Tom Graves / Tetradian

In case you’ve been wondering why I’ve been ranting about those apparently-abstract ideas about ‘Possessed by possession‘ and the like…

What I’ve been calling ‘Really-Big-Picture enterprise-architecture‘ is about looking at how we can apply enterprise-architecture ideas at a much larger scale, right up to a fully global scope. The simplest way to describe this is as follows:

• every society or culture is held together by mutual responsibilities
• in some (but not all) societies, there may be an overlay of personal possession
• arising from this concept of possession is a notion of property rights
• to support exchange of personal property in accordance with property-rights, we have point-to-point barter
• to resolve the point-to-point nature of barter, we introduce an intermediary currency
• to support futures in a currency-based economics, we introduce the idea of debt-based finance
• to support certain types of debt, we introduce financial-derivatives

All straightforward, all non-pejorative, a simple stack of overlays, each one built on top of the previous layers. We could summarise it visually like this:

There’s only one catch: it doesn’t work.

Most people realise by now that there are huge problems with financial-derivatives and the like: anything that is potentially-infinite that claims to have absolute rights over something that’s definitely finite is by definition going to be problematic. But that isn’t the core problem that we have to deal with.

Debt-based finance is a problem: it tends by definition to concentrate all wealth in the hands of those who control the mechanisms of debt. But that too isn’t the core problem that we have to deal with.

A lot of people argue that the problem lies with the currency: if we could switch to an alternate-currency, they say, everything would work out just fine. There are huge arguments about what kind of currency we should move to – time-based, ‘local energy’, reputation-points or whatever. But the reality is that all of those arguments are almost completely irrelevant, because currency itself isn’t the core problem that we have to deal with.

Some people say that we should drop the whole currency-thing, and go back to barter. But the point-to-point nature of barter causes huge problems, which in many ways currency does help to resolve. But in any case, barter isn’t the core problem that we have to deal with.

Quite a few people say that the real issue is around property-rights. Capitalists and communists alike will argue intensely over who has the right to possess, and who doesn’t. But this misses the point too, because property-rights in themselves aren’t the core problem that we have to deal with.

The real problem is the concept of possession – because that’s what breaks the mutuality of responsibilities on which a sustainable society and its economics depend. Possession is a literally childish view of an economy, one which asserts the primacy of ‘I’ over ‘We’. It’s a view which asserts that that the only thing that matters is my own needs and desires, that I am not responsible to others, either in the present or elsewhen – yet still insists that they are and must still be responsible to me. The reality is that the moment we allow that kind of pseudo-mutuality to exist, by definition we have a broken economy: there’s no way we can make it sustainable – especially over the longer-term.

Imagine an economy that’s run by, for and on behalf of the most childish in the society, and in which anyone who does take responsibility is punished for doing so. That would be insane, wouldn’t it? – in every sense of ‘insane’… Yet what we would have there is something remarkably similar to what we think of as ‘the economy’ in the present day – an ‘economy’ that’s ultimately based on the possessive self-centred temper-tantrums of a two-year-old…

Yet the fact is that anything based on a possession-model will tend automatically to create dysfunctional failure, to not only invent a status of ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ but an ever-widening gap between them, to always assign far higher priority to the present than to future or past, and to create a ‘trickle-up’ pyramid-game structure that can only appear to work as long as it can maintain an illusion of infinite ‘growth’ – because if the growth ever stops, its only option is to cannibalise itself into oblivion. There is no possible way to make a possession-based economy sustainable.

Which means that we have a rather serious problem. If possession doesn’t work – and not only doesn’t work, but by definition can’t work - and we need to move towards a truly sustainable economy – which, with seven billion humans and still increasing fast, we clearly do – then it means that we need to rethink not just possession itself, but everything that’s built on top of it. In short, every single one of those overlays is irrelevant, because they’re built on top of something that doesn’t work. Or, to put it in simple graphic form:

If the core problem is possession, then it should be evident that futzing around at any of the layers that are built on top of that myth of possession is not going to make any significant difference. It’s a waste of time, of effort, of everything else – a waste that we can ill afford right now, given the real inescapable all-too-literally ‘deadlines’ that we’re starting to face in the near future. Our only option is scrap the whole lot, and start again almost from scratch – because anything that retains any hint of possession in its structure will cause the whole thing to fail all over again.

And yet it’s scary just how much of our society and economics and the rest assume that possession is the only way to go. Just to give one small example: if “possession is nine-tenths of the law”, what does that tell us about what changes in law would be needed for a sustainable society? Not a trivial problem, yes…?

Yet I do believe that enterprise-architects have skills that could be genuinely useful for this type of challenge. We’re used to working at large scale, and at every scale, across every aspect of a whole system. We’re used to seeing how all of the different aspects come together to make a single unified whole. We’re used to doing roadmaps for change and suchlike – and the, uh, interesting politics that go with any large-scale change. What we have here is still enterprise-architecture, still the ‘big-picture’ – just a rather bigger picture than we’re used to, that’s all.

So that’s what I’m describing as ‘Really-Big-Picture Enterprise-Architecture’ – a form of enterprise-architecture where the ‘enterprise’ in scope is actually everything that happens and will happen in human activity on the entirety of the planet. In other words, probably the largest enterprise-architecture challenge that any of us will ever face. Interested?

How do we make sense of brands and the like? How do brands actually work? And how does that connect with charisma, with ‘self-as-brand’?

The starting point for this one was a re-tweet from narrative-knowledge guru Shawn Callahan:

• unorder: RT @thaler: Yesterday, in a program for Brazilian professional communicators, a participant defined charisma as the ability to connect with others.

“Connect with“? – not quite… And that ‘not-quite’ also helps to clarify the distinction between relational-assets and aspirational-assets in an enterprise-architecture, and thence to the role of brands – so it’s worth doing a brief exploration to explain that point.

From an enterprise-architecture perspective we would think of this in terms of assets: something that is valued, and for which we are responsible. The moment we mention ‘ability to do something’ – such as “ability to connect with others” – we’re also talking about capabilities, but we can come back to that later: we’ll focus on the ‘assets’ aspect for now.

