Well, the world of human interactions may relay to any business
transactions, i.e. we cannot say that particular human interactions
always results on concrete business transaction; opposite is always
correct. Though, the business transaction assumes certain human
interactions, the latter are not limited by the business transaction,
i.e. these interactions may be much richer than prescribed by the
business transaction.
Can we treat the world of business transactions separately from the
world of human interactions? Probably, not because business
transactions are performed via human interactions in the most of the
cases. However, business transactions may be modelled without
considering human interactions as well as the human interactions do
not require specific business transactions; with this respect they are
independent from each other.
- Michael
On Oct 20, 9:24 pm, Fran <f...@vernaallee.com> wrote:
Yes, human interactions and business processes can be modeled
separately - but that just creates a "two worlds" problem which
exactly what value network modeling is designed to overcome. They are
not, in fact independent from each other when people are striving to
achieve specific business or social outcomes. Modeling them separately
has limited usefulness, especially in complex environments (and what
business doesn't operate in a complex environment?).
Business process modeling was never intended to include human
interactions. It is a great approach where procedures and process are
highly routine and structured. But if humans are at all important,
then modling formal processes without the human aspects not only leads
to poor performance and misplaced indicators but also to
depersonalized and inhumane workplaces. Plus the "dirty little secret"
of process modeling is that when processes get complicated nobody
follows the process. That is because highly structured process leave
little or no room for variation, which also stifles innovation.
Just modeling human interactions faces a similar set of issues. Many
people who are currently caught up in the excitement about social
networks are simply perpetuating this two worlds problem. They just
neatly detour around all that transactional activity, dismissing it as
"the formal organization" as if it is just in the way instead of the
foundation for why people interact in the first place. They feel that
if we just model human interactions as social networks then we will
automatically open up greater collaboration and make everything all
better. But a social network is just a set of connections. If you want
to know how that network is creating value then you must deal with the
business transations in the network
It is essential to move a next generation of human-centric business
activity modeling that systematically links human interactions WITH
structured business activities. That is exactly what Value Network
Analysis is all about. It solves the two worlds problem.
Verna
On Oct 25, 3:24 pm, "Michael P." <mike.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, the world of human interactions may relay to any business
> transactions, i.e. we cannot say that particular human interactions
> always results on concrete business transaction; opposite is always
> correct. Though, the business transaction assumes certain human
> interactions, the latter are not limited by the business transaction,
> i.e. these interactions may be much richer than prescribed by the
> business transaction.
> Can we treat the world of business transactions separately from the
> world of human interactions? Probably, not because business
> transactions are performed via human interactions in the most of the
> cases. However, business transactions may be modelled without
> considering human interactions as well as the human interactions do
> not require specific business transactions; with this respect they are
> independent from each other.
> - Michael
> On Oct 20, 9:24 pm, Fran <f...@vernaallee.com> wrote:
Probably, I’ll repeat the basic that you all have passed years ago.
Please, excuse me in advance.
I am not arguing with Verna’s position – both ‘worlds’ should be
modelled together for the better results. However, during the
modelling process transaction of human habits constantly change the
priorities. I am going to comment on the second paragraph of the last
Verna’s post in this thread.
1) I cannot agree with “Business process modeling was never intended
to include human interactions”. There is very well known example from
60s-70s when one of American bus companies got into troubles with
accurate bus schedule. In spite of all possible precautious, busses
always came later or earlier than the schedule declared. The problem
was almost resolved (there are no such things as an absolute success)
when the company applied schedule calculations based on the Fuzzy
Logic theory developed by Dr. Lotfi Zadeh. This theory counted the
probability of the person to act in certain way in given situation.
Then, it became a ‘common knowledge’ that all business processes that
consider human provided activities better be constricted using the
Fuzzy Logic theory if the designer looks up for a success. The fact
that just a few follow this rule is the problem of education and
professionalism.
2) In certain situations business transactions require certain human
activities regardless human wishes or habits. This is also the subject
of education and training. Such things are “depersonalized” but in
different industries “inhumane workplaces” save human lives.
3) As of “"dirty little secret" of process modeling is that when
processes get complicated nobody follows the process”, this is very
much cultural and, again, educational, matter. It is relatively common
situation when a Business or Technical Architect comes to the
organisation in trouble and finds that to rid of the troubles it is
necessary to consider more different risks and act respectively. In
response (in very many cases) the Architect hears that the proposed
risk considerations is too complex and will not be suitable to the
local culture. Does such response make any sense from the problem
resolution perspective? I think it does not. If the task is to resolve
problems (rather than to please the people), then representatives of
the unsuitable culture have to be fired and new people who understand
needed complexity to be hired. Albert Einstein said that things should
be taken simple…but not simpler than they are. Oversimplification done
to please inadequately qualified people degrades all values including
the one from the business transactions (this was the major reason of
multiple returns of outsourced Customer Service functions from Asia
back to the US and Europe when the support was stuffed with
inadequately qualified personnel)
4) If the business process is properly designed, it leaves room for
unpredicted variations (like ‘driving’ aeroplanes) where it is
possible, in other points the ‘highly structured process’ must be
followed. This is why we have physics who live in the rules and laws
hoping to find a new gap in them and lyrics/poets/writers who live due
to violating rules in harmonically composed ways.
