This is essentially a link post to a series of “Going Digital” articles (one of my most popular posts on my “Taotwits-Too-Big-To-Tweet” blog). I decided to link to it from FiD given the interest in the subject among the FiD Tribe.Here …
Please follow this link to listen to the discussion: VPEC-T Discussion A discussion about the VPEC-T thinking framework with an Advertising and Marketing team.After this discussion, the team used VPEC-T to re-examine an Advertising & Mark…
My apologies to René Magritte, as I appropriate his point, if not his iconic painting. After I posted “Storming on Design”, it sparked a discussion with theslowdiyer around context and change. In that discussion, theslowdiyer commented: ‘you don’t adhere to a plan for any longer than it makes sense to.’ Heh, agree. I wonder if […]
People like easy answers. Why spend time analyzing and evaluating when you can just take some thing or some technique that someone else has already put to use and be done with it? Why indeed? I mean, “me too” is a valid strategy, right? And we don’t want people to get off message, right? And […]
Vee-Peck-TeaFurther to my recent post on LinkedIn VPEC-T: A Ten Minute How To Guide, below are a few slides on preparing the audience for a VPEC-T workshop. Ecosystem Behavior Analysis by Nigel Green on Scribd or view pdf here.In this real example, the…
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!
I believe we need rethink the Enterprise Architecture practice. I favour starting from a ‘Systems Thinking’ foundation, and therefore go back to John Boyd’s OODA loop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loopand Dan Ward’s Simplicity Cycle. Please take…
“Emergent” is a word that I run into from time to time. When I do run into it, I’m reminded of an exchange from the movie Gallipoli: Archy Hamilton: I’ll see you when I see you. Frank Dunne: Yeah. Not if I see you first. The reason for my ambivalent relationship with the word […]
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.
or how we aim to grow our trees together.https://www.flickr.com/photos/rod_waddington/14070411621 Up until recently, 5Di Ltd. was the commercial vehicle for my Change Design and Advisory services. This is changing as I write; 5Di will become a ‘Team’ w…
… anymore.A few people have asked why I call myself a Change Designer rather than an Enterprise Architect. The reason is simple: the EA label misrepresents what I do.The popular understanding of Enterprise Architect is:attached to an I.T. view …
- 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.).