In yesterday’s blog post the set of principles with all principles so far were presented. Even though the set of principles is not completely ready, it is still good enough to elaborate on the opportunities it will give us.
Because, we will soon be able to rumble:
– anyone that tries to fight a system
– anyone that state a principle that is only sub-optimising
– anyone trying to solve symptoms
– anyone that states a principle, that is not even a principle of a system
– anyone showing value statements trying to plaster a bad system
– anyone coming with the slides of how to do; but that is only sub-optimising
– and many, many more things
Of course, we can start right now, just by looking at our principles and compare to our traditional silo organisation’s, a new method’s, or a new framework’s way of working, but most of the time their way of working is not straightforward. Because, if it was straightforward:
- the traditional silo organisations of today would already have a better way of working, even without our set of principles so far. I mean, it was no rocket science in the deriving of our set, so what is the real problem to change the way of working to the better for a silo organisation? How can it be possible that even with decades of understanding, there is in most cases still no adaptation to the market need?
- maybe we would not have Agile development at all. But, for software development, the silo organisation’s way of working with waterfall, were so bad in the 1990s, that Agile development was invented, to survive the crisis. And a crisis puts you directly into the Chaotic domain in the Cynefin™ framework , and is one of the best ways to achieve novelty. But, Agile development is not straightforward either, which makes it also hard to verify that it lives up to our set of principles, valid for any organisation to get a flourishing way of working.
Let me put it like this for both bullets above. With a complex and long enough presentation about a solution that takes care about a problem in an organisation’s way of working, and also shows how it takes care (tries to take care) of the solution’s all negative side effects (symptoms), no one can rumble it. At least many times no one dares either, with the risk of being negative, risking one’s career, etc.; few people want to have maverick as epithet.
That is why our Prefilled Root Cause Analysis Map is an absolutely necessity to make this straightforward and find the sub-optimising principles, the non-existing principles, etc., and then we can easily rumble these presentations. And the best of all, we can make any way of working better, since we can see exactly which principle in our set of principles that it is failing on.
So, we need to continue working on our Prefilled Root Cause Analysis Map, but not forget to blend with some other interesting subjects to continue to broaden our competence. We need to live as we learn, right!
But, first it is time to make our set of principles complete, and to do that we need to go into human science, some laws and common knowledge, all together very important; it is our heritage for reducing complexity. Of course, we need to take it into account (stupid not to do it, right) when we are continuing our journey towards a flourishing organisation. That’s tomorrow’s blog post. C u then.
Next “chapter” according to the reading proposal tree is the blog post about our finished set of principles, but first the branch with human science should be read first, where the series of blog posts about human science is first.
 Snowden, Dave. Link copied 2018-09-19.