Jaywalk

Today, BPM Group published my article “How Agile Enterprise Addresses the Challenges of the 21st Century”.

The organizational learning literature distinguishes four different levels of learning: zero learning, single-loop learning, double-loop learning and triple-loop learning.

Zero-learning (Bateson 1972) takes place when an individual experiences an operational surprise and may or may not report it to a learning agent. Without ‘zero-learning’ there is no learning.

Argyris and Schön (1978) distinguish between single-loop and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning answers to the question of how: “Are we doing things right?” It is about incremental improvement in established procedures — “better of the same”. Underlying theories, reasoning or assumptions are not under discussion. New skills and capabilities are incorporated into existing structures.

Double-loop learning answers the question of what: “Are we doing the right things?” It is called for when the same old structure does not work anymore, but the rules of business and underlying assumptions need to be questioned. Double-loop requires changes in insights and reframing the patterns of thinking.

Isaacs (1993) suggests that triple-loop learning is needed for true organizational change. Triple-loop learning answers the question of why: “What is the right thing for us?” — to what purpose does the organization exist. It is transformational learning requiring a shift in context and addressing the very identity of the organization. The core principles of the organization come under discussion, as the organization asks itself what it wishes to be.

These learning mechanisms apply to the real-time, operational, tactical, and strategic level of an agile enterprise, respectively:

Zero-level learning transducts anomalies perceived within real-time operations to the operational level, at which actions are modifed in simple-loop learning according to the difference between expected and obtained outcomes. This learning is internal to the systemic structure.

As the required behavior change cannot be accomplished within the structure alone, double-loop learning at the tactical level is required. Now the learning presumes changes in the systemic organization to reframe thinking.

Finally, when the learning requires transformation in the very identity and purpose of the organization, strategic measures at the top level, i.e. triple-loop learning, is called for. Not only the systemic organization needs to be changed, but the agent function of the entire enterprise needs revision.

References
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, USA.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chandler Publishing Co., San Francisco, USA.

Isaacs, W.N. (1993). “Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning”. Organizational Dynamics, 22(3), 24-39.

The BPM course I was co-lecturing at came to an end today. The student reports and presentations were good across the board:

• Hospital case: Modelling the external interfaces of Operation Information System and defining interfaces for external resource management systems. Client: Commit Oy. (report | presentation)
• Business Process Modeling Notation vs. UML Activity diagrams. (report | presentation)
• Intalio Open source BPM tool. (report | presentation)
• Human Interaction Management - Adding Human factors to BPM. (report | presentation)
• The messaging choreographies for B2B integration. Client: TIEKE. (report | presentation)
• ARIS and Oracle - A Method for B2B process design and implementation. Client: Case OPK bank. (report | presentation)

(more…)

In my recent article on “Enterprise BPM”, I proposed a control structure for an enterprise, aligned with its decision-making levels as follows:

“1. Strategic: contract. The enterprise needs to identify its focal point, an unchangeable distillation of its corporate strategy: e.g. Best Value, Zero-Defect Quality or Fast Service. The focal point sets the destination with which the strategies shall be aligned. This includes the classification of logical domains based on business functions, technical infrastructure, applications or a combination of these. As the enterprise needs to adapt to fluctuating external circumstances, it needs to continuously revise its strategies and, consequently, its business processes. On the highest level, this translates to renegotiating the contract for coordination between service domains. From the systemic perspective, the enterprise realigns its organization to conform with its strategy.

2. Tactical: coordination. The coordination between service domains conforms to the negotiated contract. Choreography is a declarative formal description of the public process between business process participants, specifying their relationships and interactions. Orchestration, in contrast, is an imperative formal description of the private process of a business process participant, specifying the sequence and conditions in which the participant invokes services and interacts with other participants. As the enterprise changes the public process, it needs to reflect these changes in the respective private processes. If the required role does not exist, it needs to be implemented, typically by orchestrating services and exposing the process as a composite service. From the systemic perspective, the enterprise realigns, changes or extends its structure to conform with the new organization.

3. Operational: control. The control within a service domain is restricted by coordination with other domains. The interface behavior of a business process participant must coincide with the public process governing the coordination. Within these bounds, however, it has control over its private process to achieve its objectives. As the private process is reorchestrated, new services may need to be bound to its context. If the required service does not exist, it needs to be implemented, typically by orchestrating native resources and exposing the process as a service. From the systemic perspective, the enterprise changes its structure in conformance with its existing organization.

4. Real-time: model. The model of the enterprise reflects how it perceives the reality of its business. It consists of the vast repository of ’sources of truth’ dispersed in enterprise information systems and databases, the ultimate corporate knowledge. This knowledge needs to be elicited as a canonical operational and information model. Integration technologies such as Enterprise Application Integration (EAI), Enterprise Information Integration (EII) and Extract, Transformation and Load (ETL) are used to SOA-enable legacy applications and data sources in the form of context-independent services. These services are then bound to the context of a business process participant through orchestration. As the implementation of the service changes, the change does not have repercussions on the process level as long as the service interface remains constant. From the systemic perspective, the enterprise does not change its structure nor its organization on the macro level. The change is encapsulated in a service that is a system in its own right.”

I called for a governance framework that would reflect this structure. Serendipituously, I found Brian Robertson’s Holacracy: “A Complete System for Agile Organizational Governance and Steering“.

(more…)

My paper “Enterprise BPM — A Systemic Perspective” was published in the January issue of BPTrends.