Recall that there are not so much four different types of asset, as four distinct dimensions of assets:

• physical: physical ‘thing’ – independent, tangible, transferrable, alienable
• virtual: data, information, idea – independent, non-tangible, transferrable, non-alienable
• relational: two-way person-to-person connection – between, sort-of-tangible, non-transferrable
• aspirational: one-way person-to-abstract – between, non-tangible, non-transferrable

We might talk about a ‘physical asset’, but in practice most real-world assets embody some combination of these dimensions. A printed book, for example is both a physical-asset (the book itself) and a virtual-asset (the information in the book) and possibly also represents an aspirational-asset (the feeling of connection with the author, perhaps, or the characters in the story).

The more we have of one dimension, the less we can have of of the others – hence why I usually depict this in a tetradian layout, the internal axes of a tetrahedron:

The point is that each dimension has to be managed in different ways: for example, physical-assets need inventory and storage, virtual-assets don’t (much). But it’s also extremely important not to mix them up: for example, the chaos around so-called ‘intellectual property’ exists because people are trying to control virtual-assets as if they’re physical-assets, even though they’re fundamentally different.

Which brings us back to the key distinction between relational-assets and aspirational-assets:

• relational: sense of (two-way) connection with another (real) person
• an aspirational: sense of (one-way) connection to an (imagined) person or ideal

(Note the parallel with the distinction between physical versus virtual: one is real, the other is abstract.)

So to bring this back to that initial tweet, a more realistic definition for charisma is not so much ‘the ability to connect with others”, as “charisma is the ability to enable others to connect to self“. That distinction between ‘to‘ rather than ‘with‘ may seem subtle, but is extremely important in practice.

Yes, charisma can create relational-assets – a person-to-person connection – but it’s somewhat secondary, and, in a mass-market context, relatively rare. First and foremost, charisma creates aspirational-assets – a sense of trust and of desire (in a wide variety of types of ‘desire’…).

Another key distinction here:

• a relational-asset is held by both parties in the relationship – both parties are aware that the link exists
• an aspirational-asset is held by one party, the ‘source’ – the ‘target’ may not even know that the link exists

Both types of link are a ‘between’ asset: if either party drops the link, the asset ceases to exist.

[CRM [Customer Relationship Management] systems often fail to take this fact into account. If the laws on stalking were applied to the business-context, many companies would be in deep trouble indeed… and as it is, misused-CRM is a great way to turn former clients into infuriated anti-clients…]

For relational-assets, where both parties know that the link exists, both parties (should) also know when the link fades to nothing. But for aspirational-assets, where the ‘target’ may not even know about the link, things can get very messy if we’re not careful…

Aspirational-assets are about trust, and desire. Often it is, in an all too literal sense, a fantasy: “selling the sizzle”, to use the old advertising-slogan. So when that trust or desire is broken from the ‘target’-end of the asset-link, watch out – because it’s literally betraying someone’s fantasy.

Unsurprisingly, that fact is extremely important in a commercial context, not least because relational-assets – direct person-to-person links – don’t scale. For example, I can have strong personal links with the staff in my local grocery-store; but because relational-links aren’t transferrable as such, it’s hard to carry that sense of connection through to another branch of the same store in a different town. So one key role of a brand is to bridge the gap, and to create and maintain overall desire, overall trust, that then links back into the person-to-person connections that drive all personal business.

[Each company-representative then needs to embody what the brand represents, which is why vision and values are so important. Yet they also need to do this without clients or anyone else getting too much confused between fantasy - aspiration - and reality - relation. This can at times be a delicate juggling-act...]

Charisma sits in an uncomfortable and potentially-dangerous middle ground, halfway between relational-link and aspirational-link. The ‘target’ is a real person, hence also gives the impression that a relational-link is available – or rather, a fantasy-based relational-link, driven by trust and desire. (Again, remember that ‘desire’ has a very wide range of meanings here…) To use Brown, Hagel and Davison’s term, it projects ‘the power of pull‘: but we need to be careful as to exactly what we’re ‘pulling’, because of that risk of perceived ‘betrayal’ of the fantasy.

There’s no doubt that charisma is extremely important in business. Aspirational-links are actually much easier to transfer than relational-links, because the driver for the link is not so much the person as the implied-trust or implied-values behind the the desire: so as long as the trust and values are maintained, the link can be transferred to another aspirational-asset. In that sense, the charismatic salesman intentionally assigns his perceived authority to the brand as a whole – which then means that the trust can be carried through to any other location of the brand. In a business-context, that’s what we want to happen.

But it can go spectacularly wrong if anyone starts playing irresponsible, or isn’t aware of the risks of charisma. Changing a brand-image might seem trivial to the brand-owner, for example – but it’s not trivial at all to those whose sense of trust is attached to that brand, and who will literally feel betrayed by any inappropriate change. Actors and public figures have even worse problems: they will often be attacked for ‘betraying’ that which they are believed to represent (the aspirational-link), without much if any acknowledgement of who they actually are (the relational-link, which probably doesn’t exist anyway). In a business-context, this is a common root-cause of many harassment-lawsuits, where the whole thing is grounded in a ‘betrayed’ fantasy – mistaken beliefs and misunderstandings arising from careless charisma.

So the crucial points from all of the above are these:

• a relational link – a relational-asset – is a two-way connection with others, grounded in reality
• an aspirational link – an aspirational-asset – is a one-way connection to an often-abstract ideal, grounded in fantasy
• charisma creates aspirational links that can easily be mistaken by the ‘source’ for relational links, or an offer of a precursor to a relational-link, yet with a high emotional (fantasy-driven) charge
• charisma can be dangerous in business (and elsewhere) because it creates implied responsibilities on the ‘target’, of which the target (or, for a brand, the owners of that brand) may not even be aware

I hope that makes sense, anyway?

Comments / suggestions etc requested, of course.

How do we prove the value of our work? How we defend that value against unprincipled attack? These are real questions that we all need to face, especially in inherently-’unprovable’ disciplines such as enterprise-architecture.

So let’s put these questions into practice.

Several people have asked me for a detailed worked-example of the sensemaking-technique of context-space mapping [CSM]. Recently, though, I’ve also ‘enjoyed’ yet another attack from Dave Snowden, in which he made two key assertions:

• that the cross-map process used in CSM is not a ‘mash-up’ but a “hash-up”
• that the entirety of CSM and, by inference, all of the other sensemaking tools and techniques that I’ve developed for enterprise-architecture and related fields are “invalid … in certain essential aspects”

He gave no evidence or reason as to why the cross-map process is supposedly so invalid as to be a “hash-up”, or any details as to what any of those purported “certain essential aspects” might be: so in essence, all we have from him is a circular ‘proof’, that it must be ‘true’ because he asserts that it’s ‘true’. This is a classic form of unprincipled-attack, one which most of us will face at some time or other in enterprise-architecture and the like.