So, if I do a business transition, I do it first and then consider the
people; if I do a social Web Site, I consider people first and the do
the software technicalities.
- Michael
On Oct 26, 1:56 am, Verna Allee <verna.al...@valuenetworks.com> wrote:
> Yes, human interactions and business processes can be modeled
> separately - but that just creates a "two worlds" problem which
> exactly what value network modeling is designed to overcome. They are
> not, in fact independent from each other when people are striving to
> achieve specific business or social outcomes. Modeling them separately
> has limited usefulness, especially in complex environments (and what
> business doesn't operate in a complex environment?).
> Business process modeling was never intended to include human
> interactions. It is a great approach where procedures and process are
> highly routine and structured. But if humans are at all important,
> then modling formal processes without the human aspects not only leads
> to poor performance and misplaced indicators but also to
> depersonalized and inhumane workplaces. Plus the "dirty little secret"
> of process modeling is that when processes get complicated nobody
> follows the process. That is because highly structured process leave
> little or no room for variation, which also stifles innovation.
> Just modeling human interactions faces a similar set of issues. Many
> people who are currently caught up in the excitement about social
> networks are simply perpetuating this two worlds problem. They just
> neatly detour around all that transactional activity, dismissing it as
> "the formal organization" as if it is just in the way instead of the
> foundation for why people interact in the first place. They feel that
> if we just model human interactions as social networks then we will
> automatically open up greater collaboration and make everything all
> better. But a social network is just a set of connections. If you want
> to know how that network is creating value then you must deal with the
> business transations in the network
> It is essential to move a next generation of human-centric business
> activity modeling that systematically links human interactions WITH
> structured business activities. That is exactly what Value Network
> Analysis is all about. It solves the two worlds problem.
> Verna
> On Oct 25, 3:24 pm, "Michael P." <mike.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Well, the world of human interactions may relay to any business
> > transactions, i.e. we cannot say that particular human interactions
> > always results on concrete business transaction; opposite is always
> > correct. Though, the business transaction assumes certain human
> > interactions, the latter are not limited by the business transaction,
> > i.e. these interactions may be much richer than prescribed by the
> > business transaction.
> > Can we treat the world of business transactions separately from the
> > world of human interactions? Probably, not because business
> > transactions are performed via human interactions in the most of the
> > cases. However, business transactions may be modelled without
> > considering human interactions as well as the human interactions do
> > not require specific business transactions; with this respect they are
> > independent from each other.
> > - Michael
> > On Oct 20, 9:24 pm, Fran <f...@vernaallee.com> wrote:
We need to remember that there are NO two people on this planet who are physiologically (mentally or physically) identical. Therefore, each person must first learn/interpret a given situation (process, problem, opportunity, etc.) in their own way before they can/will take some action.
Engineers can develop efficient/perfect processes and systems but there is no such thing as a perfect social system/network. Some people, unfortunately, still think they can develop efficient/perfect social structures. They are essentially pursuing a fairy tale.
Complex adaptive systems (self-organizing systems) such as social systems/networks develop certain distinguishable patters (dynamic order) over time but those patterns are in constant motion. For instance, it only takes one person in a complex adaptive system (network) who happens to have a "bad day" to change a particular dynamic order.
It's best to remember that people are NOT machines by any stretch of the imagination. That's why more education/training or trying to change a culture can only take you so far. It can never lead to some form of total perfection when it comes to social systems. For example, "Does every pilot fly the same plane EXACTLY the same way?" That's an impossible feat!
There is, however, a big difference between dynamic order and chaos when it comes to social systems. Nevertheless, let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that we can somehow develop perfectly functioning social systems. One doesn’t have to look far to see the misery we create by treating people like machines.
----- Original Message ----- From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com> To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
Probably, I’ll repeat the basic that you all have passed years ago.
Please, excuse me in advance.
I am not arguing with Verna’s position – both ‘worlds’ should be
modelled together for the better results. However, during the
modelling process transaction of human habits constantly change the
priorities. I am going to comment on the second paragraph of the last
Verna’s post in this thread.
1) I cannot agree with “Business process modeling was never intended
to include human interactions”. There is very well known example from
60s-70s when one of American bus companies got into troubles with
accurate bus schedule. In spite of all possible precautious, busses
always came later or earlier than the schedule declared. The problem
was almost resolved (there are no such things as an absolute success)
when the company applied schedule calculations based on the Fuzzy
Logic theory developed by Dr. Lotfi Zadeh. This theory counted the
probability of the person to act in certain way in given situation.
Then, it became a ‘common knowledge’ that all business processes that
consider human provided activities better be constricted using the
Fuzzy Logic theory if the designer looks up for a success. The fact
that just a few follow this rule is the problem of education and
professionalism.
2) In certain situations business transactions require certain human
activities regardless human wishes or habits. This is also the subject
of education and training. Such things are “depersonalized” but in
different industries “inhumane workplaces” save human lives.
3) As of “"dirty little secret" of process modeling is that when
processes get complicated nobody follows the process”, this is very
much cultural and, again, educational, matter. It is relatively common
situation when a Business or Technical Architect comes to the
organisation in trouble and finds that to rid of the troubles it is
necessary to consider more different risks and act respectively. In
response (in very many cases) the Architect hears that the proposed
risk considerations is too complex and will not be suitable to the
local culture. Does such response make any sense from the problem
resolution perspective? I think it does not. If the task is to resolve
problems (rather than to please the people), then representatives of
the unsuitable culture have to be fired and new people who understand
needed complexity to be hired. Albert Einstein said that things should
be taken simple…but not simpler than they are. Oversimplification done
to please inadequately qualified people degrades all values including
the one from the business transactions (this was the major reason of
multiple returns of outsourced Customer Service functions from Asia
back to the US and Europe when the support was stuffed with
inadequately qualified personnel)
4) If the business process is properly designed, it leaves room for
unpredicted variations (like ‘driving’ aeroplanes) where it is
possible, in other points the ‘highly structured process’ must be
followed. This is why we have physics who live in the rules and laws
hoping to find a new gap in them and lyrics/poets/writers who live due
to violating rules in harmonically composed ways.
So, if I do a business transition, I do it first and then consider the
people; if I do a social Web Site, I consider people first and the do
the software technicalities.
- Michael
On Oct 26, 1:56 am, Verna Allee <verna.al...@valuenetworks.com<mailto:verna.al...@valuenetworks.com>> wrote:
> Yes, human interactions and business processes can be modeled
> separately - but that just creates a "two worlds" problem which
> exactly what value network modeling is designed to overcome. They are
> not, in fact independent from each other when people are striving to
> achieve specific business or social outcomes. Modeling them separately
> has limited usefulness, especially in complex environments (and what
> business doesn't operate in a complex environment?).
> Business process modeling was never intended to include human
> interactions. It is a great approach where procedures and process are
> highly routine and structured. But if humans are at all important,
> then modling formal processes without the human aspects not only leads
> to poor performance and misplaced indicators but also to
> depersonalized and inhumane workplaces. Plus the "dirty little secret"
> of process modeling is that when processes get complicated nobody
> follows the process. That is because highly structured process leave
> little or no room for variation, which also stifles innovation.
> Just modeling human interactions faces a similar set of issues. Many
> people who are currently caught up in the excitement about social
> networks are simply perpetuating this two worlds problem. They just
> neatly detour around all that transactional activity, dismissing it as
> "the formal organization" as if it is just in the way instead of the
> foundation for why people interact in the first place. They feel that
> if we just model human interactions as social networks then we will
> automatically open up greater collaboration and make everything all
> better. But a social network is just a set of connections. If you want
> to know how that network is creating value then you must deal with the
> business transations in the network
> It is essential to move a next generation of human-centric business
> activity modeling that systematically links human interactions WITH
> structured business activities. That is exactly what Value Network
> Analysis is all about. It solves the two worlds problem.
> Verna
> On Oct 25, 3:24 pm, "Michael P." <mike.p...@yahoo.com<mailto:mike.p...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > Well, the world of human interactions may relay to any business
> > transactions, i.e. we cannot say that particular human interactions
> > always results on concrete business transaction; opposite is always
> > correct. Though, the business transaction assumes certain human
> > interactions, the latter are not limited by the business transaction,
> > i.e. these interactions may be much richer than prescribed by the
> > business transaction.
> > Can we treat the world of business transactions separately from the
> > world of human interactions? Probably, not because business
> > transactions are performed via human interactions in the most of the
> > cases. However, business transactions may be modelled without
> > considering human interactions as well as the human interactions do
> > not require specific business transactions; with this respect they are
> > independent from each other.
> > - Michael
> > On Oct 20, 9:24 pm, Fran <f...@vernaallee.com<mailto:f...@vernaallee.com>> wrote:
I hope you would agree with me on that a social system and a busienss
enterprise are not the same things while the former includes the
latter (as everything else touched by humans). So, what are the
restrictions in the sicial system have to be applied to make
enterprise busienss repeatable, "depersonalized and inhumane
workplaces" to the degree needed for the disciplined production?
- Michael
On Oct 26, 6:43 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com> wrote:
> We need to remember that there are NO two people on this planet who are physiologically (mentally or physically) identical. Therefore, each person must first learn/interpret a given situation (process, problem, opportunity, etc.) in their own way before they can/will take some action.
> Engineers can develop efficient/perfect processes and systems but there is no such thing as a perfect social system/network. Some people, unfortunately, still think they can develop efficient/perfect social structures. They are essentially pursuing a fairy tale.
> Complex adaptive systems (self-organizing systems) such as social systems/networks develop certain distinguishable patters (dynamic order) over time but those patterns are in constant motion. For instance, it only takes one person in a complex adaptive system (network) who happens to have a "bad day" to change a particular dynamic order.
> It's best to remember that people are NOT machines by any stretch of the imagination. That's why more education/training or trying to change a culture can only take you so far. It can never lead to some form of total perfection when it comes to social systems. For example, "Does every pilot fly the same plane EXACTLY the same way?" That's an impossible feat!
> There is, however, a big difference between dynamic order and chaos when it comes to social systems. Nevertheless, let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that we can somehow develop perfectly functioning social systems. One doesn’t have to look far to see the misery we create by treating people like machines.
> Cheers,
> Charlie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com>
> To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
> Probably, I’ll repeat the basic that you all have passed years ago.
> Please, excuse me in advance.
> I am not arguing with Verna’s position – both ‘worlds’ should be
> modelled together for the better results. However, during the
> modelling process transaction of human habits constantly change the
> priorities. I am going to comment on the second paragraph of the last
> Verna’s post in this thread.
> 1) I cannot agree with “Business process modeling was never intended
> to include human interactions”. There is very well known example from
> 60s-70s when one of American bus companies got into troubles with
> accurate bus schedule. In spite of all possible precautious, busses
> always came later or earlier than the schedule declared. The problem
> was almost resolved (there are no such things as an absolute success)
> when the company applied schedule calculations based on the Fuzzy
> Logic theory developed by Dr. Lotfi Zadeh. This theory counted the
> probability of the person to act in certain way in given situation.
> Then, it became a ‘common knowledge’ that all business processes that
> consider human provided activities better be constricted using the
> Fuzzy Logic theory if the designer looks up for a success. The fact
> that just a few follow this rule is the problem of education and
> professionalism.
> 2) In certain situations business transactions require certain human
> activities regardless human wishes or habits. This is also the subject
> of education and training. Such things are “depersonalized” but in
> different industries “inhumane workplaces” save human lives.
> 3) As of “"dirty little secret" of process modeling is that when
> processes get complicated nobody follows the process”, this is very
> much cultural and, again, educational, matter. It is relatively common
> situation when a Business or Technical Architect comes to the
> organisation in trouble and finds that to rid of the troubles it is
> necessary to consider more different risks and act respectively. In
> response (in very many cases) the Architect hears that the proposed
> risk considerations is too complex and will not be suitable to the
> local culture. Does such response make any sense from the problem
> resolution perspective? I think it does not. If the task is to resolve
> problems (rather than to please the people), then representatives of
> the unsuitable culture have to be fired and new people who understand
> needed complexity to be hired. Albert Einstein said that things should
> be taken simple…but not simpler than they are. Oversimplification done
> to please inadequately qualified people degrades all values including
> the one from the business transactions (this was the major reason of
> multiple returns of outsourced Customer Service functions from Asia
> back to the US and Europe when the support was stuffed with
> inadequately qualified personnel)
> 4) If the business process is properly designed, it leaves room for
> unpredicted variations (like ‘driving’ aeroplanes) where it is
> possible, in other points the ‘highly structured process’ must be
> followed. This is why we have physics who live in the rules and laws
> hoping to find a new gap in them and lyrics/poets/writers who live due
> to violating rules in harmonically composed ways.
> So, if I do a business transition, I do it first and then consider the
> people; if I do a social Web Site, I consider people first and the do
> the software technicalities.
> - Michael
> On Oct 26, 1:56 am, Verna Allee <verna.al...@valuenetworks.com<mailto:verna.al...@valuenetworks.com>> wrote:
> > Yes, human interactions and business processes can be modeled
> > separately - but that just creates a "two worlds" problem which
> > exactly what value network modeling is designed to overcome. They are
> > not, in fact independent from each other when people are striving to
> > achieve specific business or social outcomes. Modeling them separately
> > has limited usefulness, especially in complex environments (and what
> > business doesn't operate in a complex environment?).
> > Business process modeling was never intended to include human
> > interactions. It is a great approach where procedures and process are
> > highly routine and structured. But if humans are at all important,
> > then modling formal processes without the human aspects not only leads
> > to poor performance and misplaced indicators but also to
> > depersonalized and inhumane workplaces. Plus the "dirty little secret"
> > of process modeling is that when processes get complicated nobody
> > follows the process. That is because highly structured process leave
> > little or no room for variation, which also stifles innovation.
