A week in Tweets: 24-30 Jan 2010

Oops – running late again. The week’s usual collections and categories, with a few extra discussions on specific topics – which is why it’s a fair bit longer than usual. Click on the ‘Read more…’ link, anyway.

Enterprise-architecture, business-architecture, strategy and business-themes in general:

  • business_design: Board game stimulates sustainable (re) thinking http://bit.ly/7WYUpl #springwise <interesting – worth exploring for #bizarch
  • AussiMike: How EA deals with mis-directed exec-sponsored project http://tinyurl.com/ye3ltk6 <practical politics of #entarch (@nickmalik)
  • greblhad: Promoting the view of whole of #entarch is much like battling advocates of “Intelligent Design” <as I know all too well first-hand…
  • tetradian: @greblhad: ‘like battling advocates of “Intelligent Design”‘ – or Scientism ( http://bit.ly/8kJzYA ), in the case of IT-centric folks..
  • business_design: RT @InnovToday: To innovate, get out! http://wp.me/pLtLu-2h #innovation lessons from Thomas Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions <brief article, but some good points about how to create cross-fertilisation of ideas
  • business_design: Absolutely agree with Roger Martin when he argues that Design Thinking is the right balance/mix between analytical and intuitive thinking
  • EnterprisingA: RT @chrisdpotts: Asking EAs how much time they spend “collaborating with business” is reinforcing error that EA is not part of “business”.
  • kvistgaard: RT @chrisdpotts: Organizations often confuse strategy with strategic planning. A strategy is a pattern of behavior, whether planned or not.
  • greblhad: ROI for #SOA or #entarch is pointless! If you consider ROI at all it should be over the  initiative itself not how the solution is designed
  • business_design: Steve, thanks for including my #bmgen work at Stanford RT @sgblank: What’s A Startup? First Principles.: http://wp.me/prGQZ-1f5
  • EnterprisingA: #whydislike (13) Peer Reviews: Because they perpetuate the old majority opinion when what we want to read is the new minority opinion.
  • business_design: Mapping Business Models with the #bmgen #Canvas / my guestpost at @davegray & co.’s excellent Knowledge Games project http://bit.ly/5bosZ6 <recommend #bizarch
  • toddbiske: .@greblhad RE: #entarch blind spots: #entarch still varies widely from org to org, so hard to pinpoint any common blind spots. // #entarch is more prone to disconnect, from either stakeholders or consumers of #entarch // A big blind spot I see is not understanding consumers of #entarch and how to contrib. to their efforts
  • toddbiske: I like Nick Malik’s post on Traceability. Great comments on #entarch realizing the wrong project is being executed. http://bit.ly/8ubjxf
  • tetradian: SideWise <post> ‘Who are your anti-clients?’ (on whole-of-enterprise view applied to customer-service) http://bit.ly/7ynC6v
  • SAlhir: Being Lean is Not Enough http://bit.ly/7KGU8A <need for balance, perspective in change-efforts
  • greblhad: RT @jorgebarba The Future Of Music Business Models http://ff.im/-eQwKB < future BM for consultancy too? #bmgen #entarch #cio <very relevant to #entarch #bizarch – recommend
  • tetradian: <post> ‘The enterprise is the story’ (with thanks to @oscarberg and @getstoried) #entarch http://bit.ly/4Hj7a3
  • SAlhir: RT @SAlhir: RT @evolutionshift: Context is king in the Shift Age  From last volume of Shift Age Trend Report : http://bit.ly/8k5xw6 <yes, but IMHO only halfway there: complete sequence is ‘content+context+connections’
  • (via @SAlhir) Chris Anderson (Wired) ‘New Industrial Revolution’ open/crowdsource design/manuf. etc http://bit.ly/6ty5BX #entarch <v.important implications also for #bizarch, #km, workflow, IP, work-organisation, trust/reputation and many other #entarch themes
  • JohnPolgreen: RT @agueeva So long as EA remains in IT shop lumped w/ tech services, we will remain techies who put out fires of poorly designed sol’ns
  • rettema: The Starfish and Spider: Leaderless Organizations & Nature of Self-Organizing Teams http://twurl.nl/xvxg4n <some important ideas here for #entarch and #bizarch
  • SAlhir: RT @Kallokain: Leading by Omission. Ricardo Semler videocast http://bit.ly/dbeGld <2005, still v.important for #entarch #bizarch
  • SAlhir: RT @Kallokain: Simple tool for evaluating strategy: Interaction/Isolation Matrix http://bit.ly/9xROhY <specific to performance-measurement aspects of #bizarch, but many implications for #entarch, especially around incentives/performance-reporting etc
  • smbounds: Rewards in gaming are surprisingly applicable to other domains http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1524/the_chemistry_of_game_design.php <somewhat technical, but may be applicable to #entarch #bizarch
  • rettema: A Systems analyst/designer, or perhaps a synthesist is a person who prescribs the building of systems that addres human problems. GMWeinberg // The black box accentuates interactive nature of the observatn process and removs any claim of “irrationality” in the process being observed. // By itself, the system behavior is certainly not a reliable basis for design. For reliability, we must have a static structure that we (cont) // (cont) can study at leisure and come to understand as a complete entity, not as a disjoint set of transitory behaviors. // NEITHER A STATIC NOR DYNAMIC VIEW CAN BE THE WHOLE SYSTEM. // I dumped my thoughts of my research …
  • jdevoo: Interesting consulting firms which incorporated #VSM: The Leadership Alliance http://bit.ly/bkSApO and Malik Management http://bit.ly/aQfupf
  • bartleeten: eGovernment of tomorrow – four scenarios are presented of how eGov might develop in the future #yam http://icio.us/wtkgxu <standard 2-axis scenarios-development model (axes: high-trust/low-trust, distribution/participation), but useful nonetheless
  • DavidGurteen: Changing Business Models: Noticing The Winds Of Change http://bit.ly/aa9Cbp <#bmgen #bizarch
  • business_design: RT @vpsingh: The top three concepts in building a startup: Leanstartup, Customer Development and Business model generation
  • tetradian: <post> “Enterprise-architecture and strategy” (for @AussiMike) http://bit.ly/dp5wXQ
  • kvistgaard: @tetradian nice post but I believe strategy (and all other motivational components) should be a part of EA. Some ideas: http://bit.ly/aZ867q // some nice concepts for the EA Motivation domain shown here (http://bit.ly/ca9tEu) as class diagrams and definitions, by G. Tozer
  • tetradian: @kvistgaard thanks, but I can’t quite see the connection – where is strategy in your diagram? at what level? for what ‘org’ vs ‘enterprise’? // Tozer diagrams nice, but place EA as IT-centric, with no distinctions in ‘Motivation’ – doesn’t explain how strategy & EA relate
  • nickmalik: Frustrated.. traceability is essential, but means different things depending on context. EA must use traceability in context
  • nickmalik: Blogged on evaluation of overlapping business capabilities – http://tinyurl.com/yc2edy6 <good real-world #entarch
  • tetradian: <post> “Content, context, connections, purpose” (#entarch again) http://bit.ly/b8KxQ6
  • SAlhir: RT @jorgebarba: Don’t Be A Rule Fool http://ff.im/-f61lm <good examples of changed strategic drivers #entarch
  • (via @SAlhir) “The iPad’s Future Shock” http://bit.ly/9xEgqA <ignore the iPad refs, read it in terms of IT-‘entarch’ vs real #entarch