His assertion is that CSM has no value; yet since that assertion itself has no rational basis, there’s likewise little point in trying to use any kind of rational defence. Probably the only meaningful response is ‘proof-of-the-pudding’, to demonstrate in practice that it does have value. And if it does have value – in other words, that it presents insights that had not previously been available, and might not have been available by any other technique – then, in turn, that should demonstrate that the attack does not have merit. We probably wouldn’t expect the attacker to understand this point: but it may help in our relations with others, in a more professional context.

So perhaps I ought to thank Snowden here, because he’s indicated the obvious candidate for this practical demonstration: what I’ll do here is apply context-space mapping to Snowden’s Cynefin framework.

And let you be the judge as to whether this cross-map technique has any practical value.

(This will, again, be long – my apologies…)

Read more…

Looking at your enterprise vision – or any kind of future intent – is it defined in terms of being for something? Or against something?

That distinction can sometimes seem subtle – yet it’s very important indeed…

On the surface, it always seems a lot easier to be ‘against’ something. Many NGOs define themselves this way; quite a few businesses will do so, too. Whatever it is that we’re against, it already exists – otherwise we wouldn’t be against it, would we? (In some cases what we’ll say we’re against is the risk of whatever-it-is occurring – in other words, it ‘exists’ only in imaginary form – but as we’ll see, this comes down to much the same in the end.) We want it to stop existing, or not exist: that’s the whole point. It’s real, definite, and wrong – because since we’re against it, it must be wrong. Which means in turn that, by definition, we must be right, we’re ‘in the right’. That’s a good feeling to have: certainty, righteousness, righting the wrongs of the world. Which creates a lot of emotion, a lot of drive. The kind of energy we definitely need in an enterprise-vision and the like.

But…

It’s all too easy for it to be subtly dishonest: we point the finger at others, blame others, show them up as ‘the bad guys’ – which means that, conveniently, there’s no attention placed on us, on how we also support that whatever-it-is that we say we’re ‘against’. (In fact, as Jung warns in his concept of the ‘Shadow‘, we may actually be the worst offenders here, using ‘Other-blame’ as a mechanism to avoid facing our own actions. For examples of this, look at the behaviour espoused or demanded by almost any ‘activist’-group that says it’s ‘against’ something, and compare that with the actual behaviour of that group in action…) Which also means that the only aspects of that which we’re ‘against’ is the parts that others do – not the parts that we do. After all, by definition, we’re ‘the good guys’, we couldn’t be doing anything wrong, could we?

Oops…

If we define ourselves as ‘against’ something, we then need that something to continue to exist, in order to be against it - otherwise we would have no apparent reason to exist. The more we succeed in being against it, the more we’ll find ourselves needing to re-create it, in order to still have something be against. Which, over time, leads us into the inevitable vapidity of the Shirky Principle: “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution“.

Oops…

In short, defining ourselves as ‘against’ something will feel strong, powerful, ‘good’; but it may well be subtly dishonest, and unfortunately it’s all but guaranteed to make things worse.

Not such a good idea, then…

Defining ourselves as ‘for’ something is usually a lot harder. For a start, it probably doesn’t exist as yet – in fact our aim would usually be to create it, to bring it into existence. But because it doesn’t exist, it’s not tangible, it’s often a bit amorphous, a bit blurry, uncertain. Because it doesn’t exist, we first have to imagine the possibility of its existence: and by definition, that can be a somewhat conceptual, abstract exercise. Which means that to make the intent emotive – which it needs to be – we first have to imagine the whatever-it-is, and then convert that imagination into emotion: which can be quite hard to do.

Tricky… definitely. But if we can do it, we can create something new, something valued, something we’re for – all literally ‘real-ised’ from nothing. It didn’t exist; yet when we succeed, it now does exist. That’s pretty impressive, when you stop to think about it.

So defining ourselves as ‘against’ something always seems the easier way: but it doesn’t work. Whereas being ‘for’ something may seem a whole lot harder, but it does work.

So whenever we define a vision or the the like, we need always to do so in terms of ‘for’, not ‘against’.

No doubt, though, that it is easier to start from a ‘being-against’. So to make it work, we need to convert – or invert – that initial ‘against’-definition into a ‘for’-type format.

For this, let’s use the example of workplace-bullying.

It’s easy to be against bullying in the workplace: very easy to see it as ‘bad’, ‘wrong’, ‘wicked’, and all the rest. Very emotive, obviously.

Yet it’s also all too easy to point to ‘Them’, ‘the bullies’ – and fail to notice how we ourselves do exactly the same… And being ‘against’ bullying typically means that the more successful we are in ‘naming and shaming’ the bullies (which, by the way, is itself a form of bullying…), the more we’ll need to keep hunting harder to find even the slightest scrap of bullying-type behaviour in others. Which leads, in time, to that style of bullying so typical of any form of ‘political correctness’; and from there, all too easily, to the workplace-equivalent of the Inquisition. Being ‘against’ slowly pushes us towards where we preserve – in fact become – the ‘problem’ to which we purport to be ‘the solution’. And yes, that really is what happens, time after time after time.

So to make it work, we need to turn it round: for, not against.

For this example of workplace-bullying, one place to start is not so much the undesirable behaviour, as the consequences of that behaviour. This is described well, for example, by Bob Sutton in his book The No-Asshole Rule: “After encountering the person, people feel oppressed, humiliated or otherwise worse about themselves”. If we’re against workplace-bullying, we would be against these consequences too, because they’re symptoms of the occurrence of bullying in the workplace.

So we now turn it round: what does a workplace look like if bullying isn’t happening? – because that’s actually what we’re ‘for’. So, for example, we might look at key themes of intrinsic-motivation, as described in Daniel Pink’s Drive: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Or we might look at the ‘equality’ column in the gender-pronouns version or gender-neutral version of the extended-Duluth framework, for a broader range of desired behaviours and outcomes: this shows us emotive themes such as safety, trust, respect.

