A few pictures of the HKCS event: This slide from the Hong Kong Comuter Society EASIG session on Monday night, and the CIO Connect breakfast session last Friday, generated great discussion……. and these a lot of interest:See also: http://b…
Please take a look at my new unBook the sequel to Lost In Translation:What’s This Blog About? The Problem with Processes: The Reprise Ten Minutes More On VPEC-T Navigating VPEC-T The Four Focus AreasThe Change Design ToolboxPlease f…
Please take a look at this video to give the rest of this post a bit of context:
Can we look to the Unicorns for inspiration? I recall a discussion I had with a few Silicon Valley types at OSCON London recently. I asked a very genuine question:
“How do the likes of Netflix, Paypal, Uber etc. approach Governance?”
The answer: “We don’t use that word, in Silicon Valley!”
This got me thinking; surely things must be driven towards some sort of order? And then, maybe my mental model was wrong. Maybe if I put on my “Complex Adaptive” hat (ref. Cynefin), I will see that the architecture must evolve, in chunks of context specific outcomes, over time. And in this approach, is “Goodness” ( a la Dan Ward above) the key measure of alignment with the outcome?; in a Complex system, the bad are attenuated, and the good amplified – this is how, useful (fit-for-purpose), solutions evolve. So, maybe, it’s not about driving things to a predetermined outcome; maybe instead, it’s about orchestrating and encouraging adoption of practice that delivers context-specific “goodness” (in Dan Ward’s sense of the word).
It strikes me that there appears to be a close relationship between Dand Ward’s Complexity/Goodness model (describe in the video above) to this one:
Although ‘User Happiness” is only one context: a Value System. Another might be ‘The Regulator’. Is it true, however, that focusing on simplicity, and context-specific “Goodness”, are we more likely to satisfy both?
Hence my question – Should “GOODNESS” replace “GOVERNANCE”? Or, indeed, is this what they already do in Silicon Valley? I’m sure there’s much more to understand – but I think it’s a good question for debate!
Chuck Blakeman Crankset:
Dan Ward – all of his series are great, but if you’re short on time, just watch the first and last for now:
Back to 5Di, we have a ‘T’ shape service portfolio; The T-bar is the Change Design journey described in the Found In Design un-book and the T-column are technology services focused on Cloud-Native architectures and integration.
- Keep things simple as possible
- Work on interesting projects
- Deliver value for money
- Share rewards
- Be clear, concise and transparent.
- We make sure all in the 5Di team get a good day-rate compared to them going to market individually ‘contracting’.
- We make a reasonable markup on the fee, but then everybody gets a slice of 5Di’s year-end profits.
- We are like-minds who *want* to work with each other (most of us have in the past).
- We are all motivated to do a great job for the client – all our work is through referral.
- As a team we attract other great talents through our collective personal network – I’m getting requests to join the 5Di family weekly.
- Material risks
- The Major Transition States – with objective/outcomes at each
- Core principles for the transition
- Programme work streams
- Critical cross-project dependencies
- Crucial trust relationships
- End-state clarity.
On Thursday last, I ran a VPEC-T workshop using the new VPEC-T Navigation Map. The workshop lasted 4 hours, and the client now wants another two 4 hour sessions. The new map received positive feedback. According to one participant:
“The map really helped us explore each area and triggered useful thoughts”.
- Find – VPEC-T Analysis (aka 5D-Lens storytelling)
- Find – Hypothesis-based Analysis (aka Best Guessing)
- Find – Storyboarding (aka scripting the movie)
- Find – Situational Awareness
- Join – Concept Mapping
- Join – Metro Map Infographics
- Slice – Action-focused Principles
- Slice – Known-Unknown Analysis (aka Rumsfeld Analysis)
- Slice – Risk Radar (aka Spider Chart)
- Slice – Transition State Planning (aka Wiggly Path Planning
- Slice – VPEC-T (Design Pattern mode)
He glanced over, and with a withered smile, replied:
- attached to an I.T. view of the world – I’m not only focused on I.T.
- often synonymous with large arcane frameworks like TOGAF – I dislike them
- regarded as slow, top-down, big modelling up front etc – I prefer Dan Ward’s F.I.R.E. approach.
- They are two simple words, that together, explain what I do – I Design Change (transformational or otherwise).
- They don’t t limit me to only focus on I.T. – but, at the same time, they don’t exclude I.T.
- Much of my thinking and toolset come from the world of “Design Thinking” (and Systems Thinking, Complexity Science etc.).
I’ve finally got around to shaping-up the sequel to “Lost In Translation” – the working title is “Found In Design”.I’ve decided to take, what you might call, an “unbook” (as in not a book) approach to this one. I will be writing and sharing early draft…
Here’s the poster for a VPEC-T thinking framework master class focused on knotty problem solving & design innovation.The aim of this map is to provide a starter-for-ten checklist of things you might consider when doing a VPEC-T analysis/design – wh…
“Referenda are the nuclear weapons of democracy. In parliamentary systems they are redundant. Seeking a simplistic binary yes/no answer to complex questions, they succumb to emotion and run amok. Their destructive aftermath lasts for generations”
“In any referendum over separation, the “independence” side appeals to the patriotic heart. The thinking of the Leave side is magical. It plucks at a dimly remembered but glorified past (that was never as good as nostalgia makes it), and offers a future that is imaginary. The Brexiteers are the dog that caught the bus: they hadn’t thought what to do next. Coping with impending difficulties is for another day”.
“You needed to be candid that Britain would be at a disadvantage in a negotiation to leave the EU because the EU has the trump of being less dependent on the UK than vice-versa. You avoided saying so, perhaps because it could sound wimpy or “defeatist” about British stature and weight. You let the Leave side get away with claiming that the EU would negotiate as an equal partner with equal stakes as the UK because the volume of trade was roughly equal. The reality is that respective stakes are starkly unequal. On trade, the UK is dependent on the EU market for 45 percent of its exports. The EU is dependent on the UK for only 8 percent of EU exports. Foreign investment into the UK has stopped because of uncertainty that UK exports will still get to the EU market. The Confederation of British Industries therefore judged that Brexit will cost 4-5 percent of GDP. The Economist Intelligence Unit is even more harsh”.