Roland Ettema’s assertion that ‘enterprise architecture is Situational Method Engineering’ triggered off quite a conversation around the role and implementation of EA:

  • rettema: #EntArch is Situational Method Engineering http://twurl.nl/3ax41v and adaptive modeling http://twurl.nl/5ljmbr as 2 sides on the same coin.
  • greblhad: @rettema variants of Situational Method Engineering is usually sold today with brand names enhancers like Essential, Core or Best Practices
  • tetradian: .@rettema “#entarch is Situational Method Engineering” – no! – may be useful in #entarch, but enterprise is *people,*can’t be ‘engineered’!
  • MartinHowitt: @tetradian not sure that “enterprise is people” is actually useful defn. How can we architect people if we can’t engineer them?
  • tetradian: .@MartinHowitt FEAF defn: ‘enterprise=shared commitment’ – ie enterprise is people. Do *you* want to be ‘architected’ or ‘engineered’?? … // …we can ‘architect’ relations b/w people, but not people themselves (not sure we can ‘engineer’ anything w/ people! 🙂 ).. // ..’engineered’ or ‘architected’ can apply to IT / machines in enterprise, but still need to be understood as whole, w/ people
  • tetradian: .@MartinHowitt enterprise architecture is architecture of the enterprise *as a whole* – see ‘What is an enterprise?’ http://bit.ly/8wWNSq
  • MartinHowitt: .@chrisdpotts @tetradian I think that (obviously) ppl are central, but only because they are self-organising and therefore unpredictable… // …and “architect” and “engineer” are different approaches or lenses to try and influence this emergent behaviour // …to support the sort of outcomes that the org is supposed to want!
  • tetradian: .@MartinHowitt ‘engineered’ is too mechanistic a lens for whole-of-#entarch – it tends to pull us back into flawed Taylorist thinking
  • MartinHowitt: @chrisdpotts @tetradian with you both on taylorism 🙂 but both eng and arch are lenses. Am wondering, as an EA, if I need a new one 🙂
  • tetradian: .@MartinHowitt ‘eng’ is great lens for ‘things’; for ‘people’ etc, try eg. VPEC-T http://bit.ly/15A7dl or Cynefin http://bit.ly/17XyCJ
  • thoughttrans: @tetradian @MartinHowitt So…do you arch things but model people?
  • tetradian: .@thoughttrans in whole-enterprise #entarch we model/architect roles/relations/links between people, but never people themselves …// ..viewing people in terms of roles/links/relns allows arch’l-consistency – see framework at http://bit.ly/NZYS3 …// ..architecturally the link/reln is an ‘asset/resource’ but *people* themselves should never be viewed as ‘assets’! – see http://bit.ly/5TLun6
  • rettema: @tetradian @pauljansen Enterprise Engineering does not exclude engineering although the enterprise is people #EntArch http://twurl.nl/ii85i7
  • tetradian: @rettema @pauljansen thx for ref to EE – suggests is okay for s/w etc, but *not* good for whole-#entarch (too close to Taylorism)
  • lonnekedikmans: @tetradian in user experience you do ‘model’ people. E.g personas. We could learn from that in enterprise architecture.
  • tetradian: @lonnekedikmans yes, we do model personas/roles in user experience – but we don’t architect or engineer *people* – difference is important!
  • rettema: @rettema @pauljansen Holism and Taylorism oposites ? Holism is to weak to effectively combine theories, then I prefer Taylorism.
  • tetradian: .@rettema by definition, holism combines all views; Taylorism can only cope with a very small subset of views (Cynefin ‘Simple’ domain)… // …Taylorism excels at improving efficiency in simple, stable, ‘thing’-based contexts (e.g. machines, IT)… // …Taylorism is very poor at non-simple, non-stable, non-‘thing’ contexts, esp. people – it can only view people as ‘things’… // ..at the whole-#entarch level Taylorism and EE are useful for some contexts but not others – we need holism to link all together //  crucially, Taylorism/EE have no concept of *purpose* – if you engineer-out the purpose, you have a machine, not an enterprise
  • rettema: @tetradian Agree upon that. My point is that #EntArch is people does not exclude SME. Holism for me is a weak SME, EE for me more concise.
  • tetradian: .@rettema the starting-point for all of this was your assertion “#EntArch *is* SME” – my argument is only that SME is subset, not the whole
  • rettema: @tetradian EE combines the people construct of #EntArch based on LAP and combines it with modern management science, so engineering
  • tetradian: .@rettema I still regard ‘engineering’ as a dangerous term to apply to something that necessarily involves people *as people*, not ‘things’
  • naudine: @lonnekedikmans @tetradian are you sure enterprise architecture talk about modeling people ?
  • tetradian: .@naudine: “are you sure enterprise architecture talk about modeling people?” – IT-centric ‘EA’ usually doesn’t, true whole-#entarch must!
  • rettema: @tetradian, I agree to your points, however – no concept of *purpose* – 2 things to distinct: A construction has indeed no purpose, // management theories have (at least the most of them) a combination delvrs an engineering discipline (indeed is a dangerous term)
  • tetradian: .@rettema (I apologise, some of this argument may be a translation-problem, in several senses 🙂 – may be less problematic in Dutch?… // …Dutch is certainly more precise on this than English, and Dutch developments in #entarch some of best worldwide)// great Dutch #entarch: SqEME, ASL, BiSL, Enterprise Ontology, Archimate, championing of ITIL, etc – the list is long!
  • naudine: @tetradian do you mean modeling use cases rather than ‘people’ ? #entarch
  • tetradian: .@naudine use-cases are one minor example of people in #entarch, yes – engagement of people in enterprise *as* enterprise is more important // ..also eg. modelling of people-based entire services as ‘manual’ substitute for IT-services in disaster-recovery
  • pauljansen: @tetradian @rettema EE is ‘design a house’; #entarch is ‘design a home’. As @chrisdpotts said: diff is ‘ppl’s enterprice’ (fluidity) <very useful distinction b/w EnterpriseEngineering and whole-of-enterprise architecture
  • bergmart: @tetradian Nice distinction although I can imagine that EE believers tend to see it the other way round
  • tetradian: @bergmart true, would probably be the other way for IT-centric ‘EA’, but not for whole-enterprise EA – huge difference in #entarch scope
  • bergmart: @tetradian True, I would say that both EE & EA have to make use of the same starting point: design the enterprise as a home and not a house
  • tetradian: @bergmart – which, unfortunately, IT-centric ‘EA’ doesn’t – yet still pretends to be *enterprise*-architecture… 🙁
  • bergmart: @tetradian Yes, agree and still most EA is IT-centric
  • tetradian: @bergmart “and still most EA is IT-centric” – which is why we need to emphasise that IT-centric ‘EA’ is *not* real *enterprise*-architecture