We can now apply to this to the three-part structure for enterprise-vision:

• a descriptor for the content or focus for this enterprise - the ‘things’ or themes that concern everyone in the shared-enterprise
• some kind of action on that content or focus - what is to be done to or with or in relation to those themes or ‘things’
• an emotive qualifier that validates and bridges between content and action - why this matters, why is this of importance and value

If we put all of that together, we’ll end up with something like “we are for creating workplaces where everyone feels safe, supported, valued and productive in their work”.

To achieve those outcomes, yes, we’ll have to address workplace-bullying and the like: but to do so we keep the focus on the desirable outcomes, and behaviours that create those outcomes (the ‘for’), rather than the undesirable behaviours that work against those outcomes (the ‘against’). And by saying that these desirable outcomes apply to everyone, we’ve also avoided the ‘Other-blame’ trap – which makes it easier to engage everyone in creating those outcomes.

[Avoiding 'Other-blame' is especially important in this case, by the way, because one of the most common causes why people indulge in bullying behaviour is because they themselves have been bullied by someone else.]

So, the one-line summary:

always frame an enterprise-vision, or any other statement of intent, in terms of what you’re for – not what you’re ‘against’.

Hope you find this useful, anyway.

Those notions of ‘whole-enterprise architecture’ that I’ve been describing in the ‘no-plan Plan‘ series of posts make solid sense to a fair few people – particularly those who’ve some experience of systems-thinking, design-thinking and the like. But it’s painfully clear that it doesn’t seem to make much sense to anyone else: and I must admit I’m struggling a bit with this…

How do we bring those different worlds together, so that we can put these ideas to practical use?

How do we make it make sense?

Okay, so part of the problem is the age-old clash between theory and practice. Practice needs theory; theory needs practice; that point seems fairly well accepted, I think? Yet there’s that old joke (from Yogi Berra?) that “In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.” Which means that practitioners tend naturally to be somewhat wary of too much theory. And there’s the ‘time-compression’ problem as wel: right out the rough edge of real-time, people simply don’t have time to stop and think about theory. Yet the fact that they don’t look enough to theory may itself be a key reason why they don’t have the time…

Chicken and egg: which comes first – theory or practice? Yes… therefore no… sometimes…? How do we get out of that loop?

There’s also the “in a perfect world” excuse, as my colleague Marcus [not his real name] was bewailing the other day:

It’s just chaos out there, doing everything the hard way. But if I suggest anything to cut down on the chaos, even something really simple like using scripts in a spreadsheet, so that they could get a chance to get started, it’s always the same response: “yes, Marcus, in a perfect world, but…”, “that might work in a perfect world, but…”, “we could do that in a perfect world, Marcus, but in the real world…”.

What’s worrying was that this was the architects – the people who were supposed to understand IT-architecture. Worse, he said, they were hardly using any of their architecture tools to clean up the architecture: in fact, of the thousand licences for a high-end EA toolset that their corporation had paid for, they were actually using just six.

Sure, many people are running on extreme overload most of the time; but with these guys, and many others like them that I’ve dealt with in so many different disciplines over the years, I sometimes feel a bit like that line from the old Jethro Tull song, that “Your wise men don’t know / how it feels / to be thick / as a brick”. These guys are all really smart, and I’m acutely aware that in most ways I’m the one who’s “thick / as a brick”, the one who doesn’t fit in, who doesn’t think the same way as everyone else; yet what the heck is going on here? It just doesn’t make sense.

I remember a string of conversations here about value in business, and about why we couldn’t use money as the only measure of value within an enterprise-architecture: but that went straight down like a lead-balloon too. Likewise just about all of those themes in the ‘no-plan Plan’; likewise many other what seem to me fairly straightforward points such as the one about ‘people are not assets’. It’s really clear that these notions just don’t make sense to most people in business and elsewhere. And as for some of the more way-out themes – such as an end to most current management-models, an end to money, and end to ‘rights’ or, ultimately, an end to possession itself –  that, in a futures-sense, I see as shifts that will and must be inevitable in the longer term… well, to most people that seems like all of that’s just on another planet. Cloud-cuckoo land. Forget it.

Or, perhaps, is it just too scary? – too far out of comfort-zones for people who must be able to purport being ‘in control’ at all times? I just don’t know. As Peter T pointed out in a recent comment here, even simple factual implications from a decent SCM [software configuration-management system] were deemed all but too fear-laden to face: so how the heck are most business-folks gonna face a mythquake that is – for most people, it seems – literally of almost unimaginable proportions?

And even though what we’re doing is ‘enterprise architecture’ in the most literal sense of those words, we can’t even use that term any more, because it’s been too ‘poisoned’ by Open Group and their ilk: their consistent misuse of the term has made things so bad for all of us – themselves included – that no one in business would trust us if we used the ‘A’-word at all. Which leaves us in a bit of a quandary even as to what we can call what we do…

It doesn’t make sense. And it needs to. Urgently. That part at least does make all too much sense…

Anyway, the quick summary of what we need to ‘make sense’ would seem to be much as per that initial post on ‘the plan that is no-plan‘:

• it’s about the architecture of the enterprise as a whole – how everything works together towards some overall aim
• it’s about the underlying ‘why’ of the overall enterprise, and how that links to the ‘how’ and ‘with-what’ and so on that make everything happen
• it’s about both structure and story, in the broadest sense of each
• it’s planning for and working with change, with inherent-uncertainty, rather than trying to fight against it
• it’s about identifying and managing hidden costs and risks – and hidden opportunities too
• it includes a strong focus on where people fit within the overall enterprise
• it’s about defining and using toolsets, visualisations, dashboards and other techniques to help people make sense of what’s happening within the enterprise, and in making decisions about how to keep the enterprise on track
• it’s about bringing all of these themes down into really practical, concrete, everyday expression, enhancing effectiveness through the enterprise

All straightforward and obvious – to me, at least. Also straightforward and obvious – to me at least – is that lack of awareness and integration of these themes is a large part of why there’s so much stress at work and elsewhere. Yet it’s also obvious that most of this just doesn’t make sense to most people. And the really serious ‘really big picture’ problems really don’t make sense to most people – so much so that even talking about them at all usually gets me labelled as crazy or worse. But if we don’t do something about those themes, a lot sooner than just Real Soon Now, we’re in deep trouble. (Okay, we’re in deep trouble already, frankly, hence this would be even worse Deep Trouble from which there really is no way out…) Yet if it doesn’t make sense, then no-one is going to do anything at all – until it’s too late even if it does finally make sense.

