Search Results for: open group

<p><span style=”color: rgb(80, 80, 80); font-size: 11px; line-height: 19px;”>Last week I was proud to chair the first Belgian </span><a href=”http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/” style=”font-size: 11px; line-height: 19px;”>ArchiMate</a><span style=”color: rgb(80, 80, 80); font-size: 11px; line-height: 19px;”> User Group meeting in Brussels, hosted by </span><a href=”http://www.itworks.be/” style=”font-size: 11px; line-height: 19px;”>IT Works</a><span style=”color: rgb(80, 80, 80); font-size: 11px; line-height: 19px;”>. With three good speakers and a group of about 30 participants, the meeting was a big success. Hopefully we will have many more of such sessions in the years to come. </span></p><p>In this short blogpost I’ll present some of the highlights from the session. Rather than attempting to summarize the excellent talks by Jan Casteels (AXA, ING), Geert Cannaerts &amp; Christof Nikolay (both HP), and Pieter van Ostaeyen (de Lijn), I’ll stick to presenting some of the highlights.</p><ul><li>A common element in each of the three stories is “business-focused analyses”. Or, to put it differently: we spoke a lot about the type of analyses we can do for various (business) stakeholders as well as creating powerful visualizations to support decision making.</li> <li>The three speakers each used different tools (including <a href=”http://archi.cetis.ac.uk/”>Archi</a>, <a href=”http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/”>Sparx</a>, and <a href=”http://www.bizzdesign.nl/tools/architect/”>BiZZdesign Architect</a>).  The consensus seemed to be that all tools work as long as the focus is on modeling / entry of concepts and relations. A “proper” tool like Architect is needed when the focus shifts to analyses (i.e., color views, label views, generating views and cross tables, roadmapping and so on)</li> <li>There was a lot of discussion about different levels of models. <ul><li>On the one hand this refers to the difference between “architecture” and “design” (i.e., growing attentions to linking architecture models at the enterprise level to process management, business rule management, and data management at the design level).</li> <li>It also appeals to the difference between three levels of abstraction: conceptual, logical, and physical models. A crisp and clear distinction between these levels is far from easy, yet it is important to at least distinguish (and create links) between a “conceptual/logical” model and a “physical” model of the enterprise</li> </ul></li> <li>Other topics that were briefly discussed include </li> <li>The use of reference models for re-use and a head-start in creating consistent models across the enterprise.</li> <li>Starting ArchiMate modeling projects from the bottom-up. That is: rather than shooting for a top-down, enterprise-wide initiative, we see more and more organizations where the first ArchiMate models are developed in projects. This has the added advantage of adding business value early, as well as establishing good practices in modeling from the start!</li></ul><p>After a good discussions, we also found several areas where more support and guidance would be useful for the ArchiMate community at large. These boil down to the following:</p><ul><li>Easy exchange of models between tools: we see that different stakeholders and groups of professionals require different types of tools. At some point the necessity to integrate these models / to upgrade to a full-blown EA tool like Architect arises. Being able to seamlessly switch between tools is important. After all, it is about the content, not the tool.</li> <li>In line with the discussion on different levels of models, more guidance on conceptual / logical / physical modeling as well as tool support (i.e., the use of dependency relations in BiZZdesign Architect) will help the community to deal with this issue consistently and effectively</li> <li>Last but not least: in many situations it would be valuable to be able to represent the modality of relations between concepts. This goes for “cardinality” of associations, but it goes further than that. Being able to represent the fact that “a process always uses a services” versus “a process may optionally use a service” can be equally important</li></ul><p> All in all a great session with plenty of tips, real-world stories, and suggestions for taking ArchiMate initiatives to the next level.</p>

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