Missing the mark!

Having decided to engage in the development of an Enterprise Architecture within a business it is extremely important to adopt an approach to capturing and recording information that supports the decision making process. Without an approach or methodology directing the … Continue reading

The Open Group Approves EMMM Technical Standard for Natural Resources Industry

The Open Group, a vendor- and technology-neutral consortium, which is represented locally by Real IRM, has approved the Exploration and Mining Business Reference Model (EM Model) as an Open Group Technical Standard. This is the first approved standard for the natural resources industry developed by the Exploration, Mining, Metals and Minerals (EMMM™) Forum, a Forum of The Open Group. … Continue reading

OpenText Smart Process Applications: At the Intersection of Social Street and Core Systems Ave

Last week, I helped kick off OpenText’s EIM Days in Washington DC (the first of 22 cities we will visit) with a conversation around OpenText’s Smart Process Applications. Smart Process Applications are near and dear to our heart at OpenText as they encompass not just BPM and DCM technologies, but bring our integrated EIM portfolio (e.g., […]

Related posts:

  1. Countdown: 31 Days Until the OpenText BPM User Summit! Let the countdown begin! There are only thirty-one more days…
  2. Social Enterprise Platforms – Meet Dynamic Case Management Social platforms, like Facebook, Twitter, and others are gaining traction…
  3. From Social Stigma to Social Synergy It is remarkable how quickly social technologies have become the…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Knowledge and Memory

Once upon a time, people thought of an information model as defining the structure of the stuff you want to remember. Nowadays, this definition is too restrictive: it might possibly be adequate for a system/database designer, but is not adequat…

Open Work unedited notes on my current thinking

Below is a copy and paste of the document where i note down all my thoughts on what i’m calling ‘Open work’

I thought i’d share the raw shizzle in the interests of practising what I preach and trying to be as open as possible as I work these thoughts through (hopefully) into something coherent, useful and publishable. Enjoy! all comments welcome

Open Work

What is openness?

Openness is the freedom that is felt at a personal level and experienced in an organisational context to share thoughts feelings, opinions and information
Openness is also the receptiveness to receive what is shared
Openness is the culture that pervades social interactions that are based on freedom

Later on I need to talk about freedom and how to enable that freedom.
Leverage social proof
Don’t judge the sharer, judge the hoarder
Hoarding

The construct that i describe as Openness has both an organisational and personal element

because the Silos can be both be structural and interpersonal
show an organisation, function, team, interpersonal siloes

siloes that can be vertical within hierarchy or horizontol across functions.
graphic of horizontal and vertical partitions.

Ask yourself how many edges do I have, how many edges does my team have? My department? Directorate? How removed am I from these?

What pattern can you apply to break these down? link to fast iterations of virtual structures,
that revolve around hubs. what are the hubs?
Who are the hubs?

WHY?

Symptoms

Where does your orgs ideas come from?
E.g.g corporate goals
Who sponsors your change activity?

are two people/temas working on the same thing in isolation?
Are two intiatives unknowingly working to undermine each other?
are two changes competing for the same resource?
Is there conflict between business units, functions, teams people caused by competing goals?
Do you get different answers if you ask different employees what the organisations top 3 priorities are?

top down
bottom up

top up
bottom down

top bottom
up down

What is wrong with these words where is the width? (Flanking)
These words are part of a language of hierarchy that is anachronistic.

-Reject closed language
Recognise the language you use that is not open.

Compare contrast open/closed phrases, investigate the etymology of these words
E.g.
Buy-in
Post
Role
Function
Directorate
Structure
Organisation
Group
Alignment
Influence
Direct report
Subordinate
Meeting
Conference
Desk
Office
Work
Strategy
Outcome
Lead
Manager
Senior
1:1 (like its something special)
Presentation
Promotion
Hot desk
Go for a coffee
Deadline
Cascade
All hands
Rush hour
Deliverable
Stakeholder is there someone who isn’t a stakeholder?
Influence
Performance review
Transparency: of many things e.g. committments
Lunch and learn is a broken concept, why not learn the rest of the time, and why not in work time

Staff survey, do you share the results and raw data?
concepts/principles
Should I split these into, attitude, enablers, constraints, principles?

Leadership = openness
Be brave

‘Open Argument’, argument is not negative!!!
Conflict too strong word, but the debates are open and lead to a better position, rather than seething resentment

Task over structure

Negatives/things to look out for
Openness needs accountavility or you create cracks. May be counter uintuitive

Also decision making

Signal/Noise and noise reduction.

