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: