"Complex" Maturity Models?

In the systems engineering domain, I'm seeing increasing interest in complexity. There seems to be a growing realization that IT (e.g., SOA) is pushing all technology toward a greater intertwining of individuals/groups and technology.

This is a disruptive shift. When tools are largely decoupled from exploration/sensemaking, the designers, implementers, and maintainers of those tools can largely ignore how individuals and groups explore a context to make sense of it. When tools begin to be woven into individual/group exploratory work, they can no longer ignore sensemaking concepts.

It's unclear whether there's much recognition of this need in the mainline systems engineering community. A few recent observations:

• "Modeling and Analysis of Interoperability Risk in Systems of Systems Environments" - This article in the Nov 2008 issue of CrossTalk is one of the few I've seen that seems to understand that interoperability has a significant cognitive component. The basic representations of interoperability reminded me of DSMs...not exactly the same, but a similar concept.
• "Systems Thinking Comes of Age" - This was the editorial by Pat Hale in the Dec 2008 INCOSE Insight magazine. Since you have to be a member INCOSE to read this, I'll refer you to this presention by Pat Hale at a recent conference.
• "SOA Contract Maturity Model" - This article by Kjell-Sverre Jerijærvi provides an approach that seems a bit more appropriate for Complex contexts than the CMMI-centric SOA maturity models that seem to be more at home in the Simple & Complicated domains.
• "Cloud Maturity Models Don't Make Sense" - This post by Roger Smith is one of the few I've seen questioning the limits of maturity models. Since most engineers have little understanding of the Complex domain, I suppose it's understandable that few consider the limits of analytical approaches.

A final note: I'm seeing more interest in Systems Thinking, System Dynamics, etc. ala Senge, Forrester, Beer, Ashby, Weiner, et.al. All engineers should have a good understanding of the tools in this area, since they're part of a good foundation for modeling and simulation. However, my impression is that these tools are more Complicated than Complex. For the truly Complex, you're probably going to need a different approach (e..g, Cynefin).

For those who love taxonomies, here's my favorite diagram of where Systems Thinking fits in the overall scheme of thought...from the International Institute for General Systems Studies. I discussed this topic previously on this blog here. I suspect it won't be the last time.

Against Collaboration?

I suppose there are several reasons why collaboration has become more popular over the past decade.

First, there's a long term cultural/philosophical shift toward radical egalitarianism that is uncomfortable with any distinction among individuals (a topic which is beyond the scope of this blog). Many members of my generation find it a bit disorienting to encounter young people who were raised in a sub-culture where everyone always got a trophy. This perspective emphasizes collaboration over individual initiative (not that the two are necessarily in conflict, but they're not exactly orthogonal).

Associated with this trend is a backlash against the "lone gun" hero stereotype who has a firm grasp on Moral Truth and The One Right Way. And, there's the simple fact that we're creating larger and more complex capabilities...which is only possible when large numbers of individuals sacrifice their interests and desires (to some degree) to achieve a group goal.

In the organizational theory domain, we've seen the rise of Wegner's CoPs and DoD's CoIs, along with a slew of other "communities of" TLAs that attempt to increase the effectiveness of organizational collaboration.

Perhaps the primary reason for the explosion of interest in collaboration recently is the rapid growth of social media capabilities on the Internet. This growth has highlighted one of the key challenges of group action: the formulation and governance of a web/hierarchy of shared purpose.

Since group agility slows exponentially as group size increases, collaboration is a two-edged sword in Complex contexts. The diversity of understandings (of causes, effects, and shared purpose) provided by a group will, on average, probably make sense of a Complex context faster than an individual. On the other hand, if the situation requires a lot of fast exploration of intertwined alternatives, it's not clear that a group will necessarily outperform an individual, especially when purpose, cause, and effect form tangled hierarchies.

Those of us who've worked in group settings recognize there's also a danger of synthesizing several understandings into a mediocre whole. And, the classic danger is the group being hijacked by a strong personality.

As with all such swings, the swing toward collaboration runs the risk of going to an extreme where highly capable individuals are not effectively used.

These observations were triggered by a recent post by Oliver Marks that mentions a 2006 article by David Freedman entitled "What's Next: The Idiocy of Crowds."

As our ability to collaborate increases, we may bump into basic cognitive and social limitations more frequently and violently...it's not clear that all such limitations necessarily point toward more Complicated collaboration tools, processes, or frameworks...they may point instead toward Complex tools, processes, and frameworks.

