Moving day…

Ok, folks. DrFuzzy has moved – please visit us over at jbordeaux.com. For good.

 

Well, at least my blog has better hair now

Also it apparently lacks a Y chromosome, is considerably younger, and uses a Mac.  But I suppose the “analysis” that gets me most is this absurd over-the-top silliness:

“Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.”

All courtesy of this place.  Spiffy.

 

What’s next?

First of all, I wish for all a Happy Thanksgiving – despite world events that focus our attention on those under seige.  For myself, I remain the luckiest person I know.

Along those lines, I can’t wait to see what is next for me. On the bright side, my holiday calendar is opening up nicely!

 

A Brief Meeting with My Enterprise Commensal Bacteria

Enjoyed a rather remarkable conversation yesterday.  A gentleman associated with an enterprise social software firm put a question out into the ether regarding adoption of such products.  To be specific, he used Twitter to pose the question.  The “tweet” was then visible to anyone who had already signed up to follow his musings, and anyone who searched for key terms contained in his message.  (To be more interesting, you can establish an RSS feed so that when anyone tweets and uses keywords you care about – you can get an alert.)

This gentleman is in the list of people I follow, and I saw the question.  Paraphrasing:  if we deploy enterprise social software, are we establishing another stovepipe?

I could not resist, and charged in with my response.

“EXACTLY why I’ve been vapor-locked over the adoption of enterprise social software.”

He responded.

“Still major benefits from siloed E2.0, but how to connect it more broadly?”

And then something curious happened.  Another person, who follows my messages, chimed in.

“My issue is that enterprises think, in regards to social software, that their problems are somehow different or distinct.”

At one point, specific questions were posed and direct, thoughtful answers provided.

“web 2.0 silos. Thinking along 2 lines: (1) They’re not connected to anything internally. (2) Many employees not on the sites”

Response:

“(1) They CAN be connected to sites internally (most of them have public APIs & services)” and “(2)The emergent and open nature of Web 2.0 software allows for employees who need the information to join the site as needed.”

From there, the three of us had a conversation that touched on the need for corporate information preservation in the face of litigation, the complex nature of enterprises, and finally the notion that enterprises need to comprehend their role in their own value networks. While connecting people and information within the enterprise is essential, connecting to information generated by your suppliers, customers, partners, competition, etc., is also vital for keeping aware of trends/changes/risks/opportunities.

All of this reminded me of a recent NYT article that discussed commensal bacteria:

“Since humans depend on their microbiome for various essential services, including digestion, a person should really be considered a superorganism, microbiologists assert, consisting of his or her own cells and those of all the commensal bacteria. The bacterial cells also outnumber human cells by 10 to 1, meaning that if cells could vote, people would be a minority in their own body.”

There is no question where my body ends and these bacteria begin, but is it useful and enforce the distinction?  Similarly, is it useful to establish information systems that exclude the people who help us do our job – but who are not employed by our firm?  Understanding how to connect to and collaborate with these colleagues and potential colleagues may be as important as coordinating internally with fellow employees.

All in all, this was a very successful meeting.  Three professionals, from a total of two firms, came together to check assumptions and learn from one another.  We used a Web 2.0 tool outside our firewalls, and there is even a record of our conversation – searchable from any browser.  It took up very little time, as we focused on common questions and ideas.  (There was no status report or financial impact statement on the agenda.)  One of our number had never before interacted with the other two – yet the meeting only contained people interested in the topic.

Oh, and I believe there were others in the meeting, having sidebar conversations as well.  As they could see “our” conversation, they likely offered their own perspectives privately.

If only there were a catchy name for the infrastructure and culture that allowed us to come together like this.

 

What if there were only one regime for classified information?

Today, a security clearance from the Department of Defense still earns you a “Visitor, Escort Required” badge from the Department of Homeland Security. Or most intelligence agencies. The reverse is also true.

The reasons why aren’t important. The organizational histories are reasonable, there are no villians.

However, a systemic view of national security quickly points up the folly of the current patchwork regime, with its redundancy and lack of organizational trust. If we need to share information quickly across the system of national security, then it is time to consider the behaviors that are nothing more than dysfunctional at the system level.

