Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Scribbles / writing’

MQ-5: Money Makes The World Go Round? (‘Mythquake’ series)

May 12th, 2010 No comments

More on the Mythquake book-project – a book I’ll probably never have time to finish, so here I’m handing it over to whoever might like to take it up.

In the previous chapter, ‘MQ-4: Whoever you voted for…‘, we moved into the level of mythquakes that most people would probably notice within their everyday lives, with politics as the given example. Note, though, that most politics is only a level-4 or thereabouts: despite all of the pretensions of importance, most of it is really little more than arguing about the position of a single deckchair on the Titanic, and for most people, not much – if anything – of real significance will change with each change of government. But here at MQ-5 we do start to get into realms of significant damage, and that do start to affect most people whenever there’s some kind of breakdown – a catastrophic collapse of over-extended assumptions. The example I’ve used here is the comfortably-complacent ‘certainties’ of current economics – and particularly the notion that ‘economics’ is solely synonymous with money.

(Another general aside: yes, we’re currently in the midst of yet another ‘Global Financial Crisis’, and for some countries – and certainly for many individuals – the impacts are occasionally rippling upward in impacts to what might seem like MQ-6 or even MQ-7 levels. But in practice, much of the talk of ‘crisis’ is little more than arguing about what to do about a single broken deckchair on the Titanic: it still doesn’t address any of the deeper issues, and history makes it plain that this is merely the current expression of a regular boom/bust cycle – a repeated pattern of mythquakes that point to much deeper and much more serious fault-lines in the structure of our everyday reality.)

This chapter contains the following sections [all notes-only]:

  • Managing the household
  • A monetary mismatch
  • Back to barter?

Book-development notes are shown in italics inside square-brackets, [like this]. Further commentary on the development-notes is in ordinary type inside curly-braces, {like this}.

MQ-5: Money makes the world go round?

Richter 5: Moderate earthquake. May cause slight damage to well-constructed buildings, but can cause major damage to poorly-constructed buildings. Equivalent to around thirty kilotons of TNT (Nagasaki atomic bomb). Around two to three per day.

Mercalli V: Doors swing open or closed; small objects move; liquid may spill from open containers; almost everyone feels movement; sleepers awake.

Mercalli VI: People have trouble walking; everyone feels movement; objects fall from shelves; furniture moves; trees and bushes shake; windows break, plaster walls may crack, other non-structural damage in poorly-constructed buildings.

Read more…

MQ-4: Whoever You Voted For… (‘Mythquake’ series)

May 12th, 2010 No comments

More on the Mythquake book-project. As mentioned in previous posts, this is a book that I’ve been trying to write for more than ten years, but it’s time to accept it ain’t gonna happen – not from me, anyway. So I’m placing these ideas up in the blogosphere in the hope that someone else can use them: attribution would be nice, but it’s not essential. :-)

In the previous chapter, ‘MQ-3: I am what I do‘, we’ve started to move beyond mythquakes that have only a small localised impacts, and into contexts where the mythic breakdown hits a lot more people – and hurts a lot more, too. So when we get to the next level, MQ-4, people in general will definitely begin to notice when this kind of mythquake comes to town – and will often complain about it as a group rather than solely as individuals. Which brings us into the realm of politics – or rather, what is most commonly described as ‘politics’, because in a sense everything is political.

(Note for Brits at this time: yes, this happens to be posted in the midst of the aftermath of a particularly mythquake-full general election – a ‘hung parliament’ and all that. [There are some who would say that all parliaments should be hung, in one sense or another, but given the inanity of the times, the detail of that is perhaps best left unsaid. :-) ] Consider this juxtaposition to be no more than an amusing coincidence: there’s always somewhere in the world that’s dealing with this specific type of mythquake at any given time.)

This chapter contains the following sections [all notes-only]:

  • …the government got in
  • Tweedledum and Tweedledee
  • The structure of power

Book-development notes are shown in italics inside square-brackets, [like this]. Further commentary on the development-notes is in ordinary type inside curly-braces, {like this}.

