social Capital is not the same as Whuffie
• What could the future of money look like?

The first thread started with a very necessary attempt to distinguish between social-capital and reputation-based ‘currencies’ such as Cory Doctorow’s imaginary ‘Whuffie‘ (as described in his sci-fi novel “Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom” – the ‘magic kingdom’ being Disneyland, of course ). The key distinction that Venessa drew – and I think she’s right – is that social-capital is collective, a ‘network effect’ of the social context, whereas reputation is an attribute within the frame of that social-network, typically attached or attributed to the individual: in other words, they’re not the same, and should definitely not be treated as being the same.

This lead to the second thread, about ‘the future of money’, because much of the discussion in the ‘Whuffie’ thread was about the supposed need for some kind of ‘alternative currency’. (Clearly some people in the thread had hoped that ‘Whuffie’ would be it, but despite the efforts of well-meant initiatives such as The Whuffie Bank, it became evident quite quickly that it wouldn’t and couldn’t work in a ‘currency-like’ way.) There was – and at present, still is – a lot of discussion about various ‘currency-like’ proposals, such as TimeBanks, ITEX cashless payment, ‘Quids’ alternate-currency, and so on.

But what I found immensely frustrating was that almost none of them were thinking in true economic terms – and I wasn’t very popular for pointing out this unfortunate fact. Instead of enquiring what an economy is, what it needs to do, what purpose it serves, and so on – what would seem to be essential first-principles concerns about the context – they’d all assumed automatically, without question, that some kind of currency was ‘the answer’, and hence rushed off to create it. In other words, exactly the same mistake as far too many IT-folks: “here’s the solution – how can we force your problem to fit it?”

Ready? Fire!!! … aim…?

oops…

Yeah… really frustrating…

No-one with any sense would doubt that there are serious problems with the present ‘money-economy’ – not so much ‘serious problems’ as ‘close to catastrophic failure’, in fact. Everyone in that conversation recognised this – which is why they were pushing so hard for alternatives. But the catch was that none of the alternatives actually resolved the core reasons why a money-economy won’t work; most of the proposed ‘solutions’ not only replicated those problems, but actually made some of them worse. What was so frustrating was that in each case it took no more than a couple of minutes’ analysis not only to show that it wouldn’t work, but why it wouldn’t work. Yet no-one, it seemed, wanted to hear this: instead, off they want, charging off down their respective blind-alleys in the blind certainty that they’d found ‘the solution’.

What’s wrong with money, then? Short answer is: a lot. To give just a few examples:

• It only deals with point-to-point transactions, not network-effects – especially at a societal level.
• It’s designed to work with ‘alienable’ physical objects, but now no longer has any actual anchor in the real world – instead, we have literally trillions of supposed ‘money’ in imaginary ‘derivatives’ sloshing around the globe.
• It’s very easy to ‘game’ via artificially-constructed price/value mismatches.
• The implied ‘gravitation’ structure of money-based capital means that it tends to create ‘winner-takes-all’ accumulations – exacerbating social imbalances, often in the extreme, requiring separate action to try to redress the balance.
• Attempts to link ‘intellectual property’ into the money-system have resulted in a system which purports to match finite ‘alienable’ entities (physical ‘things’) with potentially-infinite ‘non-alienable’ entities (information) – which by definition cannot balance.
• Many organisations – particularly banks – are legally ‘entitled’ to invent money from nowhere, in effect assigning themselves an ever-increasing share of the society’s resources.
• A currency, by definition, relies on trust in the institutions that manage that currency, which in this case is the banks – yet much of that trust has been lost, and at present remains at an all-time low (hence the strong societal interest in options for ‘alternative currencies’).
• There are no built-in mechanisms to manage assignment of resources to those ‘outside’ of the monetary exchange-system (particularly children, parents, elderly, disabled and their carers, but also artists, scientists, thinkers, futurists, ‘creatives’ of any kind) – these stakeholders can only be served by ‘external’ mechanisms such as taxation (which are clunky and kludge-ridden at best), or by forcing them to do work within the money-economy (which means that their actual needed work can no longer be done).
• There is a very strong tendency towards short-termism.
• There is a very strong tendency to try to force everything into a crude, ludicrously-simplistic ‘double-entry life-keeping’.
• There is a very strong tendency to assume that ‘value’ exists only in monetary terms, as ‘valuations’ of ‘resources’ – hence, for example, a forest supposedly has no value until it is cut down, a mountain has no value until mined for its minerals, and so on.
• There is a very strong tendency to assume that anything which cannot be counted and ‘valued’ in monetary terms either does not matter or does not exist.