> > Just modeling human interactions faces a similar set of issues. Many
> > people who are currently caught up in the excitement about social
> > networks are simply perpetuating this two worlds problem. They just
> > neatly detour around all that transactional activity, dismissing it as
> > "the formal organization" as if it is just in the way instead of the
> > foundation for why people interact in the first place. They feel that
> > if we just model human interactions as social networks then we will
> > automatically open up greater collaboration and make everything all
> > better. But a social network is just a set of connections. If you want
> > to know how that network is creating value then you must deal with the
> > business transations in the network
> > It is essential to move a next generation of human-centric business
> > activity modeling that systematically links human interactions WITH
> > structured business activities. That is exactly what Value Network
> > Analysis is all about. It solves the two worlds problem.
> > Verna
> > On Oct 25, 3:24 pm, "Michael P." <mike.p...@yahoo.com<mailto:mike.p...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > > Well, the world of human interactions may relay to any business
> > > transactions, i.e. we cannot say that particular human interactions
> > > always results on concrete business transaction; opposite is always
> > > correct. Though, the business transaction assumes certain human
> > > interactions, the latter are not limited by the business transaction,
> > > i.e. these interactions may be much richer than prescribed by the
> > > business transaction.
> > > Can we treat the world of business transactions separately from the
> > > world of human interactions? Probably, not because business
> > > transactions are performed via human interactions in the most of the
> > > cases. However, business transactions may be modelled without
> > > considering human interactions as well as the human interactions do
> > > not require specific business transactions; with this respect they are
> > > independent from each other.
> > > - Michael
> > > On Oct 20, 9:24 pm, Fran <f...@vernaallee.com<mailto:f...@vernaallee.com>> wrote:
Unless a business eliminates all people (it’s totally automated) it will ALWAYS have an informal self-organizing social system that will exert a tremendous amount of influence on its operations. So, one really has two choices: ignore such emergent networks and let them function clandestinely or develop an organizational context/ecology that will “influence” most of the informal networks to support the business’s goals and objectives.
What one needs to do is place emphasis on continuously expanding what I call “the organizational sweet spot” where the formal and the informal systems overlap. Most people, essentially, will support formal organizational goals IF they understand how the goals benefit the business, its customers, society as a whole, their fellow worker, and themselves. It’s surprising how many workers are clueless of such outcomes.
You can have a “disciplined” work environment when you treat people humanely and when they grasp the benefits cited above. The key to success is to fully understand what one can and can’t control. Simply put, organizational contexts can be managed/adjusted but not the people who work and function within those work environments. The reason for that is straight forward. People’s “relationships” are emergent and thus can’t be managed. That is, they can be influenced but not controlled.
Unfortunately, that subtlety as to what can and can’t be controlled in a work environment is still hard to grasp for most managers. There is, however, a bright light at the end of the management tunnel. There are currently great strides being made in “social neuroscience” that is starting to take the guess work (that’s been mostly wrong) out of our management theory. Learning how to “unmanage” social systems will be the name of the game in the future.
----- Original Message ----- From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com> To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
Charlie,
I hope you would agree with me on that a social system and a busienss
enterprise are not the same things while the former includes the
latter (as everything else touched by humans). So, what are the
restrictions in the sicial system have to be applied to make
enterprise busienss repeatable, "depersonalized and inhumane
workplaces" to the degree needed for the disciplined production?
- Michael
On Oct 26, 6:43 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com<mailto:kal...@msn.com>> wrote:
> Michael,
> We need to remember that there are NO two people on this planet who are physiologically (mentally or physically) identical. Therefore, each person must first learn/interpret a given situation (process, problem, opportunity, etc.) in their own way before they can/will take some action.
> Engineers can develop efficient/perfect processes and systems but there is no such thing as a perfect social system/network. Some people, unfortunately, still think they can develop efficient/perfect social structures. They are essentially pursuing a fairy tale.
> Complex adaptive systems (self-organizing systems) such as social systems/networks develop certain distinguishable patters (dynamic order) over time but those patterns are in constant motion. For instance, it only takes one person in a complex adaptive system (network) who happens to have a "bad day" to change a particular dynamic order.
> It's best to remember that people are NOT machines by any stretch of the imagination. That's why more education/training or trying to change a culture can only take you so far. It can never lead to some form of total perfection when it comes to social systems. For example, "Does every pilot fly the same plane EXACTLY the same way?" That's an impossible feat!
> There is, however, a big difference between dynamic order and chaos when it comes to social systems. Nevertheless, let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that we can somehow develop perfectly functioning social systems. One doesn’t have to look far to see the misery we create by treating people like machines.
> Cheers,
> Charlie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com>>
> To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-networks@googl egroups.com>>
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
> Probably, I’ll repeat the basic that you all have passed years ago.
> Please, excuse me in advance.
