TimeForEvolution
The development characteristics of traditional companies create a tight coupling of products and or services to company resources deployed in a series of multiple overlays; multiple managers and projects for each product or service and resource overlay; and organizational structures made up of groups performing similar functions. Specific management departments have their own proprietary approach to company management and this creates multiple administrative domains with poor interoperability between them.
Sum up all of these independent resource consuming partial solutions and we have a patchwork landscape and environment that is inefficient to travel, complex and expensive to maintain. Company management involves many processes, procedures, tools for internal reorganizations, block detection, performance monitoring, security, accounting, billing, all within a boss-employee relationships between management and regular employees. Techies in such companies have only basic development functionality with little ability to control activities or make determinations beyond the scope of technical system development. Operations performs the bulk of the work, processing raw data coming from employees, making determinations and instructing each individual employee which actions to take. This skewed relationship is inefficient in a number of ways: there is little sharing of thinking resources because the types of employees were designed independently.
Also, each management function in a traditional company, like financial, HR, development, has their own way of working and human staff and their own performance requirements. Company management functions must know each employee and his or her preferences on an individual basis which imposes additional time and complexity when introducing more agile ways of working.
On top of that, company management departments were designed to support corporations and organizations or development teams at a particular point in time to work with contemporary technology. Each organization did this independently (in good spirit of the not-invented-here-syndrom) and nobody seemed to concern themselves with system level interweaving. Data related to a particular department or function and to a particular management line were integrated throughout the network (or not!), causing a major synchronization problem in turn making evolving products or services, company technologies and company management processes virtually impossible to do in a cost-effective, timely and competitive manner.
In the future, evolutionary agile value nets can provide manageable flexibility points between value net, receivable deliverables, technologies and organizational & business structures. Each aspect is likely to evolve at its own independent rate:
Receivable deliverables:
- Enabling new service deployment within both the environments of net and net management service.
- Promoting agile systems activation.
- Efficient management and distribution of data throughout the net
- Elimination of physical overlay now needed for service and resource deployment and associated management systems
- Reducing operations cost
- Enhancing flexibility of management environment
- Providing receivable deliverables in a competitive and timely way
Agile systems can facilitate each evolutionary step without necessitating a complete business redesign and reorganization. Refactoring works to guide the evolution of existing management environments to an advanced infrastructure enabling companies to survive and satisfy their long term requirements for agile systems and organizational change.
-- NynkeEtkFokma, February 2004*
Modified by j21104.upc-j.chello.nl
The development characteristics of traditional companies create a tight coupling of products and or services to company resources deployed in a series of multiple overlays; multiple managers and projects for each product or service and resource overlay; and organizational structures made up of groups performing similar functions. Specific management departments have their own proprietary approach to company management and this creates multiple administrative domains with poor interoperability between them.
Sum up all of these independent resource consuming partial solutions and we have a patchwork landscape and environment that is inefficient to travel, complex and expensive to maintain. Company management involves many processes, procedures, tools for internal reorganizations, block detection, performance monitoring, security, accounting, billing, all within a boss-employee relationships between management and regular employees. Techies in such companies have only basic development functionality with little ability to control activities or make determinations beyond the scope of technical system development. Operations performs the bulk of the work, processing raw data coming from employees, making determinations and instructing each individual employee which actions to take. This skewed relationship is inefficient in a number of ways: there is little sharing of thinking resources because the types of employees were designed independently.
Also, each management function in a traditional company, like financial, HR, development, has their own way of working and human staff and their own performance requirements. Company management functions must know each employee and his or her preferences on an individual basis which imposes additional time and complexity when introducing more agile ways of working.
On top of that, company management departments were designed to support corporations and organizations or development teams at a particular point in time to work with contemporary technology. Each organization did this independently (in good spirit of the not-invented-here-syndrom) and nobody seemed to concern themselves with system level interweaving. Data related to a particular department or function and to a particular management line were integrated throughout the network (or not!), causing a major synchronization problem in turn making evolving products or services, company technologies and company management processes virtually impossible to do in a cost-effective, timely and competitive manner.