Another shorter discussion on psychology for enterprise-architecture, in particular the MBTI (Myers Briggs) model:

  • rettema: Have a case right now in which I ask myself, can everybody change into an enterprise architect. Which fears do people see to become one ?
  • tetradian: @rettema in principle, anyone can be an EA, but defining characteristic is big-picture generalism – most prefer small-view/detail specialism
  • rettema: @JohnPolgreen @tetradian I agree but can people switch ? (fear, conviction, behavior patterns .. ) what is their dilemma? Because many don’t
  • rettema: Use Psychology Tools to Advance Enterprise Architecture Efforts http://twurl.nl/lqqfko // Communication skills are a critical competence to be an effective enterprise architect who must communicate concepts http://twurl.nl/2nn7c4 // Communication skills are a critical competence for an enterprise architect: MBTI Introvert-extravert http://twurl.nl/ickab7 // EA are both Introvert and Extravert I would say ?? , says me the E N T P : 7 34 21 57
  • pauljansen: @rettema According to Jung/MBTI the ‘Introvert’ INTP is (called) ‘the Architect’! http://bit.ly/cov7oW
  • rettema: Meyer Briggs, are Architects Perceivers serving Judgers http://twurl.nl/krir7t ?
  • pauljansen: @rettema I would say: Archetypically Perception and iNtuition would be the most relevant denominators in complex #entarch. #cynefin
  • tetradian: @rettema in MBTI survey of prof.futurists (similar to architects) most were xNxP – xxxJ tend to focus on detail, dislike big-picture… // …remember MBTI is only a guide to probable preferences/tendencies, is *not* reliable as predictor of capability
  • JohnPolgreen: @rettema It’s the choice of those who hire EAs. Do they look for detail orientation or the ability to see the big pic?
  • pauljansen: @JohnPolgreen Contradictio in terminis: ‘detailoriented EA’. #entarch
  • rettema: @JohnPolgreen @tetradian @pauljansen Tx, I see the topic keeps us thinking
  • krismeukens: @tetradian is MBTI reliable as predictor of incapability?
  • tetradian: @krismeukens: “is MBTI reliable as predictor of incapability?” – I wouldn’t say it’s a predictor of *anything*: it’s just a useful guideline
  • pauljansen: @tetradian @krismeukens Agree, however MBTI can be (more) helpfull in identifying UNlikely #entarch candidates.