MQ-4: Whoever you voted for…

Richter 4: Light earthquake. Noticeable shaking of indoor items; rattling noises; significant damage unlikely. Equivalent to one kiloton of TNT (smallest nuclear bombs). Around fifteen to twenty per day.

Mercalli IV: Dishes, windows and doors rattle; parked cars rock; trees may shake; most people indoors feel movement, as do some outdoors.

Read more…

MQ-3: I Am What I Do (‘Mythquake’ series)

May 11th, 2010 No comments

More on the Mythquake book-project. This is a book that I’ve been brewing for perhaps a decade, but accept that I will probably never have time to write, so I’m placing these ideas up in the blogosphere in the hope that someone else will pick ‘em up and run with them.

The previous chapter, ‘MQ-2: The Centre of the Universe‘, we looked at some relatively-minor everyday mythquakes whose impact is usually localised and transitory – such as a two-year-old’s temper-tantrum at broken expectations, and the perhaps even more bizarre emotion associated with expectations around competitive sports. But here we move up into territory where the mythquakes are rather more noticeable, becoming less localised, with impacts that are less transitory and often quite a bit more severe. This levels seems typified by a whole class of mythquakes that can arise whenever we confuse “who I am” with “what I do”.

This chapter contains the following sections [all notes-only]:

  • Doing life
  • The end of the world

Book-development notes are shown in italics inside square-brackets, [like this]. Further commentary on the development-notes is in ordinary type inside curly-braces, {like this}.

MQ-3: I am what I do

Richter 3: Minor earthquake. Often felt but rarely causes damage. Equivalent to around thirty tonnes of TNT (largest conventional bombs). Around one to two hundred per day.

Mercalli III: Shaking felt indoors, though often not outdoors; hanging objects swing back and forth.

Read more…

MQ-2: The Centre Of The Universe (‘Mythquake’ series)

May 5th, 2010 No comments

More on the Mythquake book-project.

The previous chapter, ‘MQ-1: Everyday Upsets‘, introduced the basic idea of mythquakes as a mismatch between our expectations and the actual reality. Here we start to explore what happens when we say that it’s reality, and not our expectations, that are ‘wrong’. The first place (or perhaps most obvious place) where this begins to happen is in early childhood – the dreaded stage of the ‘terrible twos’. But that’s only the beginning… and some dangerous habits can also be instilled at this stage, which cause much more serious problems later in life, for everyone.

This chapter contains the following sections:

  • The terrible twos [mostly complete]
  • Winners and losers [notes only]
  • Sibling rivalry [notes only]

Book-development notes are shown in italics inside square-brackets, [like this]. Further commentary on the development-notes is in ordinary type inside curly-braces, {like this}.

MQ-2: The centre of the universe

Richter 2: Very minor earthquake. Recorded but rarely felt. Equivalent to around one tonne of TNT. Around one thousand per day.

Mercalli II: A few people notice movement, if they are at rest or in the upper floors of tall buildings.

Read more…

MQ-1: Everyday Upsets (‘Mythquake’ series)

May 5th, 2010 No comments

More on the Mythquake book-project. This and the next few posts in this series will work their way up the scale of mythquake severity, from MQ-1 (trivial everyday stuff) to MQ-9 (total destruction).

My last attempt to get restarted on Mythquake was way back in January 2007. This chapter was complete back then, so I’ll post it here in its entirety. This version of the book was aimed at the self-development market, so again it’s deliberately personalised (in fictional form, I ought to add), and with questions to invite self-reflection and self-challenge. If someone else wants to take over the project, a more formal/conventional approach might work better these days.

There’s only one section in this chapter:

  • The litany of complaint

The term ‘litany’ is adapted from Sohail Inayatullah’s futures/foresight tool Causal Layered Analysis (“poststructuralism as method”): ‘the litany’ is the topmost of the four layers in scope for futures-assessment.

As you’d expect, this chapter is several pages long, so I’ll start with the intro here, and then put in a ‘Read more…’ link before the rest of the text.