> I am not arguing with Verna’s position – both ‘worlds’ should be
> modelled together for the better results. However, during the
> modelling process transaction of human habits constantly change the
> priorities. I am going to comment on the second paragraph of the last
> Verna’s post in this thread.
> 1) I cannot agree with “Business process modeling was never intended
> to include human interactions”. There is very well known example from
> 60s-70s when one of American bus companies got into troubles with
> accurate bus schedule. In spite of all possible precautious, busses
> always came later or earlier than the schedule declared. The problem
> was almost resolved (there are no such things as an absolute success)
> when the company applied schedule calculations based on the Fuzzy
> Logic theory developed by Dr. Lotfi Zadeh. This theory counted the
> probability of the person to act in certain way in given situation.
> Then, it became a ‘common knowledge’ that all business processes that
> consider human provided activities better be constricted using the
> Fuzzy Logic theory if the designer looks up for a success. The fact
> that just a few follow this rule is the problem of education and
> professionalism.
> 2) In certain situations business transactions require certain human
> activities regardless human wishes or habits. This is also the subject
> of education and training. Such things are “depersonalized” but in
> different industries “inhumane workplaces” save human lives.
> 3) As of “"dirty little secret" of process modeling is that when
> processes get complicated nobody follows the process”, this is very
> much cultural and, again, educational, matter. It is relatively common
> situation when a Business or Technical Architect comes to the
> organisation in trouble and finds that to rid of the troubles it is
> necessary to consider more different risks and act respectively. In
> response (in very many cases) the Architect hears that the proposed
> risk considerations is too complex and will not be suitable to the
> local culture. Does such response make any sense from the problem
> resolution perspective? I think it does not. If the task is to resolve
> problems (rather than to please the people), then representatives of
> the unsuitable culture have to be fired and new people who understand
> needed complexity to be hired. Albert Einstein said that things should
> be taken simple…but not simpler than they are. Oversimplification done
> to please inadequately qualified people degrades all values including
> the one from the business transactions (this was the major reason of
> multiple returns of outsourced Customer Service functions from Asia
> back to the US and Europe when the support was stuffed with
> inadequately qualified personnel)
> 4) If the business process is properly designed, it leaves room for
> unpredicted variations (like ‘driving’ aeroplanes) where it is
> possible, in other points the ‘highly structured process’ must be
> followed. This is why we have physics who live in the rules and laws
> hoping to find a new gap in them and lyrics/poets/writers who live due
> to violating rules in harmonically composed ways.
> So, if I do a business transition, I do it first and then consider the
> people; if I do a social Web Site, I consider people first and the do
> the software technicalities.
> - Michael
> On Oct 26, 1:56 am, Verna Allee <verna.al...@valuenetworks.com<mailto:verna.al...@valuenetworks.com<mailto:verna.al...@valuenetworks.com%3Cmailto:verna.al...@valuenetworks.com>>> wrote:
> > Yes, human interactions and business processes can be modeled
> > separately - but that just creates a "two worlds" problem which
> > exactly what value network modeling is designed to overcome. They are
> > not, in fact independent from each other when people are striving to
> > achieve specific business or social outcomes. Modeling them separately
> > has limited usefulness, especially in complex environments (and what
> > business doesn't operate in a complex environment?).
> > Business process modeling was never intended to include human
> > interactions. It is a great approach where procedures and process are
> > highly routine and structured. But if humans are at all important,
> > then modling formal processes without the human aspects not only leads
> > to poor performance and misplaced indicators but also to
> > depersonalized and inhumane workplaces. Plus the "dirty little secret"
> > of process modeling is that when processes get complicated nobody
> > follows the process. That is because highly structured process leave
> > little or no room for variation, which also stifles innovation.
> > Just modeling human interactions faces a similar set of issues. Many
> > people who are currently caught up in the excitement about social
> > networks are simply perpetuating this two worlds problem. They just
> > neatly detour around
Thanks Charlie, for a very concise overview of real life in
organisations.
Furthermore, I wonder how many appreciate that feedback doesn't work
with real people!
As Charlie indicates, neuroscience is providing evidence, for
example, that "our reasoning doesn't take into account those
counterintuitive relationship effects that come back and bite us."
Refer, for an illuminating read, with profound impact, "Management
Rewired," by Charles S. Jacobs, 2009.
David
On Oct 27, 6:02 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com> wrote:
> Unless a business eliminates all people (it’s totally automated) it will ALWAYS have an informal self-organizing social system that will exert a tremendous amount of influence on its operations. So, one really has two choices: ignore such emergent networks and let them function clandestinely or develop an organizational context/ecology that will “influence” most of the informal networks to support the business’s goals and objectives.
> What one needs to do is place emphasis on continuously expanding what I call “the organizational sweet spot” where the formal and the informal systems overlap. Most people, essentially, will support formal organizational goals IF they understand how the goals benefit the business, its customers, society as a whole, their fellow worker, and themselves. It’s surprising how many workers are clueless of such outcomes.