What are the mechanisms for noise reduction?
Timeliness
Context, tagging or do I need to go there
Cones of interest, sharing those up front. What do I need to know

-Context

Bring the contextual baggage to a conversation.

Move conversation through different mediums for maximum value e.g. Start conversation on desktop, continue on mobile

Relate data and meta data to conversations, e.g. Here is the conversation that led me to talk to you.

Design for collision

-radical/extreme/progressive sharing/shariarchy
-channels of discovery
-foster emergence
-Social architecture: (thinking stack/zachman etc)
-connectedness (connectivity and psychological sense by what? shared vision?
-finding
-serendipity design for
-ego-less
-embrace criticism but by embracing criticism how to avoid paralysis (too many arguments)
-Clear threshold for decision making – stops paralysis
-radical un-secrecy
-Virtual Structures
– finite structures, rapid iteration of create, grow, destroy
– task/problem networks (mayfly)
-Now-ness – relate to the when/tenses of sharing future, past, present
-Presence
– hire for compatibility, culture is context context is people, understand organisational context.
– Energy
– feel time
-ownership
-positively reinforce sharing
– Your goals -> our goals
reward/incentivise colab and sharing, how? measure engagement.
– Shared goals are your compass goals are your culture, the thing direction of travel

Embrace emerging structures

– space is not a barrier, space is not as big as it used to be
there are tools to enable skype, vc units, desktop vc mobile vc

Current State:

-No opportunity for serendepity
-Closed networks
-Entropy

Trends:

-Privacy as commodity/desensitisation
-Hyper sharing
-High bandwidth communication/consumption
-Open source, social networks,
– task/problem networks

Thoughts:

There is no reason not to share
There is no impediment to sharing

appendix
valve handbook
open business cushman 90/10?

References:

http://fasterfuture.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-10-principles-of-open-business.html

http://blog.ted.com/2013/01/24/why-radical-openness-is-unnerving-reshaping-and-necessary-a-qa-with-ted-ebook-authors-don-tapscott-and-anthony-d-williams/

http://www.ted.com/pages/tedbooks_library#TapscottWilliams

http://www.ted.com/talks/don_tapscott_four_principles_for_the_open_world_1.html

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671797/from-zappos-4-simple-hacks-to-foster-office-collaboration

gore tex
http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/culture/index.html

http://www.managementexchange.com/story/innovation-democracy-wl-gores-original-management-model

http://metro.co.uk/2013/02/25/facebook-twitter-or-email-what-do-we-share-online-and-why-3508887/

http://www.noop.nl/2012/11/taking-care-of-horses.html

Categories Uncategorized

Intelligence and Governance

Katy Steward of @TheKingsFund asks What Makes a Board Effective? (Feb 2013). She’s looking specifically at the role of the Board in the National Health Service, but there is much that can be generalized to other contexts. She asks some key questions for any given board.

  • Are its members individually effective and do they communicate effectively – for example, do they challenge themselves and others?
  • Do they use energetic presentations and have insightful conversations?
  • Do they support their colleagues and have good decision-making skills?

In this post, I want to develop this line of thinking further by exploring what the concept of organizational intelligence implies for boards.

1. Boards need to know what is going on.

  • Multiple and diverse sources of information – both quantitative and qualitative
  • Understanding how information is filtered, and a willingness to view unfiltered information as necessary. 
  • Ability to identify areas of concern, and initiate detailed investigation 

2. Boards need to make sense of what is going on.

  • Ability to see things from different perspectives – patient quality, professional excellence, financial accountability, social accountability. 
  • Ability to see the detail as well as the big picture. 
  • Courage to investigate and explore any discrepancies, and not to be satisfied with easy denial.

3. Boards need to ensure that all decisions, policies and procedures are guided by both vision and reality. This includes decisions taken by the board itself, as well as decisions taken at all levels of management.

  • Decisions and actions are informed by values and priorities, and reinforce these values. (People both inside and outside the organization will infer your true values not from your words but from your actions.) 
  • Decisions and actions are guided by evidence wherever possible. Ongoing decisions and policies are open to revision according to the outcomes they yield.
  • Decision-making by consent (Robertson)

4. Boards need to encourage learning.

  • Effective feedback loops are established, monitoring outcomes and revising decisions and policies where necessary. 
  • Courage to experiment. Ability to tolerate temporary reduction in productivity during problem-solving and learning curve. Supporting people and teams when they are out of their comfort zone. 
  • Willingness to learn lessons from anywhere, not just a narrow set of approved exemplars.