MQ-1: Everyday upsets

Richter 1: Microearthquake. Background ‘noise’; barely identifiable. Equivalent to around ten to thirty kilograms of TNT (typical quarry explosives). Tens of thousands per day.

Mercalli I: Vibrations are recorded by instruments; people do not feel any earth-movement.

Read more…

Mythquake (an Introduction to an unfinished book)

May 3rd, 2010 3 comments

Mythquake is a book I’ve been trying to write for well over a decade, and I guess it’s time I accepted that I probably never will: I’ve kinda moved on from there onto other things, and my heart just isn’t in it any more.

Yet the underlying ideas seem, if anything, to be even more urgent today than they were back then. So it seems worthwhile to summarise those ideas in a short blog-series – will be either 11 or 12 posts in all, including this one. (I’ll add cross-references between the posts when they’re all up on this site.)

A quick bit of history first, then back to the core theme.

Way back in the late-1980s, I was asked by one of my publishers to write a book for the then very-active self-development field: the exact brief was “we want a book for the self-help market that doesn’t insult the intelligence”. The end-result was Positively Wyrd, which used the old Nordic concept of wyrd to explore the core theme of “there’s always a choice, but there’s always a twist”. It even sold quite well, for a while, and still has a fair spread of fans – all of them happily wyrd, of course. :-)

That book focussed on the personal layer; there was a sequel – Wyrd Allies – which came out in the early 1990s and which explored the interpersonal layer; and there was supposed to be a third in the series, called Wyrd World, which should have looked at the transpersonal layer, but courtesy of the usual life-chaos I never did get round to writing it.

One very good friend, Linda Moore Gentile, continued to badger me for years about this gap in the trilogy, until I literally woke up one morning with the word mythquake ringing through my mind.

There’s a direct analogy between what happens physically when the earth moves beneath our feet, and what happens socially when the fabric of stories that underlies our society and milieu undergoes any kind of change. Hence the metaphor of a mythquake, as a personal or societal equivalent of an earthquake.

The idea worked well, but the writing didn’t, and each time I tried to make it work, I quickly found that I was writing myself into a corner. Trying to force-fit one new idea with an older one probably didn’t help, either. I’ve probably made half a dozen attempts to get restarted, but it’s time to accept that it ain’t gonna happen. I can’t write it: but perhaps someone else can. That’s my hope here, anyway.

So here it is.

(I wrote this particular version of the text to line up with the Wyrd series, so in part it’s still somewhat written for that market, with direct questions and the like – but that’s just detail. I’d much prefer you to look at the ideas behind the surface text, because I believe they’ll be very useful as we head into what are clearly going to be turbulent times.)

The current chapters are as follows:

The following is the full content of the first chapter, which introduces the idea of ‘mythquakes’. The subsequent posts in the series will describe or summarise some example sources of mythquakes, each of increasing intensity; the final post will discuss the need and the options for ‘mythquake preparedness’.

More after the ‘Read more…’ link here, anyway: the text starts with the ‘Fractured stories’ heading.

Read more…

Notes on ‘Business Anarchist’

March 5th, 2010 3 comments

Several people have asked me for more information about the book I’m writing at present, ‘The Business Anarchist‘, so here’s a quick summary of the themes and structure.

Who or what is a ‘business-anarchist‘? Anyone who works with inherent uncertainty in business in an intentional, disciplined way – working with the uncertainty rather than trying to ‘control’ it. Often it’s not so much a person as part of a business-role – a necessary part of that business-role. (Most of the examples in the book will come from my own field of whole-of- enterprise architecture, but the same principles apply in just about every other type of business-role.)

Why ‘anarchist’? Anarchy is about working without rules, working ‘outside the box’. When ‘business as usual’ breaks down, a disciplined form of anarchy is probably the only way through to something new that works well in the new business context.