> You can have a “disciplined” work environment when you treat people humanely and when they grasp the benefits cited above. The key to success is to fully understand what one can and can’t control. Simply put, organizational contexts can be managed/adjusted but not the people who work and function within those work environments. The reason for that is straight forward. People’s “relationships” are emergent and thus can’t be managed. That is, they can be influenced but not controlled.
> Unfortunately, that subtlety as to what can and can’t be controlled in a work environment is still hard to grasp for most managers. There is, however, a bright light at the end of the management tunnel. There are currently great strides being made in “social neuroscience” that is starting to take the guess work (that’s been mostly wrong) out of our management theory. Learning how to “unmanage” social systems will be the name of the game in the future.
> Charlie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com>
> To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
> Charlie,
> I hope you would agree with me on that a social system and a busienss
> enterprise are not the same things while the former includes the
> latter (as everything else touched by humans). So, what are the
> restrictions in the sicial system have to be applied to make
> enterprise busienss repeatable, "depersonalized and inhumane
> workplaces" to the degree needed for the disciplined production?
> - Michael
> On Oct 26, 6:43 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com<mailto:kal...@msn.com>> wrote:
> > Michael,
> > We need to remember that there are NO two people on this planet who are physiologically (mentally or physically) identical. Therefore, each person must first learn/interpret a given situation (process, problem, opportunity, etc.) in their own way before they can/will take some action.
> > Engineers can develop efficient/perfect processes and systems but there is no such thing as a perfect social system/network. Some people, unfortunately, still think they can develop efficient/perfect social structures. They are essentially pursuing a fairy tale.
> > Complex adaptive systems (self-organizing systems) such as social systems/networks develop certain distinguishable patters (dynamic order) over time but those patterns are in constant motion. For instance, it only takes one person in a complex adaptive system (network) who happens to have a "bad day" to change a particular dynamic order.
> > It's best to remember that people are NOT machines by any stretch of the imagination. That's why more education/training or trying to change a culture can only take you so far. It can never lead to some form of total perfection when it comes to social systems. For example, "Does every pilot fly the same plane EXACTLY the same way?" That's an impossible feat!
> > There is, however, a big difference between dynamic order and chaos when it comes to social systems. Nevertheless, let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that we can somehow develop perfectly functioning social systems. One doesn’t have to look far to see the misery we create by treating people like machines.
> > Cheers,
> > Charlie
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com>>
> > To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-networks@googl egroups.com>>
> > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
> > Probably, I’ll repeat the basic that you all have passed years ago.
> > Please, excuse me in advance.
> > I am not arguing with Verna’s position – both ‘worlds’ should be
> > modelled together for the better results. However, during the
> > modelling process transaction of human habits constantly change the
> > priorities. I am going to comment on the second paragraph of the last
> > Verna’s post in this thread.
> > 1) I cannot agree with “Business process modeling was never intended
> > to include human interactions”. There is very well known example from
> > 60s-70s when one of American bus companies got into troubles with
> > accurate bus schedule. In spite of all possible precautious, busses
> > always came later or earlier than the schedule declared. The problem
> > was almost resolved (there are no such things as an absolute success)
> > when the company applied schedule calculations based on the Fuzzy
> > Logic theory developed by Dr. Lotfi Zadeh. This theory counted the
> > probability of the person to act in certain way in given situation.
> > Then, it became a ‘common knowledge’ that all business processes that
> > consider human provided activities better be constricted using the
> > Fuzzy Logic theory if the designer looks up for a success. The fact
> > that just a few follow this rule is the problem of education and
> > professionalism.
> > 2) In certain situations business transactions require certain human
> > activities regardless human wishes or habits. This is also the subject
> > of education and training. Such things are “depersonalized” but in
> > different industries “inhumane workplaces” save human lives.
> > 3) As of “"dirty little secret" of process modeling is that when
> > processes get complicated nobody follows the process”, this is very
> > much cultural and, again, educational, matter. It is relatively common
> > situation when a Business or Technical Architect comes to the
> > organisation in trouble and finds that to rid of the troubles it is
> > necessary to consider more different risks and act respectively. In
> > response (in very many cases) the Architect hears that the proposed
> > risk considerations is too complex and will not be suitable to the
> > local culture. Does such response make any sense from the problem
> > resolution perspective? I think it does not. If the task is to resolve
> > problems (rather than to please the people), then representatives of
> > the unsuitable culture have to be fired and new people who understand
> > needed complexity to be hired. Albert Einstein said that things should
> > be taken simple…but not simpler than they are. Oversimplification done
> > to please inadequately qualified people degrades all values including
> > the one from the business transactions (this was the major reason of
> > multiple returns of outsourced Customer Service functions from Asia
> > back to the US and Europe when the support was stuffed with
> > inadequately qualified personnel)
> > 4) If the business process is properly designed, it leaves room for
> > unpredicted variations (like ‘driving’ aeroplanes) where it is
> > possible, in other points the ‘highly structured process’ must be
> > followed. This is why we have physics who live in the rules and laws
> > hoping to find a new gap in them and lyrics/poets/writers who live due
> > to violating rules in harmonically composed ways.