In the future, evolutionary agile value nets can provide manageable flexibility points between value net, receivable deliverables, technologies and organizational & business structures. Each aspect is likely to evolve at its own independent rate:
Technology:
- Efficient management and distribution of data throughout the net
- Elimination of physical overlay now needed for service and resource deployment and associated management systems.
- Enabling new service deployment within both the environments of net and net management service.
- Promoting agile systems activation.
- Reducing operations cost
- Enhancing flexibility of management environment
- Providing receivable deliverables in a competitive and timely way
As an example of a simple system that works, below diagram from PascalVanCauwenberghe and VeraPeeters representing triple loop learning in XP:
And evolving from that are agile systems facilitating each evolutionary step without necessitating a complete business reframing. Refactoring works to guide the evolution of existing management environments to an advanced infrastructure enabling companies to survive and satisfy their long term requirements for agile systems and organizational change.
-- NynkeEtkFokma, February 2004, updated November 2004*
Modified by 222.222.243.138
The evolution of sense is, in a sense, the evolution of nonsense. -- Vladimir Nabokov
Attractions and repellings of individuals form the webs and meshes that connect people within groups, communities and organizations, (SatirChangeModel) and forge the rise and fall of nations and cultures. Future self-organizing webs orchestrate interactions between all players. The scale of the economic changes that agile products can trigger can change the relative effect of players and whole markets. This is perhaps an effect of Moore's Law where new qualitative patterns are facilitated by order of magnitude changes in economics and scale ...
The development characteristics of traditional companies create a tight coupling of products and or services to company resources deployed in a series of multiple overlays; multiple managers and projects for each product or service and resource overlay; and organizational structures made up of groups performing similar functions. As a result, specific management departments seem to have their own proprietary approach to company management and multiple administrative domains appear with poor interoperability between them.
Sum up all of these independent resource consuming partial solutions and we have a patchwork landscape and environment that is inefficient to travel, complex and expensive to maintain. Company management involves many processes, procedures, tools for internal reorganizations, block detection, performance monitoring, security, accounting, billing, all within boss-employee relationships between management and other employees. Techies in such companies receive only basic development responsibility with little ability to control techie activities or make determinations beyond the scope of technical system development. Operations performs the bulk of the work, processing raw information coming from employees, making determinations and instructing each individual employee which actions to take.
This skewed relationship is inefficient in a number of ways: there is little exchange between employees of a type because the types of employees were "designed" independently. Also, each management function, like financial, HR, development, has their own way of working and human staff and their own performance requirements. When introducing more agile ways of working, management functions would have to know each employee and his or her preferences on an individual basis which imposes additional time and complexity.
Already a seemingly hard transformation if one wishes for more agile operation of a traditional corporation, what can makes it appear totally impossible is when one realizes management departments were designed to support corporations and organizations or development teams at a particular point in time to work with contemporary technology. Most organizations suffered from the not invented here syndrome and did this independently and nobody seemed to concern themselves with system level interweaving. Information related to a particular department or function and to a particular management line were integrated throughout the network (or not!), causing major synchronization problems.
Reading a recognizable corporate story like this may make evolving products or services, company technologies and company management processes in a cost-effective, timely and focused manner appear downright impossible to do. Yet, in the not to far future, I expect an evolutionary agile web architecture to provide manageable flexibility points between web, services and products, technologies and corporate organizational structures.
Service/product aspects:
- Enabling new service deployment and products within both the environments of web and web management service.
- Promoting agile activation.
- Efficient management and distribution of data throughout the web
- Elimination of physical overlay companies now needed for service and resource deployment and associated management systems
- Reducing operations cost
- Enhancing flexibility of management environment
- Providing services and products in a competitive and timely way
Agile web architectures can facilitate each evolutionary step without necessitating a complete company redesign and reorganization. Refactoring can work to guide the evolution of existing management environments to an advanced infrastructure enabling companies to survive and satisfy their long term requirements for agile systems and organizational change.
As an example of a simple system that works, below diagram from PascalVanCauwenberghe and VeraPeeters representing triple loop learning in XP:
-- NynkeEtkFokma, February 2004, updated November 2004