‘Kiddies-anarchy’ and real anarchy: Anarchy has had a very bad press in the past, mainly because of what I describe as ‘kiddies-anarchy’ – an overdose of presumed ‘rights’ without responsibilities, especially in terms of causing disruption and destruction without any awareness or respect of the consequences for anyone else. Real anarchy is very different – arguably the most difficult of all political forms, because there are no easy rules to fall back on or to blame. Some entire organisations have been run on anarchic lines – the Quakers have done so for centuries – and even some businesses – such as Ricardo Semler’s Semco Group – but here we’re mainly focussing on an often-unnoticed yet everyday set of roles and responsibilities within an ordinary, everyday type of business.

What kind of business? Any business, and any type of business – for-profit, not-for-profit, government or social – from a huge global conglomerate right down to the local bridge-club or the school parent/teacher association.

Business-analyst and business-anarchist: Business-analysts deal with certainty and predictability: they refine the figures, crunch the numbers, track the trends. When your business world is reasonably stable, you need your analysts to help you optimise efficiency and maximise returns. But when your business world is not certain, not predictable, that’s when you’ll need your anarchists. And you’ll need your anarchists then, too. Your analysts can only tell you how to do more of the same, better – which is good, of course, in its own context, but it doesn’t help when what you really need to do is something different.

What’s different about how business-anarchists work? The quickest one-line answer is that analysts rely on rules and algorithms; anarchists rely on guidelines and principles.

What principles should business-anarchists rely on? Obviously this varies from one context to another, but from my work in whole-of-enterprise architecture the three most important design-principles seem to be these:

  • There are no rules;
  • There are no rights; and
  • Money doesn’t matter.

These three principles, and a fourth follow-on principle, Always enhance adaptability, provide the overall structure for the book.

There are no rules: Rules provide a spurious sense of certainty that can let us down badly when our business-world changes around us. The real world is much messier and more complex than any system of rules that we could devise. Hence at times it’s necessary to start off from the assumption and expectation that there are no rules: instead, we have to rewrite the rule-book, by working back to the core-principles from which the rules originally arose. A simple everyday business-example of this is embedded in the ISO-9000 standard on quality-systems:  work-instructions provide ‘the rules’ that we need for real-time practice and process, but when the world changes, we need to rewrite the work-instructions by working upward to procedure, policy and, if necessary, overall vision.

There are no rights: ‘Rights’ are an important social fiction, but as with rules, they don’t actually exist in the real world, and in themselves they tell us almost nothing about how to create the conditions that such ‘rights’ would require. In practice, apparent ‘rights’ arise from mutual, interlocking responsibilities – so it’s those responsibilities, and not the purported ‘rights’, that are where we need to start. This has important implications for business-architecture and enterprise-architecture that will be explored in some depth in the book – for example, we need to ask serious questions about “What do shareholders own?” if they possess all the ‘rights’ for the business but without any real responsibilities.

Money doesn’t matter: Money is important for every business, of course, especially in a commercial context – but as with rules or ‘rights’, it’s not the place where we need to start. Money is also only one small part of the overall economy in which the business operates: reputation, trust, attention and respect all need to exist before any money will be placed on the table. And if we state – or show – that we’re only interested in ‘making money’ from our customers and community, why would anyone want to engage with us? As with other ‘rights’, money is solely a social fiction, and profit is an outcome of being ‘on purpose’ to values: to achieve the profits that we may desire, we first need to start from values, with a values-architecture that describes how we engage with everyone within the extended-enterprise of the business.

Always enhance adaptability: Change is the only certainty: we therefore need to design for that fact. Mistaken notions about rules, rights and money often serve only to slow us down, placing the business at risk as the world changes around us. This sections of the book explores how to embed the ‘business-anarchist’ principles into everyday business-practice, especially in business-architecture and enterprise-architecture.

More details to follow over the next few days, including book-cover, cover-blurb, ISBN numbers and so on. Publication-date is fixed as late-April, so I need to keep moving! :-)

The organization of the Organization

February 20th, 2010 No comments

Had an interesting question come in today from one of my Dutch colleagues, Bas van Gils:

I have to write a document and I’m kinda stuck. Time to ask for some help I’d say :-)

The issue with the document is that I want to make a distinction between ‘the organization as in: “the way in which some system / department / enterprise is organized” and “the organization as in: the legal entity”. I’ve had this issue before and I can’t figure out how to deal with this properly in documents. It just feels awkward to say Organization (with capital) for meaning one and organization (without) for meaning two…

Any thoughts?