5. Boards need to encourage knowledge-sharing

  • All kinds of experience and expertise may be relevant 
  • Overcoming the “silos” and cultural differences 
  • The collective memory should be strong and coherent enough to support the organization’s values, but not so strong as to inhibit change.

6. Boards work as a team, and collaborate with other teams

  • Effective communication and collaboration within the board – don’t expect each board member to do everything. 
  • Effective communication and collaboration with other groups and organizations.
  • Circle Organization (Robertson)

Note: The six points I’ve discussed here correspond to the six core capabilities of organizational intelligence, as described in my Organizational Intelligence eBook and my Organizational Intelligence workshop.

See also

Brian Robertson, The Sociocratic Method. A Dutch model of corporate governance harnesses self-organization to provide agility and a voice to all participants (Strategy+Business Aug 2006)

Steve Waddell, Wicked Problems, Governance as Learning Systems (Feb 2013)

Updated 1 March 2013

Intelligence and Governance

Katy Steward of @TheKingsFund asks What Makes a Board Effective? (Feb 2013). She’s looking specifically at the role of the Board in the National Health Service, but there is much that can be generalized to other contexts. She asks some key questions for any given board.

  • Are its members individually effective and do they communicate effectively – for example, do they challenge themselves and others?
  • Do they use energetic presentations and have insightful conversations?
  • Do they support their colleagues and have good decision-making skills?

In this post, I want to develop this line of thinking further by exploring what the concept of organizational intelligence implies for boards.

1. Boards need to know what is going on.

  • Multiple and diverse sources of information – both quantitative and qualitative
  • Understanding how information is filtered, and a willingness to view unfiltered information as necessary. 
  • Ability to identify areas of concern, and initiate detailed investigation 

2. Boards need to make sense of what is going on.

  • Ability to see things from different perspectives – patient quality, professional excellence, financial accountability, social accountability. 
  • Ability to see the detail as well as the big picture. 
  • Courage to investigate and explore any discrepancies, and not to be satisfied with easy denial.

3. Boards need to ensure that all decisions, policies and procedures are guided by both vision and reality. This includes decisions taken by the board itself, as well as decisions taken at all levels of management.

  • Decisions and actions are informed by values and priorities, and reinforce these values. (People both inside and outside the organization will infer your true values not from your words but from your actions.) 
  • Decisions and actions are guided by evidence wherever possible. Ongoing decisions and policies are open to revision according to the outcomes they yield.
  • Decision-making by consent (Robertson)

4. Boards need to encourage learning.

  • Effective feedback loops are established, monitoring outcomes and revising decisions and policies where necessary. 
  • Courage to experiment. Ability to tolerate temporary reduction in productivity during problem-solving and learning curve. Supporting people and teams when they are out of their comfort zone. 
  • Willingness to learn lessons from anywhere, not just a narrow set of approved exemplars.

5. Boards need to encourage knowledge-sharing

  • All kinds of experience and expertise may be relevant 
  • Overcoming the “silos” and cultural differences 
  • The collective memory should be strong and coherent enough to support the organization’s values, but not so strong as to inhibit change.

6. Boards work as a team, and collaborate with other teams

  • Effective communication and collaboration within the board – don’t expect each board member to do everything. 
  • Effective communication and collaboration with other groups and organizations.
  • Circle Organization (Robertson)

Note: The six points I’ve discussed here correspond to the six core capabilities of organizational intelligence, as described in my Organizational Intelligence eBook and my Organizational Intelligence workshop.

See also

Brian Robertson, The Sociocratic Method. A Dutch model of corporate governance harnesses self-organization to provide agility and a voice to all participants (Strategy+Business Aug 2006)

Steve Waddell, Wicked Problems, Governance as Learning Systems (Feb 2013)

Updated 1 March 2013

Turning around the Team

Without doubt the biggest contributing factor to success on projects where I’ve been engaged as an Enterprise Architect is the human dimension. Bringing a method that people can buy into, in a language that they understand and then reinforcing this wit…

Turning around the Team

Without doubt the biggest contributing factor to success on projects where I’ve been engaged as an Enterprise Architect is the human dimension. Bringing a method that people can buy into, in a language that they understand and then reinforcing this wit…

Categories Uncategorized