Enterprises system-of-systems

This article on enterprises as a system is part of a series that seeks to make Enterprise Architecture ‘plain and simple’.

In exploring what is encompassed within the description of an architecture, the conceptual framework provided by ISO 42010 – Architecture Description is referenced which includes:

• An architecture description expresses an architecture
• A system exhibits an architecture

Enterprise architecture is predicated on the notion of an enterprise being viewed as a system (which exhibits an architecture). This posting explores some of the implications of viewing an enterprise as a system. It is my view that this is an important foundation stone for enterprise architecture, and that there are significant opportunities for enterprise improvement simply through better understanding systems and system principles, without the necessity to understand or change the structure and architecture of an enterprise.

There are a wide range of views in relation to systems and extensive writings and analysis of this topic. I do not pretend to be an expert in this area or to have read widely on the topic. Our understanding of the concept of system is critical to our view of:

• the architecture exhibited by a system
• the approaches available or required to change a system
• the elements to consider and reflect in our architecture descriptions
• the nature and scope of enterprise architecture

In my view, the following are key factors in some of the differing perspectives on enterprise architecture.

• Enterprises are social systems, with most being socio-technical systems
• Enterprises are systems of systems
• Systems are intrinsically tied to our mental models and our use of language

My Journey

My ‘systems architecture’ journey over the last forty years started in the world of operations research as it was applied to improving policing systems. This included being part of a multi-disciplinary group with sociologists, psychologists, demographers, criminologists, statisticians, mathematicians and computing specialists. It included measuring behaviours and modeling systems to inform options for changing systems. In particular, it was an introduction to dynamic systems and their use of mechanistic systems.

During the middle years, my time was spent with designing information systems and IT systems, and acting as a facilitator to help business people understand IT systems and IT people to understand business systems and enterprises. In more recent years, I have started exploring fields such as systems thinking to broaden my understanding and ability to change socio-technical systems more effectively and successfully. This has included reading:

Thinking about Systems – Donnella Meadows
The Fifth Discipline – Peter Senge
The Fractal Organisation – Patrick Hoverstadt
Recreating the Corporation – Russell Ackoff
Beyond Alignment – Applying Systems Thinking in Architecting Enterprises – John Gotze (editor)

Social and socio-technical systems

I have found the definitions of systems provided by Russell Ackoff to be helpful. (If you want to appreciate how many different definitions there are of systems, then you may wish to refer to the Encyclopaedia on Systems and Cybernetics under S and view items 3322 to 3421) Ackoff also provides a classification of systems with respect to whether the parts or whole are purposeful, where a purposeful entity is one which has the capacity to change both ends and means in differing environments (ie it is more than simply having a purpose). This results in the following system classes:

For me, this was quite helpful in appreciating the differences between deterministic systems (in which I have had significant involvement through information systems and IT systems) and social systems. The former are designed and architected by people but do not have people as elements. Whereas the latter are composed of people, and therefore are self-architecting, self-designing, self-organising. This has significant implications for the architecture as it can be changed by any member of the social system.

Socio-technical systems then brings together the notion of social systems (enterprises) and their use of technical systems, being a wide ranging form of machines and technologies, leading into the space of empowering enterprises to realise their goals and aspirations through effective use of technologies, and ICT (information and communication technologies) in particular.

Systems of systems

Another feature of enterprises is that they are systems of systems. I wonder whether there is a tendency to think of this as a hierarchical structure where there is a progressive breakdown of the enterprise into sub-systems, sub-sub-systems, etc, whereas I am conscious that there are a range of overlaying systems, possibly viewed as a mixture of horizontal and vertical systems, but perhaps more appropriately seen as a network of systems and their subsystems.

If nothing else, this warrants careful attention to the ‘system of interest’ in this complex web of systems, such that our discussion and exploration of the exhibited or intended architectures are related to a common entity of interest. Much confusion and debate arises through our different assumptions and perspectives on the nature and focus of the system, and requires us to provide visual aids, examples and supporting narrative to establish common understanding (whether that be amongst different members of an enterprise or amongst EA professionals).
The feature of systems of systems also gives rise to the fractal nature of the models that we develop to better understand the systems of which we are part and which we seek to change and improve.