Really struggling with this feeling of “thick as a brick”, the lost toad-in-the-road, ‘the crazy ones’. When something that makes obvious sense doesn’t make sense to anyone else, how do we make it make sense? Or should we even try?

A real serious challenge here, in almost every different sense. Oh well.

That description of ‘the plan that is no plan’, about the direction that I’m moving into after moving out of mainstream ‘enterprise’-architecture, kind of ended up a bit longer than intended. (No surprise there, unfortunately… ) Oh well.

In effect, though, it’s also a kind of ‘manifesto’ for whole-enterprise architecture – about what needs to be added to the current so-called ‘EA’ in order to make usable and useful at a whole-enterprise scope. Whatever type of enterprise that might be.

So here’s a quick summary of all the posts in this ‘no-plan Plan that is also a sort-of manifesto’:

• Time for this old toad to move on – on why I’m moving out of mainstream ‘enterprise’-architecture
• Getting down to work in a different garden - setting out the overall scope, and describing what I will and won’t be doing within that scope
• Making plans, sort-of – outlining the overall approach, including the notion that ‘the plan is to not have an explicit plan’
• More on the ‘no-plan Plan’ – outlining the five core themes for this ‘plan that is no plan’, beyond a natural emphasis on deep-structure for the overall enterprise
• The no-plan Plan: the ‘why’ of architecture – creating a better balance between ‘how’ and ‘why’
• The no-plan Plan: architecture as story – providing stronger support for the human narrative
• The no-plan Plan: architecture for change – designing for change and ‘chaos’, rather than against it
• The no-plan Plan: architecture-dynamics – providing stronger support for versioning, lifecycles and other change within the architecture
• The no-plan Plan: people in architecture – ensuring we remember that every enterprise is, foremost and always, about people

Note that there’s a whole lot more that isn’t covered in that ‘manifesto’: about detail-layer stuff, about IT-architecture, mainstream business-architecture, security-architecture, process-architecture, and so on, and so on – lots and lots of lots of it.

The reason why those aren’t in that ‘manifesto’ is simply that there are already many other people working there – most of whom are a lot more competent than I am at that kind of work. There’s no need to extend the architecture in that direction, because it’s already being done, and for the most part done very well indeed – no doubt about that. The only point that is relevant here is that because we’re talking about a much broader scope, we need to ensure that that broader scope does properly incorporate and link to and with all the existing types of architecture-work – and make sure that the latter don’t split off into their own separate domains, much as per the ongoing disaster-area of the ‘IT/business-divide’.

Anyway, that’s the overall ‘plan that is no Plan’: now, back to work to put it all into practice.

So, over to you: comments/suggestions, anyone?

Okay, time for the final theme in that ‘no-plan Plan‘ – which somehow seems to be turning into a kind of ‘manifesto for whole-enterprise architecture’ or something like that, for some reason. Oh well. Anyway, this part’s about what is perhaps the most-serious ‘the Forgotten’ in almost all current ‘enterprise’-architectures, namely people.

I’ll keep this one short(ish), but I can see at least four sub-themes here:

• people and enterprise
• people and story
• people as ‘actors’
• people as ‘assets’

Most of the people and enterprise sub-theme is about the ‘why‘ of the enterprise, which I’ve covered already in the ‘no-plan’ post on the ‘why of architecture. Just note that everything that’s described over there also has strong cross-links to here, that’s all.

Much the same with the people and story sub-theme: go look at the ‘no-plan’ post on ’architecture as story‘. It’s pretty much all there: just note that all of that, almost by definition, is all about people too.

On the people as ‘actors’ sub-theme, I think of this as how people are engaged in the doing of an enterprise, and thence to what people do within an organisation. A few thin fragments of this are already covered in mainstream ‘enterprise’-architecture, such as ‘actors’ in use-cases, or clunkily-inadequate descriptions of ‘business services’ in Archimate and the like. It’s clear, though, that we’ll need a whole lot more than that if we’re going to get the enterprise-architecture to work well. A few examples:

• roles and responsibilities: who does what, who makes the decisions, and how and why and when do they do this?
• end-to-end processes: what happens in the largely non-automatable ‘Barely Repeatable Process‘ components of end-to-end processes? how do we ensure appropriate actions and handovers between all the stages within any end-to-end process?
• load-balancing and business-continuity: what are the trade-offs between manual and automated processes? what needs to happen when (not ‘if’!) the automated processes fail? what skills and capabilities are needed to make that happen?

I’ve drifted across this thread here already from time to time – for example, see the post ‘A question of Who‘ – but it’s clear that there’s a whole lot more that’ll need to be done. A lot more. Including how to get it down into the really practical, concrete, everyday, ‘this-is-how-it-works-just-do-it’ kind of stuff. Interesting. Very. To me, anyway…

On the people as ‘assets’ sub-theme, well, yes, I admit I do have a bit of a knee-jerk response to that dreaded if usually well-meant phrase “our people are our greatest asset”… Fact is, though, that it is a real asset to have the right people hanging around in any enterprise: it’s just that we need a very different understanding of ‘asset’, and how and where and in what ways real-people fit in with that notion of ‘asset’, in order to make it all work.

The first point here, and it’s a really, really, really important point, is that people are not assets. We should never describe people as ‘assets’. (In fact, in conventional economics terms, the only context in which people could be described as ‘assets’ is when they’re slaves – which is not a good idea in most business contexts…) Instead, the relationship is the asset – not the person, but the relationship between ourselves and each person.

And that’s a real asset: we can create it, ‘read’ it (access and use it), update it, delete or destroy it, generally manage it and its lifecycle and so on, much as for any other type of asset. But the catch is that that asset only exists between two entities – which means that it can be dropped from either end, without the other end necessarily knowing that it’s gone. Which means that although it’s an asset, it does need to be maintained in a much more engaged and active way than for a physical or virtual asset such as a building or a data-record. And because it only exists ‘between’, and can be dropped by the other end at any moment, it’s not an asset that we can ever truly ‘possess’, in the same sense that’s so often used for physical-assets and for the bad-joke of so-called ‘intellectual-property’. It’s an asset, but it’s a fundamentally-different type of asset: and we forget that fact at our peril.

