How will you protect your digital legacy? Do you know what that legacy is? Or where it is? And what would happen – or not-happen – if all of that legacy of work is lost? For me, this point was…
@j2bryson has commented on her blog about the fate of Google’s Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC), to which she had been appointed.She argues that the people who were appointed to the ATEAC were selected because they were “promine…
In 2001-2, Julia Black published some papers discussing the concept of Decentred Regulation, with particular relevance to the challenges of globalization. In this post, I shall summarize her position as I understand it, and apply it to the topic of res…
Although ethical principles have been put forward by philosophers through the ages, the first person to articulate ethical principles for information technology was Norbert Wiener. In his book The Human Use of Human Beings, first published in 1950, …
Dr @BenGoldacre was the keynote speaker at an IT conference I attended recently. In the context of the growing interest in technology ethics, especially AI ethics, I asked him what IT could learn from medical ethics. He responded by criticising the rol…
We can roughly characterize two places where ethical judgements are called for, which I shall call upstream and downstream. There is some inconsistency about how these terms are used in the literature; here are my definitions.I use the term upstream et…
Frameworks have been established that cover many disciplines including architecture, process, governance, change, skills,and maturity. Having frequently been asked when working , perhaps not overtly, “why bother using a framework?”:- the implication being that they only add unnecessary overheads. When confronted with this it has been worthwhile … Continue reading →
I recently read an article in the Australian Financial Review. It suggested that there is a split in one of the Australian political parties. The rationale given was that a decision made by leadership could jeopardise future elections. This read to … Continue reading →
Filed under: Agility, Business Technology, Governance, Project Management, Remote Management
Filed under: Agility, Business Technology, Enterprise Services Management, Governance, Project Management
Filed under: Agility, Digital Transformation, Enterprise Services Management, Governance
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!