25dd Jaywalk » Organization

Organization

Archived Posts from this Category

Tue 1 Dec 2009

Finland Goes Integral: AQAL and Adult Development

Posted by jjk under Psychology , Philosophy , Event , Organization
No Comments 

Last night, I attended the inaugural meeting of Integral Finland, a cozy event that featured two presentations.

First, Jani Mattsson gave an introduction to Integral Finland and Ken Wilber’s Integral Model. The model was hardly new to anyone in the audience, but his personal, conversational style induced some interesting discussion.

What I specifically came to the event for, however, was Anssi Balk’s lecture on adult psychological development from integral perspective. Here are the slides of his presentation (in Finnish) — only a glimpse of the wealth of information Anssi has on the topic, but wraps up the essence quite nicely.

I look forward to what the pioneering spirit of these guys will create next!

2ba7
 

Tue 20 Oct 2009

World Café on Enterprise Architecture Governance

Posted by jjk under Technology , Business , Event , Organization
No Comments 

Today, KAOS, a newly formed Finnish community of practice on Enterprise Architecture organized a world café about setting up an EA function. The event took place at OKO Bank in Helsinki. I was asked to host a café on EA governance, which I found a rewarding experience. The small group discussions were intense and it was interesting to hear about  experiences in a large variety of companies.

I opened the discussion with the following set of questions:

  • Which roles and responsibilities pertain to EA governance?
  • What kind of linkages exist between these roles?
  • At which organizational levels are various architectural artefacts governed?
  • Which governance processes pertain to EA governance?
  • Is EA governance centralized or distributed? Are there any underlying structural or other contingencies?
  • How is EAG related to other types of governance, e.g. IT governance?

Half of the questions would have been enough, however, as there would have been no end to the discussion that ensued.

It was concluded that EA governance specifies expectations between people in terms of roles and accountabilities, defines decision-making entities and clarifies communication. It should have a strong link with business development and guide the development of new IT. EA governance should have influence on the project portfolio and be aligned with the project model. It helps enterprise architecture down from the ivory tower and infiltrate the organization.

The governance roles seemed to vary from organization to organization, and we generally deemed that the question about contingencies is, indeed, relevant: there is no universal governance model. However, we were not able to delve into the question in any depth at this time.

 

Sat 9 May 2009

Structural Manifestation of Theory U

Posted by jjk under Organization
[4] Comments 

Otto Scharmer’s book Theory U: Learning from the Future as It Emerges describes “the social technology of presencing”, the theory and practice of the U process that calls for “presence” and “sensing”. Scharmer maintains that through this “presencing” — being in touch with the inner place from which attention and intention originate — individuals, teams, organizations and global systems alike are able to raise to a higher level of operation, at which they are able to seize the highest future possibilities that “want to emerge”.

Theory U is about profound transformation: personal, social and global. The U process leads through seven field structures of attention in an U-shape: downloading, seeing, sensing, presencing, crystallizing, prototyping and performing. This is the deepest level of change that not only reflects on what has happened in the past, but draws from a more generative and more authentic presence in the moment linked with the individual’s/organization’s highest future potential.

Scharmer describes to great extent how to bring about such a change individually, in organizations and in society, but does not give a proper account of what the change means in structural terms. He discusses the evolution of institutional field structures (from centralized to decentralized to networked to ecosystem), but does not relate these structural archetypes to the field structures of attention within the U process.

Figure 1 depicts my idea of how Scharmer’s four levels of responding to change would be manifested structurally in a system, e.g. an organization. In the following, the terms structure and organization refer to systemic structure and systemic organization as defined by Maturana and Varela.

Structural Manifestation of Theory U

Figure 1. Structural manifestation of Theory U.

Reacting is based on existing habits and routines within a single structure. It takes place within the structure but does not change that structure. This level of response is requisite at the real-time level, when the changes in environment do not call for adjustments in the systemic structure. If a reactive response falls short of addressing the change, the anomaly is reported one level up (cf. zero-learning).

Redesigning considers divergent views and adapts the elements of decentralized structure with each other. The change is incremental and takes place within the systemic structure. Underlying theories, reasoning or assumptions are not questioned, but requisite change is incorporated into existing structure (cf. simple-loop learning). This level of response takes place at the operational level. It may be triggered from the real-time level (reactive), from the tactical level (proactive) or from within the operational level (active).

Reframing is called for when the same old structure does not work anymore, but the rules of business and underlying assumptions need to be questioned. It requires changes in insights and reframing the patterns of thinking (cf. double-loop learning). Thereby, it calls for changes in the systemic organization, i.e. the relationship meshwork between structural elements, too. This level of response requires tactical level intervention. It may also be reactive, proactive or active in nature — emerge from the operational level, be introduced from strategic level or be enacted at the tactical level, respectively.

Regenerating (presencing) brings about a shift in the very identity of the organization (cf. triple-loop learning). It requires transformational changes in the systemic organization as well as adaptation with external systems. This level of response is strategic in nature and is all about finding the best fit between the systemic organization and the wider ecosystem beyond organizational boundaries. A strategic response should be predominantly proactive and realize opportunities inherent in the environment but also be in fine tune with what emerges from within.

These four responses require an increasing subset of cognitive spaces, or field structures of attention. A strategic response calls for a major transformation that undergoes all the field structures of the U process. These field structures can also be aligned with Kurt Lewin’s stages of change:

  • Unfreezing: downloading, seeing, sensing
  • Changing: presencing
  • Refreezing: crystallizing, prototyping, performing
21b1
 

Sun 29 Mar 2009

Learning to liberate the soul of organizations

Posted by jjk under Organization , Future
No Comments 

I am just back from Holacracy Facilitator Training that took place on Nyenrode campus, Breukelen, the Netherlands on March 24-28. My expectations were certainly met, as the training not only provided theoretical insights into organizational governance and steering I was looking for, but also, and more importantly, created a space for experiencing the “evolutionary next step of the organization” and “organization beyond the personal” through practical exercises and simulations.

The training confirmed many of my preconceived notions on how dynamic steering and organizational agility can be achieved: drive by purpose top-down, empower policy-making and decision-making at all levels, implant feedback measures bottom-up. What was somewhat new to me was the notion of integrative decision-making, which is about addressing the tensions that individuals experience in their roles and coming up with workable, good-enough solutions that relieve those tensions and that can be enacted immediately and revisited later, if necessary.

Another key tenet of Holacracy that stroke my chord is the clear separation of governance from operational work. Governance merely sets the requisite structure that channels the flow in the organization: clear roles, accountabilities and policies that let people concentrate on their operational work. The frequency of governance meetings is tuned with the natural heart beat of the organization; slower is faster.

Learning to facilitate Holacracy was like learning to drive car. In the beginning it was hard to concentrate on all aspects at the same time: the process, the aim, the content; but with practice, practice, practice and learning by failing the process was gradually internalized, which freed one to focus on “holding space for the organization’s voice”.

Kudos to HolacracyOne and thanks to all the participants for the great learning-together experience!

 

Thu 19 Mar 2009

SOLEA 2009

Posted by jjk under Technology , Business , Science , Presentation , Event , Organization
1 Comment 

Today, the 1st International Symposium on Service-Oriented Locally adapted Enterprise Architecture, SOLEA 2009, took place in Dipoli conference center in Espoo, Finland. Having been planning and organizing the event for the last three months, it was great to see more than 60 people from 7 countries to attend the event.

(more…)

 

Sat 29 Nov 2008

Human Interaction Management and Sociotechnical Design

Posted by jjk under Technology , Organization , Article
No Comments 

In his landmark paper “The Principles of Sociotechnical Design” (1976), Albert Cherns provides a basic framework for understanding and designing sociotechnical systems with consideration to human and social aspects. Building upon the notion of a participative process, he defines nine key principles of sociotechnical design.

I came to think how a collaborative business process supported by Human Interaction Management System would align with these principles as a sociotechnical system. At first glance, the principles of Human Interaction Management would be congruent with good sociotechnical design:

(more…)

2b9a
 

Thu 2 Oct 2008

World premier of my one-day seminar

Posted by jjk under Technology , Business , Presentation , Event , Organization
No Comments 

My seminar “Competitive Advantage through Agility: EA, BPM and SOA” was premiered on September 19 in co-operation with International Merito Forum. If you missed the show, the event will be reorganized in Helsinki, Finland, by Merito Forum on February 13, 2009 and will be given in English. You may also book a separate seminar day or individual presentation(s) conveniently at your own premises.