The DoD Information Sharing Strategy speaks of sharing information with unexpected partners, driven by unanticipated events. Perhaps it is time to reconsider also the list of expected partners, due to events that are becoming increasingly anticipated.

 

What if Security reported to Operations?

What if? What if instead of business people being told to justify their plans to security, security had to advise the business regarding the operational impact of their new patches, firewall rules, badging policies, etc?

What if instead of a security audit for operations, there were an operations audit for security?

What if the business people had the last word?  Security would make their case for new restrictions on information flow, advising on the risk rather than deciding to avoid it.  Business then, advised of the risk, can decide upon avoidance, mitigation, or acceptance based on the effect on operations. 

What if the relationship between Operations and Security were reversed? 

I’d like to see what would happen…

 

I’ve been asked to mentor someone in KM

This proves a timely request, as I face termination from my day job due to an inability to convince the Decider that the CKO position is still required and worth the investment. Surrounded by C2 management and fiscal leadership, and subordinated to a CIO who is truly a systems manager rather than an information officer – I am walking away from a company that has been essentially acquired through new leadership.

Meanwhile, I find myself associated with a fascinating public sector project where I am trying to introduce the priniples of complexity and systems science to former SES and uniformed types.

So taking on two challenges where I am trying to succeed as change agent, I am living the quote from the Prince, to the effect that change is resisted by most and half-heartedly embraced by those who are not yet convinced it will succeed.

A return to first principles, then. I’ll here capture what I am learning about each topic, and re-purpose that for mentoring, refreshment, reference, and general archival. Too much is trapped and being lost from my head – I will see if I can use the blog as personal notepad.

3rd time’s a charm.

 

Conquering Complexity

Ok, so I am a few pages into the Michael George book: “Lean Six Sigma for Services.” But I’m putting it down now for good. In the chapter entitled: “The Value in Conquering Complexity,” I am struck with the misuse of the term ‘complexity’ when what is meant is ‘complicated.’ The case study shows that a certain service offering was customized for several hundred clients, each with their own ‘pathway’ towards receiving that service. Mr. George then labels this ‘complexity.’ On the next page, he makes it clear with a parenthetical that defines complexity as “the variety of products and services.”

The failure to understand, or to be less blunt, address, core concepts in organizational theory is striking. Complexity refers to systems (such as Earth, human beings, businesses) whose properties emerge as the system interacts with its environment. A complicated situation as described by multiple customized pathways brings to mind pipes in a boiler room, or network cables under a server room floor. These images can be confusing to the eye, and hard to track, but the relationships are knowable. A complex metaphor moves beyond knowable pathways.

Complex systems defy causality chains. Graph a brainstorming session. What is the exact process by which a team of four professionals gather on a Thai beach and create lasting value? What is the effect of the remote locale, the different food on the cognitive processes within each? What is role of the increased trust network after six weeks swatting bugs and fighting off a rogue monkey? (Read the story, trust me about the monkey.)

This book, and presumably the application of Lean or Six Sigma to services forms, presumes that the findings in organizational theory regarding work being done in the “organizational chart white spaces” represents inefficiencies in human endeavor – not reality. This school of thought apparently holds that the only reason the gossip network is the most reliable form of communication, or the organizational chart rarely represents true power relationships or work networks – is because we have not yet driven humans back to the formal organizational processes.

Believing this is an act of faith that is beyond my abilities. Businesses are actually complex adaptive systems. Wikipedia credits John Holland with this definition:

“A Complex Adaptive System (CAS) is a dynamic network of many agents (which may represent cells, species, individuals, firms, nations) acting in parallel, constantly acting and reacting to what the other agents are doing. The control of a CAS tends to be highly dispersed and decentralized. If there is to be any coherent behavior in the system, it has to arise from competition and cooperation among the agents themselves. The overall behavior of the system is the result of a huge number of decisions made every moment by many individual agents”

Mr. George’s book either ignores the finding that businesses are complex adaptive systems, or he believes that the agents can be made more efficient by mapping how each “gets to Y (results).” I lack the ability to wrap my mind around this, as it violates everything that is known and published regarding CAS. The quality movement is here to stay, and I need to find a way to accommodate those who believe in the LSS silver bullet – while keeping in mind how humans actually work and interact to create value.