I’ll use a couple of diagrams to explain what’s going on here. First, we start with that tetradian – four distinct axes or ‘dimensions’ in a kind of tetrahedral relationship:

Those axes apply to pretty much everything, and they’re quite distinct from each other. For example, physical-assets – tangible ‘things’ – are what’s known as ‘alienable’: if I give it to you, I no longer have it. By contrast, virtual-assets – data, information and so on – are ‘non-alienable’: in general, if I give it to you, I still have it. Entities will often be composites of dimensions: for example, a book is both a physical-asset (the book itself) and a virtual-asset (the information in the book).

What we’re mostly concerned with here, in this sub-theme of ‘people and architecture’, is a swathe of architectural concerns around the relational and aspirational dimensions: relating with or to people in two distinct ways.

To put this into a more conventional ‘enterprise’-architecture context, take any single row from the Zachman framework - a single level of abstraction. Then tweak its ‘What, How, Where, Who, When, Why’ columns a bit so that we can use terms that actually make sense in real-world practice; and then add the tetradian-dimensions into the mix. What we end up with is the ‘single-row extended-Zachman’ checklist for service-content – the ‘service-content map’ used in Enterprise Canvas:

Conventional ‘enterprise’-architecture handles most of the ‘virtual’ row very well indeed, for IT-maintained information at least: in other words, data, functions that act on data, virtual-locations such as IP-addresses and the like, algorithms, and information-based events. It handles some of the ‘physical’ row quite well, too: in essence, if it’s an IT-box (physical-asset) or a network-infrastructure (physical-location), it wants to know about it. But to be blunt, conventional ‘EA’ varies between not-much-use, to useless, to worse-than-useless, on just about everything else. Which is a serious limitation – to say the least. (Which is why those of us who want work with whole-enterprise architecture get so darned frustrated with most of what claims to be ‘enterprise’-architecture… though that’s another story for another time.)

Relational-assets are person-to-person links between people; and not only are they non-alienable, but they’re also non-exchangeable – for example, I can’t give you my relationship with my cat, or the postman, or the guy who sells cheese in the nice corner-grocery, or anyone else. (Of course, that blunt fact doesn’t stop businesses trying to claim that they can sell you relationships, as ‘goodwill’ etc, but that’s another story too.) The point is that it’s personal – it doesn’t exist without the person – and it also exists only between individual real-people. So, a relational-function acts on relational-assets; a relational-location indicates some kind of positioning or whatever (such as the dreaded org-chart), relational-events are events that are associated with, well, relational events, and so on. It is all straightforward, once we make the jump to realising that the asset in context is the relation between people – and not the people themselves.

Aspirational-assets are person-to-abstract links – a personal sense of relationship with (or to) something abstract. In the business-context, the obvious example of this is a brand – or rather, a brand-relationship, the personal connection to brand. I’d probably best not go into any more detail here – this is supposed to be just a summary, after all – but one of the key concerns for any business here is the interweaving and trade-off between relational versus aspirational: the former connects with the person (such as an employee), which makes things happen, whilst the latter connects with the organisation, but in itself is too abstract to make anything happen at all. Anyway, long story, another time: leave it for another post, I guess. Get back to the no-plan Plan.

So, last part: architecturally speaking, the capabilities – the ability to actually do something – are always associated with some kind of asset. Some capabilities can be built into machines and software – particularly physical-capabilities and virtual-capabilities respectively. We access that kind of capability via direct access to the respective asset. But when those capabilities reside in a real-person, we can only access the capability indirectly, via a relational-asset and/or aspirational-asset. If the link with that person is lost, so is the capability. And that still applies even if the person is physically present – a condition known as ‘presenteeism’ (or one of the variants of presenteeism, anyway).

To summarise all of this: from a business-perspective, we need all kinds of people around in the enterprise, in a wide variety of roles: customer, employee, prospect, partner, whatever. There are also a whole range of other people-roles – employee-spouse, regulator, tax-auditor, anti-client, whatever – who may either seem irrelevant or we don’t want to know about, but who are in the broader shared-enterprise whether we like or not, and to whom we therefore do need to pay attention as well. All of these are relevant to a whole-enterprise architecture: and the key means by which we can model what goes on in our architecture in relation to people is through modelling those relational links – the relational- and aspirational-assets.

Okay, stop there: more for another time – a lot more, as you can see. But that’s the overall set of themes for now, anyway.

Comments, anyone?

Okay, I’ve moved on to a different garden: what next? What’s the plan?

Uh… probably that ‘The Plan’ is that there isn’t one? In fact that’s the whole point?

(Or, if you simply must have a plan, I could paraphrase a former colleague and say that the plan is to not have a specific plan.)

Why? Simple reason, really: the purpose of a plan is to control something. And since ‘control’ is itself little more than a rather forlorn myth – especially in this kind of context – then it really doesn’t make sense to have a plan, because ‘control’ doesn’t make sense either.

I do have a sense of the direction I’m headed, though. Call that ‘a plan’, if you like. Sort-of.

It’s still enterprise-architecture. But a much bigger view of enterprise-architecture than you’d normally see associated with that term.

[As an aside, one of the joys of this shift is that I won't have to waste any more time arguing with the IT-obsessed and, now, the business-obsessed, about their misuse of the term 'enterprise-architecture'. I know it's wrong, they know it's wrong, everyone knows it's wrong, and just about everyone knows the damage that that term-hijack is causing, too. But hey, if they really need to keep on 'pissin' in the pool', best to just leave 'em to it, I guess. At least when you come here, you do know that when I talk about 'enterprise architecture', I do mean 'enterprise', and 'architecture', and the way they fit together - and not some piddling point about how two IT-boxes talk to each other. Unless we do need to talk about that. Which we do sometimes, of course. ]

What I’m really aiming at is the architecture of the biggest enterprise we have: the human enterprise. All of it. Which takes place within a broader ecosystem, usually referred to as ‘this planet’ or suchlike. Which is, yes, kinda big…

[In Twitter and elsewhere I'll use the hashtag #rbpea to indicate this type of 'Really-Big-Picture Enterprise-Architecture'.]