Systems, models and language

Our understanding, communication and collaboration to give effect to enterprises and to change them to better realise the goals and aspirations we hold for them draws upon the models we develop to reflect these systems. This, in turn, draws upon our own mental models and our use of language as a key means for the way in which we think and communicate about our enterprise.

One line of thinking from the field of systems thinking holds that systems exist only in our minds. Adopting this as a principle which underpins enterprises and their architectures has offered me helpful new perspectives and insights into the challenges of effecting change in enterprises. A range of experiences reinforce the value of this principle and the way in which it ‘makes sense to me’.

One aspect of this dimension of enterprises is reflected in my characterisation of one of the roles that I perform as being an ‘enterprise babelfish’. This role is one in which attention is given to the different terms and language used by those within the enterprise to speak and describe their enterprise, and to be able to differentiate and distinguish the different meanings being applied to these terms. By helping enterprises to better understand the different ways in which members conceive of their enterprise, it is possible to develop a clearer, shared understanding which enables members to engage and collaborate more effectively.

The way in which an enterprise thinks and speaks of itself/themselves is an important dimension in developing descriptions of the current, transition or intended architectures of the enterprise. This falls into the realm of enterprise ontology (although that is not an expression used in conversation with clients!!).

As you might expect, much more could be (and will be) said on each of these topics.

Authored by Peter Murchland

success maze to cheese

Performance Management – threat state to the brain

Neuroscience-Based Leadership and Culture Change Coach | Building Resilience in People, Teams and Organisations

There has been quite a lot published recently about performance management and in particular about removing performance ratings.

At its core, managing performance is about ensuring that both employers and employees match how we work in today’s world. This also requires some robust discussion around whether competencies, which have been a mainstay of leadership development for the past 20+ years, are still the best way of assessing people relative to contemporary business needs.

If we look at some of the basic elements around performance management from a brain-based perspective, there are some interesting considerations.

Even mentioning the words ‘performance’ and ‘management’ together sends the brain into a threat state. It might be low level for some and higher level for others depending on a complex mix of past experiences and current state. And a lot of that complex mix is non-conscious too, so, people aren’t even necessarily aware of it. Think about that…you haven’t even had a conversation about anything yet, just mentioned two words!

Then when we add in numerical ratings or ranking which trigger issues of status, fairness and trust that can again be counter-productive and generate conflict and competition. The opposite of what a performance conversation is intended to do. Knowing that others have been ranked higher than you triggers the amygdala – and in extreme instances causes an amygdala hijack.

So, when we may want to be open to possibility and opportunity and in a curious state of mind, it’s impossible. You can’t be in a ‘curious’ state of mind and a ‘threat’ state of mind at the same time. Threat trumps reward. And, what’s likely to happen in a hijacked state is that we demonstrate unproductive behaviours like push back around feedback and resistance to setting stretch targets.

And, add to that mix a performance management cycle in many organisations that is, at best, twice yearly, often annually. Relying on one or two conversations per year to discuss the immediate past, present and future performance for a person is a very heavy load for one or two conversations to bear.  It doesn’t bode well for generating a sense of belonging, inclusion and engagement. Our social brain needs really aren’t getting met.

It is not a case of simply saying that people need to have more conversations. Let’s face it, if managers or staff are having 1 or 2 conversations a year that are ‘painful’, they are not likely to be excited at all about the prospect of increasing that number. At its heart, moving from your existing performance management system to an alternative that emphasizes more frequent and ongoing sharing of insights and feedback is a system change. This requires patience and persistence.

If you are considering removing performance ratings and rankings to a more contemporary performance system (and I really hope that you are) here are some questions to consider and discuss:

  • Do we currently have quality conversations about performance in our organisation?
  • How do we increase the quality of conversations that people are having?
  • What is the appropriate conversation frequency for our organisation?
  • How can we make sure that the process is flexible and agile and not just a tick and flick?
  • Do we have an appropriate focus on manager accountability?
  • Do we make the health and strength of the manager-direct report relationship a core KPI?
  • Have we implemented a robust change management process to support what will inevitably be a multi-year endeavour?