And a brief conversation abotu ‘human capital’ and trust:

  • oscarberg: Investing in human capital is scary since it can leave quite easily // In fact, the human capital leaves every day at 5pm and (hopefully) arrives at 8am in the morning next day
  • tetradian: @oscarberg Investing in human capital is less risky if you provide reasons for it to stay; trying to possess it doesn’t work!
  • oscarberg: @tetradian Agree. Still, so many managers fail to understand this
  • letterpress_se: @oscarberg human capital is also a very bad asset: unreliable, sick hightly variable in its output. Key is motivation.
  • oscarberg: @letterpress_se as @tetradian replied, human capital is risky () “bad” asset) because orgs can’t possess & control it (like “good” assets)
  • letterpress_se: @oscarberg human capital is also a very bad asset: unreliable, sick hightly variable in its output. Key is motivation.
  • tetradian: .@oscarberg @letterpress_se human capital is less risky (‘good asset’) if we manage it as *human*-capital, not ‘object’-capital // The core problem here is not ‘human capital’ but the perceived ‘need’ for ‘possession’
  • oscarberg: @tetradian @letterpress_se and the perceived ‘need’ for possession has to do with our ‘need’ for control due to lack of trust
  • tetradian: @oscarberg @letterpress_se trust (or lack of) leverages all forms of capital – ‘The market as economy’ http://bit.ly/6z3Y0F
  • oscarberg: Give folks a superstructure that augments their efforts, and they’ll swarm like bees. /via @movito
  • oscarberg: distance & lack of visibility -> trust failure -> rules & control -> overhead costs & disempowered workforce -> low performance

Knowledge-management, narrative-knowledge and in-person collaboration:

  • smbounds: RT @weknowmore: 10 tactics to turn information into action http://ow.ly/10MtF #KM #e20 << activism = change mgt for societies?? <information provides content/context for enterprise-story cross-currents
  • hebsgaard: The self aware organisation #km http://tinyurl.com/yac273u <another insightful post from Nick Milton
  • getstoried: The Business Case for Storytelling: Context + Perception = Value http://ow.ly/1nHjiy #storytelling <also for #entarch
  • unorder: We make sense of things when we, or our group, tells the story of what happened. <and what will happen – strategy, #entarch etc
  • getstoried: RT @quimica_visual: The Story of Truth. An ancient story with contemporary meaning #storytelling http://tinyurl.com/yb8ytno <nice little parable – and accurate
  • oscarberg: Top four fundamental drives of human behavior  http://kuex.us/6d81 <acquire, bond, learn, defend: interesting, but incomplete set of drives?
  • oscarberg: It’s not about knowledge sharing, it’s about engagement and context! http://kuex.us/6d84 <a very long post – even longer than my usual ramblings 🙁 – but explores the themes well – would add that blogging etc is not just sharing, but also a way to sort/clarify ideas for self
  • DavidGurteen: via @johnt, @bottomup: “Do not predict, but experiment” is what we can learn from http://bit.ly/6sLH #panarchy <recommend – scary but brilliant
  • AussiMike: RT @googlebooks: We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future. http://bit.ly/5Aac4T
  • tebbo: RT @ffblog “HR Problem #1 – The Traditional Organization is a Machine and We are Human” http://bit.ly/b6JUdN <<Control vs Connect

‘Enterprise 2.0’, social-media and online-collaboration:

  • oscarberg: RT @ITSinsider New #HeavyMental post : 5 elevator pitches for #e2.0 adoption http://wp.me/p58hh-qu by via @ceciiil > very usable! <could also apply with minor changes for #entarch
  • hebsgaard: Centralized Control of Social vs. Spreading Social Throughout the Organization http://tinyurl.com/yct7s6e <also for #entarch
  • SAlhir: RT @SAlhir: RT @edSocialMedia: shared meaning, ambient awareness = essence of social media <is also essence of #entarch
  • oscarberg: RT @auriegbuczek A new challenge for #E20: the executive in the candy-store http://bit.ly/8BvVrt >Important <strong recommend
  • oscarberg: Great new preso by Tara Hunt: “Yes, I DO Mind the Gap” http://slidesha.re/cHoxgD (found via @joyce_hostyn) <yes yes yes! 🙂 – brilliant visual summary of the value-disconnect between business and their own communities – insightful comment of “most businesses are community tourists”
  • oscarberg: Blogged: Common and real concerns about internal micro-blogging http://goo.gl/fb/cQkf <mainly about in-company use of #e20, but useful and practical nonetheless
  • hebsgaard: Thinking In or Outside #SocialMedia? http://tinyurl.com/y8l3crp <likewise applies to #entarch
  • oscarberg: Blogged: Interesting Enterprise 2.0 Readings – Week 4 2010 http://bit.ly/cpsaDO <valuable summary, as usual #e20

Technology-architecture and other matters technical:

  • davidsprott: BBC publishes technology strategy. Nice example of technology and strategy principles. http://tinyurl.com/ychy9st <useful worked-example of #itarch

Society and culture, including corporate social responsibility:

  • raesmaa: Barbie, Bratz, and the Employee Brain Battle: Empty your brain at the door – HBR http://bit.ly/76GYA5 #ipr #knowledge #innovation <sharp article by Elisabeth Moss Kanter on company attempts to ‘possess’ all products of employees’ minds
  • christearena: The big picture: Three To-Do’s (And To-Don’ts) of 21st Century Strategy by @umairh http://ow.ly/11f2I via @gfriend <another useful Umair Haque article on the ‘big picture’ of the social context for business and business-organisations
  • christinearena: Thomas Friedman: “We badly need leaders inspired by sustainable values, not situational ones.” http://3bl.me/vredpv <article is solely about current US politics, but the overall principle is valid just about everywhere
  • tetradian: @ChristineArena: “inspired by sustainable values, not situational ones” – long-term/systemic awareness vs short-term/local/self-centric
  • business_design: Excellent intellectual entertainment RT @TimHarford: http://bit.ly/cKjpcp financial crisis retold through interactive Monopoly game <sweetly ironic metaphor – and accurate, too
  • pauljansen: Imposing our democracy by force of arms robs peoples from their (democratic) right to establish their own destiny themselves. // Democracy is a brutal dictatorship when it only allows for itself, and imposes itself on innocent others. #iraq #afganistan #democracy

And, of course, the ever-magnificent miscellany:

  • SAlhir: Excellent descr of react vs respond (consider the Focus-Feedback-Balance pattern). RT @zenext: Imbalanced, we react…balanced, we respond
  • SAlhir: RT @SAlhir: Its not analysis then synthesis then design, but analysis with synthesis with design.
  • thoughttrans: SBDi Tips Post: 1,000 Fans http://is.gd/5Eobm #in <good point – though not sure I could manage 1000! 🙂
  • business_design: Don’t think books are dead either… that’s why I worked on #bmgen RT @ThisIsSethsBlog: Seth’s Blog: Why write a book? http://bit.ly/5fZ9a2 <ditto on Seth’s reasoning for my own books – perhaps especially the ones I’m working on right now
  • JohnPolgreen: Vision w/o action is a dream. Action w/o vision is simply passing the time. Action with Vision is making a positive difference. – J Barker
  • RT @davidriveroll: Wow! Video of art with light from Russia / Tss! Video ruso de arte de animacion con luz – http://vimeo.com/8669028 <beautiful – very clever animation, created frame-by-frame at night with long exposures on a standard SLR still-camera and a lot of precision
  • oscarberg: Cool Diagraming Tool: http://www.simplediagrams.com/ /via @letterpress_se > I like the shapes, will try the tool <nice 🙂 – is exactly what it says, a straightforward too for doing simple back-of-the-napkin diagrams
Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*