Why? It’s because I can see there are some big, big, BIG architecture-type questions that just about no-one else seems to have addressed so far, if at all. Or even noticed, in most cases. Kind of ‘oops…’, if you like. A very big ‘oops…’.

Which means that someone needs to be doing something about that ‘very big oops…’. And I look around, and I can’t see anyone else doing it, or putting their hand up to do it. Which, uh, kinda suggests that it’s my turn to do something about it. Yikes… Yeah, kinda challenging, coming face to face with that…

It doesn’t mean I’ll necessarily be much good at it: others would probably be a lot better for this than I am, no doubt about that. But it’s clear that someone needs to hold the fort for now: and right now that ‘someone’ seems to be me. Oh well…

I certainly don’t claim to have ‘the Answers’; at the moment I’d barely claim to have more than a few good questions. But at least it’s something. And I do have some relevant skills and experience, so in that sense I do have some ’response-ability’ here. Hence, in that sense, my responsibility.

So that’s the ‘plan’, really: be responsible. See what I see, hear what I hear, feel what I feel, and then literally ‘be response-able’ about that. Be like Wangari Maathai’s hummingbird – or perhaps, in my case, more like a weary, wary old toad – just doing the best I can.

Not a big plan. Not a complicated plan, with a nice big complicated roadmap from ‘as-is’ to ‘to-be’ and crop-circles an’ all that, like what all those real, proper certififificateded enterprise-architects do.

But a plan. Sort-of.

Hmm…

There’s one part of this plan, though, that a fair few people may not like – and I perhaps ought to apologise for that in advance. (Though might be better to just stop apologising for everything anyway?) It’s just that being responsible also means being honest: and being honest about what I see is going to annoy a few folks – because to be blunt there are a heck of a lot of ideas and actions out there that are just plain dumb. Stupid: the definitely-not-a-good-idea kind of stupid. Often the darn-lucky-if-we-survive-this-one kind of really stupid, too. Sorry, but it’s true.

One example of that kind of ‘really-stupid’ is the notion of ‘rights‘, which just does not and cannot work, no matter how much people try to kludge to make it it look as if it does. It’s bullshit: it’s a ‘kiddies-anarchy’ view of the world, built around evasion of any notion of responsibility. And we need to stop pretending that it’s anything more than that – so that we then do have a chance to rebuild something that actually can and does work.

Ditto the entirety of what’s laughably called ‘economics‘. Ditto the whole notion of ‘intellectual property’ – or most any current form of so-called ‘property’, for that matter. Ditto, behind it, the entire concept of ‘possession‘. All of us know it’s all bullshit, a made-up fantasy to prop up the pretences of people whose idea of ‘making a living’ consists almost entirely of untrammelled theft – an ‘economy’ based on theft-without-end. Gosh: that’s an ‘economy’??? – doesn’t look like one to me… not in any sane sense of ‘economy’ that I’ve ever heard of, anyway… So why not say so? – before we really do all end up in drowning in this bullshit?

Sigh.

In that old fable of ‘the Emperor has no clothes’, it’s a naive kid that unknowingly calls everyone’s bluff, by saying the truth about what he see. But I’ve come to realise that in reality it isn’t some innocent kid: it’s a grumpy old toad like me. Which means that sometimes – often, perhaps – some people ain’t gonna like what I say about what I see. Too bad. Sorry, ’bout that, but there ’tis: there are only two choices here – it’s either be honest, or don’t bother, and from now on I’m a lot clearer about which one of those two I need to pick.

One thing I won’t do is put anyone else down. I’ll challenge the bullshit whenever I see it, and challenge hard about it at times (and expect others to challenge me about that, too): but it’ll always be about the ideas, the thinking, the action – not the person. I promise you that. So if you find yourself ‘taking it personally’ about something I’ve said, please look closely at yourself first, and before you come out all-guns-blazing at me – because it’s in that ‘taking it personal’ that you’re most likely to learn the most, and most likely to find out who you truly are.

Anyway, down to it. That’s the plan, sort-of. And yes, there’s a lot to do – and a lot to talk about with you, too, if you wish?

You what? “Say no to women’s rights” – you’re kiddin’ me, right? What kind of misogynistic claptrap is this…?!?

I’ll admit it: I’m being deliberately provocative here. (Did get your attention, though, didn’t it?  And don’t forget I did warn you that what I’m doing these days could be a lot more challenging for many folks? – well, this is what that looks like.  )

So cool it, okay? Calm down. It’s almost certainly not what you might think I’m saying. And don’t panic: ultimately this is more about a practical design-issue in ‘big-picture’ enterprise-architectures than about anything else. Serious, sure: but not misogynistic. Honest.

It’s true that there are specific problems around all closed-category ‘rights’ such as purported ‘women’s rights’ and the like – and I promise I’ll come back to those later. But that isn’t the real point here anyway. The real point is this: the whole concept of ‘rights’ could well be one of the most disastrous mistakes that humans have ever made. And we need to find a way back out from that mistake if we’re ever to achieve some kind of sustainable society.

In terms of well-meant stupidity, the notion of ‘rights’ is right up there with the toffee spear [thank you Terry Pratchett!] and the lead balloon: it doesn’t work, it’s never worked, in fact can’t work, because its cause of failure is built right into its very roots. Scrambled misunderstandings and misuses of the notion of ‘rights’ represent a huge failure-risk, right at the roots of all of our current ‘really-big-picture enterprise-architectures’. And to be blunt, the concept of ‘rights’ is so riddled with calamitous unintended-consequences that we really need to remove it, totally and permanently, from every aspect of every law in every land.

An assertion to which, at present, you might well disagree.

Which is fair enough, of course.

But perhaps allow me to explain?

(And yes, as usual, this is going to be a bit long… but I think you’ll find it worthwhile.)

Read more…

When I said I was moving on, in the previous post ‘Time for this on toad to move on‘, yes, I was serious: I’m moving out of mainstream ‘enterprise’-architecture.

Am I giving up? No, not at all.

Am I actually leaving the entire enterprise-architecture domain? Nope. (Sorry to disappoint a few folks there, but you’ll just have to put up with that. )

So what exactly am I doing, then?