The societal impacts of these problems are rapidly approaching catastrophic levels. Yet none of the proposed ‘alternative currencies’ tackle more than a minute fraction of that list: most offer at best a localised kludge that might address a couple of issues whilst creating several more.

Let’s be blunt about this: the present system does not work. It actually never has – and that’s not surprising, because it was only ever intended to deal with point-to-point ‘trade’-transactions between fairly large groups (tribes, communities etc), hence it’s bit unfair to expect it to be able to run the entirety of an economy. But to create something that does work, we do need to go right back up to the level of the entire economy, and work our way back down from there. Which, yes, might – might – include some kind of ‘currency’ to tackle specific types of transactions: but not as the core of the economy itself.

This is actually no different from any other whole-of-enterprise architecture. (The only distinction is that it’s an ‘enterprise’ at the scale of an entire society, but that’s all.) So we would use the same overall approach:

• Who (and/or what) are the stakeholders in this enterprise?
• What are the core values? What is ‘value’ in this context? What is valued, and by whom? In other words, what determines ‘appropriate’ in this enterprise?
• What are the assets, functions, locations, events, capabilities and decisions within this enterprise? – in other words, the resources of the enterprise that need to be managed, distributed, shared and used in the most appropriate manner.
• What are the value-propositions that this enterprise needs to offer to and with its stakeholders?
• What mechanisms and responsibilities would be needed to create, deliver and monitor those value-propositions?
• What governance would be needed to ensure that all activities within the enterprise are optimised to be ‘on purpose’?
• …and so on.

To me, every attempt at a currency will inherently fail because it cannot take network-effects into account: by its nature, a currency is a mechanism for governance of point-to-point transactions, without any direct means to link to whole-of-system impacts. So I honestly believe that all of these attempts at ‘alternative currencies’ are a waste of time: we should be far better served by putting the same effort into understanding how an economy actually works.

And the key to that, to my mind, comes down to perhaps the scariest fact of all: there are no rights. ‘Rights’ are a social fiction; but the mutual, interlocking responsibilities that underpin those purported ‘rights’ are a social reality. If we want those purported ‘rights’, where we need to start is with creating a better understanding the ways in which those real responsibilities need to interlock: a focus on ‘rights’, like a focus on ‘currency’, is at best an unhelpful distraction from this requirement.

Where this gets gets scarier still is that our entire present economic model is based on a concept of ‘right of possession’ – hence a ‘right to personal property’. But there are no rights: only responsibilities are real. And in a network, there is no ‘personal’: only the network is real. Right at the fundamentals of economics, ‘personal property’ is just another fiction – and a very dangerous fiction at that. Yet personal responsibilities for societal resources – the appropriate management, maintenance and use of those resources – are real. And as with ‘rights’, those interlocking responsibilities result in something that looks almost exactly the same as ‘personal property’ – but we now know how we get there, via those responsibilities.

If we turn it this way round, we end up with something that looks very similar to what we have at present: but it resolves all of the structural flaws of a ‘money-type’ economy, and we also know exactly how we get there.

Once we know that that’s what we need to aim for, then we can start talking about ‘intermediate currencies’ and the rest, as part of a transitional ‘roadmap’ towards that more workable model. But those ‘alternative currencies’ are only an intermediate step, and we don’t start from there.