This is a real doozy of a problem that really shows up the limitations of English as a language. It’s  hard enough for native English speakers to resolve, let alone those who only use English as a business-language…

I ain’t no linguistics specialist, but as I see it, the respective contexts for the two meanings are as follows:

  • Meaning 1 (‘the way something is organized’): a nounal expression of the verb ‘to organize’, moving from the present-participle (‘organizing’) to the adjectival past-participle (‘organized’) to the verb-as-condition (‘organization’) [there'll be a proper linguistic term for this nounal form, but I haven't a clue what it is :-) ]
  • Meaning 2 (‘the legal entity’): a label for an abstract entity that is structured (‘organized’) in some defined way

To me, Meaning 1 is still more related to the verb, a temporary condition of something dynamic (“the act of organizing”), whereas Meaning 2 is definitely a noun, something static. In Meaning 1, the structure could change – the outcome of a ‘reorganization’ – and it would still be ‘organization’; whereas Meaning 2 is defined and delimited by its legal boundaries, so if those were to change, the previous ‘the organization’ would cease to exist.

[A quick check at AudioEnglish.net throws up a total of seven meanings: Bas's 'Meaning 1' is somewhere between their 1 ("a group of people who work together") and 2 ("an organized structure for arranging or classifying"), whereas Bas's 'Meaning 2' is probably closest to their 3 ("the persons or committees or departments etc who make up a body for the purpose of administering something"). The built-in thesaurus in MS Word isn't much help, either. Overall, it's all too obvious that English is a confusing mess. :-( ]

I would probably try to juggle the phrasing so that I can avoid having to put the two meanings together in the same sentence, but I can see plenty of circumstances in which there’s no way to get round it.

If I did have to use both meanings in the same sentence, without any other option, I might well use Bas’s capitalisation kludge, though I would capitalise Meaning 2 rather than Meaning 1: “the organization of the Organization”. But as Bas says, it’s awkward and ugly: and whilst, to a native English speaker, the alternative uncapitalised “the organization of the organization” would probably be clear enough, it might not make sense to native speakers of other languages.

But as Bas again indicates, it gets messy when we try to distinguish the two meanings once we’ve bundled them together. And going back to the present-participle – “the organizing of the organisation” – is probably uglier still, although technically correct in English.

So the short answer is that I don’t see any easy way round this one. Sorry… :-(

Anyone else have any better suggestions?

Lightning Source lives up to its name

January 23rd, 2009 No comments

A very definite “Thank you” to POD printers Lightning Source, who’ve not only turned round my new book The Service-Oriented Enterprise in the startling time of just under four days from first uploading the initial source-files to the first box of books arriving at my door, but have also just notified me that my ‘low priority’ order for some other books has already been shipped after just two days, and should be with me tomorrow morning.

I’ve always been impressed by their service, but this time they’ve really done me proud. I was afraid I wouldn’t have the books in time before I had to leave for the TOGAF conference next weekend, but I’m now a week ahead of schedule on that. Many thanks.

Recommended.

Quietly busy

January 18th, 2009 1 comment

Apologies, have been a bit quiet of late, whilst recovering from my merry computer-crash (now fixed, with many thanks to the repair-crew at Colchester’s The Computer Shop), and working flat-out trying to finish off the current book – The Service-Oriented Enterprise: enterprise-architecture and viable services – in time to get copies printed for the TOGAF conference in San Diego in two weeks’ time. That means it really has to be be ready to go to press sometime tomorrow – which was asking a lot, since I started this weekend with almost four chapters still to write, and quite a lot of illustrations and other content still to do.

As of right now, that’s been hacked down to less than one chapter to go, and one illustration – though it’ll likely be one of the most difficult of the lot. But still, I do now have a better chance of meeting that deadline than I thought I had two days ago.

More details when it’s all done, anyway.