All I’m doing here, metaphorically speaking, is that I’m moving along the road a bit: a few metaphoric houses up the road, if you like. Similar sort of work to what I’ve always done, in many ways, but a much bigger picture this time. A much bigger picture. I’m not going to be looking (much) at the ‘enterprise’-architecture of some small bits of detail-level IT any more: I’ll be looking at the ‘enterprise-architecture’ of the whole darn planet…

Arrogant sucker, ain’t I?

In a way, yeah, of course it is, to say something like that. But if you look around on this blog and elsewhere, in effect that’s what I’ve already been doing, for years. All that’s really different now is that I’m making it a bit more explicit.

And to be blunt, looking around a bit, it really does feel as if I’m one of the few people anywhere who has a freakin’ clue about what’s really going on out there (answer: an MQ-9 mythquake [kind of like a worldwide Richter-9 earthquake, only worse]), what chance we have to stop it (answer: none at all), what won’t work (answer: just about everything we might think of as ‘normal’ or ‘business-as-usual’), and what might work (very-tentative-suggested-answer: something on the lines of a responsibility-based service-oriented enterprise model for a global economics, with systematic eradication of any concept of possession – including all concept of ‘rights’ – and total restructure of every possible aspect of politics at every level. In other words, just a few minor changes here and there… ). Seems like there might be a real need, then, for someone with my kind of background in futures, social-dynamics, skills-development, creativity, complexity, innovation, sensemaking and strategy, across a whole swathe of different companies, climates, cultures and continents. Oh, and there’s also enterprise-architectures, of course: reckon that might possibly be useful, too.

Yes: a real big need for that.

Kind of a big anti-want for it, though.

A very big anti-want.

Oh well.

But no problem, really. Do I think I can make a living out of it? Nope, of course not: I’m not that crazy. But I’m not making any kind of viable living out of enterprise-architecture, either, so what’s the difference? As long as I can pay my way somehow in this increasingly-insane ‘economic system’, that’s all I’ll need. And given that I’ve survived somehow for all these years, without ever having suffered the indignity of being a so-called ‘permanent’ employee, I reckon I’ll manage to keep going for a while yet. Somehow. Doesn’t really matter that I don’t know how: the way things are going, pretty soon no concept of a ‘plan’ is going to make sense any more, so perhaps I’m just getting in early to beat the rush?

Yeah, sure it’s lonely at times: I don’t have any real support at all, no family, no partner since literally decades ago, and at my age pretty unlikely ever again. Good: it means that there’s no-one else to get hurt on my behalf if I screw things up.

Sure it’s scary, desperately insecure: I don’t even have a home of my own any more. Good: nothing particularly to lose, then; nothing of that kind that can be used as leverage against me. And I can just up-sticks and go anywhere that I’m needed. Easy. (In principle, anyway… )

I’m useless at organising anything, events, stuff like that. Good: instead of desperately pretending that I can do everything myself, let other people do that stuff instead – they’re much better at it than I’ve ever been or ever will be. Just do my part of the work, and let others get on with theirs. Simple. (Interesting challenges on trust, of course… )

Turn every obstacle into an opportunity. Live this stuff that I’ve been talking about: rather than ‘making a living’, much better to go for ‘making a life’.

Crazy? Sure. Of course it is: never said it wasn’t. But then I come out of a family-background with a long anarchist-style tradition (of the more constructive if occasionally-quixotic Quaker variety, rather than the brainless bomb-throwing kind), and it’s about time I put those principles into real-world practice. Time to give something back – especially as, at age 60, I probably don’t have that many years left in which to do so. That fact matters, a lot. It also brings its own rather interesting sense of urgency…

So what does all this mean, in plain, ordinary, everyday terms?

Various things I won’t be doing:

1. I won’t do any more work here on detail-layer analysis of IT-oriented ‘enterprise’-architecture such as TOGAF or Archimate (unless anyone specifically asks me for an opinion or whatever).
2. I won’t be presenting myself for any more contract-work as an ‘enterprise-architect’. (I’ll still be available to do spot-work commercial consultancy or training for most types of EA, in just about any industry that isn’t finance, banking or insurance – but I will expect to get paid for that, every time.)
3. I won’t offer any more ‘free’ advice on enterprise-architecture or whatever to people who can darn well afford to pay for it. (I’ll still be more than happy to help anyone in any other way – especially any of the upcoming ‘new generation’ of enterprise-architects.)
4. I probably won’t be going to any more ‘enterprise’-architecture conferences, not least because I won’t be able to afford it (unless someone pays at least my expenses, of course).
5. I won’t pander any more to people who to me seem arrogant, bullying, unwilling to think, and otherwise acting in an asinine or irresponsible manner (and yes, there’s been a lot of them I’ve put up with way too often over the past few years…)

Various things I will be doing:

1. I will be doing a lot more research and exploration on ‘big-picture’ themes, developing new types of tools and techniques to tackle those issues in a much more constructive way than as at present; and working with others to develop new toolsets and training-materials for these needs. (It’d be nice if someone else paid for some of that work, but being realistic I wouldn’t expect it, unless anyone else that I’m working with is getting paid for it too.)
2. I will be doing various types of consultancy-work with non-profits, citizen-groups and other organisations that are reaching towards a more constructive world. (Again, it’d be nice if I got paid to do some of that, but I’d only expect it from commercial organisations or government bodies, who should be able to afford to subsidise some of that other work at least.)
3. I will show the EA community and others how to apply those ideas, tools and techniques, within the conventional business context, such as with Enterprise Canvas and the like. (It would likewise be nice if sometimes people would at least offer to pay some of my expenses for doing this, but I do acknowledge that there are too many of us already in this same boat that I am with regard to ‘real-EA’.)
4. I probably will be going to a wide variety of conferences and other gatherings on broader-scope societal-change topics. (As ever, the real limit here will be my probable near-nonexistent income: so if you really want me at your gathering, please do find some way to subsidise my travel-expenses at least.)
5. Much of my work and writing will be a lot more ‘political’ and challenging for a lot more folks: in which case, sorry, but that’s just too bad, because none of us can afford to tolerate outright irresponsibility and abuse any more. (I am very clear about what is and is not abuse in the social context, by the way: see the ‘manifesto‘ on that, from my book Power and Response-ability.)

So that’s it: getting down to work in a different garden – a garden that’s a rather better fit, than that of current mainstream ‘enterprise’-architecture, for this admittedly somewhat-strange kind of toad.

Comments / suggestions / requests, anyone?