That’s what would change these sad attempts at ‘Ready? Fire! Aim…’ into a more viable ‘Ready? Aim? Fire!’ – and rekindle the fire in our social economy.

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!

As can be seen from the comments to the previous post, the demands that we find another name for this framework-that-has-no-name have become increasingly strident.

Various urgent online and in-person conversations have ensued. The only directly-meaningful name we came up with was ‘solution-space mapping‘, but several people have disagreed with that, and in any case there is already a well-established usage of the acronym ‘SSM’ in this context, namely Checkland et al’s Soft Systems Methodology.

There’s a long-standing software tradition of assigning arbitrary names as working-titles for projects. Someone suggested ‘Eric’, which was a name they’d used when developing an IT system for an airline, and which reminded me of a nonsense-phrase I’ve often used, that “anything unknown is called Fred”.

But even an arbitrary proper-name seems too concrete for something that is necessarily abstract and, as a name, necessarily temporary. We couldn’t think of any meaningful acronym, so we played with sounds for a while, until someone came up with this:

tinc

It’s the sound of the penny dropping, as someone ‘gets it’; the small bright sound that the imaginary light-bulb makes at the ‘Aha!’ moment in solution-space. A quick, recursive echo of a sound. And it’s also a contraction of what this name really is: a temporary inconvenience.

Since it’s clear we’re not even allowed to use the name of the framework that this isn’t in order to describe what it isn’t, we would have to apply the same process to give us a temporary name for that. So we might note that in Welsh the plosive sound ‘toof!’ would be spelt as twf, which should give us a relatively-safe acronym for That Welsh Framework. (‘Twf‘ is also the name of the Welsh Language Board website, by the way – “Cymraeg o’r Crud, Two Languages from Day One”.)

So there we have it: tinc, for the framework, and twf, for the-framework-that-it-isn’t. A temporary inconvenience, but it’ll have to do for now.

As may be seen from his comments to my previous posts on ‘Cynefin and chaos’, Dave Snowden has expressed extreme displeasure at my/our usage of the term ‘Cynefin’ to describe the solution-space nominally described by the Cynefin framework.

Anyone have any suggestions for an alternate term that could be used for this purpose, please?

Many thanks.

Another ‘exploratory’, following on from the previous post on ‘Complexity, Chaos and Enterprise Architecture‘, in terms of the Cynefin framework, and again developing out of Dave Snowden‘s excellent webinar on complexity and ‘abductive reasoning’.

Cynefin framework (original (c) Dave Snowden / Cognitive-Edge c.2003)

Cynefin is probably one of the most useful conceptual tools that I hold in my ‘consultant’s toolkit’. It is an enormously powerful and enlightening framework to understand the relationships between the simple, the complicated and the complex, and to understand why long-proven approaches such as Taylorism and Six Sigma can sometimes (or often, these days) go spectacularly wrong.

Yet for several years now – in fact pretty much since I first encountered Cynefin – I’ve been concerned that there’s been very little attention paid to the role of the Chaotic domain. So that’s the theme I want to tackle here: how may we reclaim the Chaotic, to make Cynefin more complete?

(I’d better say upfront that there’ll be a fair amount here that Dave and others may disagree with, sometimes quite vehemently – and that’s okay, because this is definitely a ‘work in progress’, and probably with gaping holes in the reasoning in places. I need that critique if this is going to work in practice. In no way do I consider that any of the other work in Cynefin is somehow ‘wrong’ – particularly not the work that Dave and others have been doing in the Complex space, which I regard as crucially important in business and elsewhere. All I’m suggesting here is that perhaps we need to approach the Chaotic domain with the same degree of discipline as we do with the others – and not simply ‘run away’ to the Simple or the Complex as soon as we hit the Chaotic, which is about all that standard Cynefin offers at the moment.)

This one will again be long (my apologies…), but should be useful to anyone who’s familiar with Cynefin, or has any practical concerns about how to handle inherent uncertainties in business and elsewhere. More after the ‘Read more…’ link, anyway.

Read more…