Please find the presentations of my seminar at my company web site.

 

Tue 15 Jan 2008

Viable System Model and Requisite Control Structure

Posted by jjk under Organization
No Comments 

In his book Brain of the Firm (1972), Stafford Beer postulates The Viable System Model, or VSM, a cybernetic model of the organizational structure of an autonomous system. It identifies the necessary and sufficient communication and control systems that must exist for any organization to remain viable in a changing environment. The model is based on the tenet that an effective organization should maximize the freedom of its participants, while fulfilling its purpose as a whole.

The VSM consists of five functional elements, which Beer calls Systems 1–5.

System 1 embraces the fundamental operations within a viable system. It interfaces with the operational environment and is autonomous in its own right. Thereby, it includes the management of its respective operations. An organization may contain a number of S1s, each providing a distinct product or service.

Systems 2–5 constitute the management “meta-system” that enables the operation of the entire organization.

System 2 is about coordinating the activities of S1s. By providing stabilizing and coordinating facilities such as scheduling and standardization of information, it dampens the inter-S1 oscillations.

System 3 controls S1s on an everyday basis as well as supervises the coordination activities of S2. The management processes of S3 are concerned with short-term, immediate management issues such as resource provision. The control is mainly exerted through vertical command channels, but S3 may also directly monitor S1, e.g. by intermittent audits. These direct monitoring operations are referred to as System 3* (Three-Star).

System 4 performs intelligent adaptation of the organization to its environment. It plans organizational development in the light of external environmental changes. To this end, it maintains a model of the whole organization and its environment.

System 5 determines the overall purpose of the organization. It is responsible for policy-formulation based on the “world-view” provided by S4. System 5 also represents the essence of the entire organization to any wider system it is part of.

I came to think how these systems would relate to the Requisite Control Structure that I have proposed and came up with the picture depicted in Figure 1. System 5 is strategic in nature and essentially specifies the contract within the organization: the overall agreement on how the enterprise is internally organized to align with its external environment. System 4 provides the actual adaptation to the environment through systemic reorganization (coordination), i.e. by changing the relationships between the systemic structures (S1s, model). System 3 translates the changes in the organization to changes in systemic structures (control) and System 2 carries out the coordination planned in S4.
Viable System Model and Requisite Control StructureFigure 1. Viable System Model and Requisite Control Structure.

 

Tue 20 Nov 2007

Leadership, Ethics, Productivity

Posted by jjk under Presentation , Event , Organization
No Comments 

Today, I gave a presentation on Holacracy and BPM Governance at the “Leadership, Ethics, Productivity” seminar in Laurea Leppävaara, Espoo, Finland.

More compelling, however, was Christopher Evatt’s account on how ethics and values bring about productivity in business. Very much in line with the sociocratic/holacratic principles, he argued for requisite alignment between people and organizations and the importance of co-operation for common goals. With some real life examples, he showcased how extraordinary outcomes can be achieved by setting values, rather than economics, in front.

On a side note, the same principles appear to be applicable at the personal level, too. Having a sound set of values begets the right results far better than an at-any-cost approach to achieve one’s goals. As the Dalai Lama puts it: “Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.”

In the third session of the morning, Anssi Balk gave an introduction to Integral Business embracing a diversity of insights, theories, and practices and connecting each in a manner that strengthens, rather than diminishes, the others. Unfortunately, I had to leave before the presentation and was also unable to attend the Open Seminar in the afternoon.

 

Mon 8 Oct 2007

BPM 2007 Conference in Brisbane

Posted by jjk under Technology , Science , Presentation , Event , Organization , Article
[3] Comments 

The Fifth International Conference on Business Process Management, BPM 2007, was held in Brisbane, Australia, on 24-29 September. I attended the main conference on 25-27 and the co-located event on BPM Governance, WoGo 2007, in which I gave a presentation of my paper “On the Lookout for Organizational Effectiveness — Requisite Control Structure in BPM Governance”.

(more…)

 

— Next Page »

0