Innovation and CAS-Driven Organizations

The increasingly Complex (even Chaotic) nature of information-intensive contexts is highlighting the relevance of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory for organizations. As I've said repeatedly, Cynefin is the best framework I've run across for thinking about the implications of this change.

Most technical and business people have little understanding of CAS, so papers that describe how CAS theory applies to organizations can provide a quick introduction. "Complexity-Based Agile Enterprises", by Dyer & Eriksen, has just been published by Cornell's Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. If you're looking for an introduction to CAS from a traditional management perspective, you might find this worth reading.

I have a few misgivings. The paper seems to assume that a context is either ordered (Complicated/Simple) or Complex. Although a specific context may be dominated by the Complex (or Complicated, etc.), most contexts have aspects of multiple domains (Chaotic, Complex, Complicated, Simple is the Cynefin taxonomy) that allow the decision maker to move the context from one domain to another. That's one of the strengths of Cynefin...it defines strategies and tactics for doing this. This paper seems to emphasize a linear movement (Explore, Exploit, Adapt, Exit), where Cynefin emphasizes deliberate movement among domains in a direction dictated by current needs.

The paper does a nice job of describing some of the ways in which a primarily Complex context has different staffing and organizational needs. And, they emphasize our knowledge in this area is relatively immature.

Anyway, if you're academically-oriented and interested in how CAS theory applies to organizing, check it out.

Can Collaboration be Monetized?

Lots of very smart people have thrown millions (billions?) of dollars at social media with very disappointing financial results. I have no idea whether/how social media can discover a distincitive business model that breaks new ground and lays a robust financial foundation.

This post is an interesting perspective on the question.

Cross-Silo Exploitation/Exploration

IT-driven hyperconnectivity continues to increase the need for and challenge of creating cross-silo capabilities. James Cash, Michael Earl, and Robert Morrison present an interesting proposal in their November 2008 Harvard Business Review article entitled "Teaming Up to Crack Innovation & Enterprise Integration."

They propose two small/agile enterprise-wide groups engage in cross-silo Exploration and Exploitation; called the Distributed Innovation Group (DIG) and the Enterprise Integration Group (EIG) respectively. Each group is more of a catalyst than a traditional matrix. The authors note that "businesses are better at stifling innovation than capitalizing on it," and "better at optimizing local operations than integrating them for the good of the enterprise and its customers."

Since innovation is distributed across the business, the DIG focuses on "fostering and channeling" cross-silo innovation rather than being responsible for it. And, the EIG prioritizes and provides resources for cross-silo horizontal integration projects.

The DIG:
- "Scouts for new ideas and untapped potential in current technologies"
- "Scans…for emerging technologies"
- "Facilitates participation in idea forums"
- "Acts as a center for innovation expertise"
- "Publicizes [and incubates] promising innovations"

The EIG:
- "Manages the corporate portfolio of integration initiatives"
- "Serves as the corporate center of excellence in process management and improvement"
- "Provides staff to major business integration initiatives"
- "Is responsible for enterprise architecture"
- "Anticipates how operations might work in a more integrated fashion" \

The article also discusses what the groups are not, and explores in some detail what capabilities are needed to form and deploy them. Integration work is discussed in more detail than Innovation…perhaps because it is more amenable to traditional management techniques.

Six sets of skills are identified as central to Integration:
- Familiar with business process design/improvement
- Experience with cross-functional systems implementation
- Competence in architecture analysis
- Expertise in information management
- Experience in program management
- A talent for relationship management

They note that the last skill is rare, but essential to "open people’s eyes to the possibilities and benefits of horizontal integration and to enlist their commitment to making integration happen."
Finally, they note that the DIG and EIG groups are similar:
- "Each is a collection of catalysts"
- "Neither offer direct solutions"
- "Both lead through relationships, communication, and targeted expertise"
- "Networking is an essential activity for both"
- "Both focus on adding customer value"
- "Most members must be trilingual…in the languages of business, IT, and sociability"
- "They must know the organization"

The details proposed in this article seem reasonable and implementable, though I suspect that more innovation may arise from the EIG than the authors seem to anticipate.

My guess is that the most difficult challenge will be getting these groups institutionalized as effectively carrying out their duties. Strong top management support and staffing by top-notch personnel who are already carrying out these functions would seem to be essential if they are to have any chance of success. I suspect many large organizations will find it difficult to pay the opportunity cost required to make these groups successful.