> > So, if I do a business transition, I do it first and then consider the
> > people; if I do a social Web Site, I consider people first and the do
> > the software technicalities.
> > - Michael
> > On Oct 26, 1:56 am, Verna Allee <verna.al...@valuenetworks.com<mailto:verna.al...@valuenetworks.com<mailto:verna.al...@valuenetworks.com%3Cmailto:verna.al...@valuenetworks.com>>> wrote:
> > > Yes, human interactions and business processes can be modeled
> > > separately - but that just creates a "two worlds" problem which
> > > exactly what value network modeling is designed to overcome. They are
> > > not, in fact independent from each other when people are striving to
> > > achieve specific business or social outcomes. Modeling them separately
> > > has limited usefulness, especially in complex environments (and what
> > > business doesn't operate in a complex environment?).
> > > Business process modeling was never intended to include human
> > > interactions. It is a great approach where procedures and process
It is known in technical architecture discipline that convinced
architects and developers work much better. Also, there are a lot of
people who come at work for the pay-check...
Thus, we are talking about the need of a methodology capable to
balance 'necessity' with 'willingness'; feeling of participation in
the decision-making process is compromised by the necessary hierarchy
of management; we cannot carry this feeling over from the management
meetings into the subordinate meetings. At some moment the worker will
fill 'managed' anyway...
- Michael
On Oct 27, 6:50 pm, David Meggitt <m...@davidmeggitt.com> wrote:
> Thanks Charlie, for a very concise overview of real life in
> organisations.
> Furthermore, I wonder how many appreciate that feedback doesn't work
> with real people!
> As Charlie indicates, neuroscience is providing evidence, for
> example, that "our reasoning doesn't take into account those
> counterintuitive relationship effects that come back and bite us."
> Refer, for an illuminating read, with profound impact, "Management
> Rewired," by Charles S. Jacobs, 2009.
> David
> On Oct 27, 6:02 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com> wrote:> Michael,
> > Unless a business eliminates all people (it’s totally automated) it will ALWAYS have an informal self-organizing social system that will exert a tremendous amount of influence on its operations. So, one really has two choices: ignore such emergent networks and let them function clandestinely or develop an organizational context/ecology that will “influence” most of the informal networks to support the business’s goals and objectives.
> > What one needs to do is place emphasis on continuously expanding what I call “the organizational sweet spot” where the formal and the informal systems overlap. Most people, essentially, will support formal organizational goals IF they understand how the goals benefit the business, its customers, society as a whole, their fellow worker, and themselves. It’s surprising how many workers are clueless of such outcomes.
> > You can have a “disciplined” work environment when you treat people humanely and when they grasp the benefits cited above. The key to success is to fully understand what one can and can’t control. Simply put, organizational contexts can be managed/adjusted but not the people who work and function within those work environments. The reason for that is straight forward. People’s “relationships” are emergent and thus can’t be managed. That is, they can be influenced but not controlled.
> > Unfortunately, that subtlety as to what can and can’t be controlled in a work environment is still hard to grasp for most managers. There is, however, a bright light at the end of the management tunnel. There are currently great strides being made in “social neuroscience” that is starting to take the guess work (that’s been mostly wrong) out of our management theory. Learning how to “unmanage” social systems will be the name of the game in the future.
> > Charlie
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com>
> > To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
> > Charlie,
> > I hope you would agree with me on that a social system and a busienss
> > enterprise are not the same things while the former includes the
> > latter (as everything else touched by humans). So, what are the
> > restrictions in the sicial system have to be applied to make
> > enterprise busienss repeatable, "depersonalized and inhumane
> > workplaces" to the degree needed for the disciplined production?
> > - Michael
> > On Oct 26, 6:43 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com<mailto:kal...@msn.com>> wrote:
> > > Michael,
> > > We need to remember that there are NO two people on this planet who are physiologically (mentally or physically) identical. Therefore, each person must first learn/interpret a given situation (process, problem, opportunity, etc.) in their own way before they can/will take some action.
> > > Engineers can develop efficient/perfect processes and systems but there is no such thing as a perfect social system/network. Some people, unfortunately, still think they can develop efficient/perfect social structures. They are essentially pursuing a fairy tale.
> > > Complex adaptive systems (self-organizing systems) such as social systems/networks develop certain distinguishable patters (dynamic order) over time but those patterns are in constant motion. For instance, it only takes one person in a complex adaptive system (network) who happens to have a "bad day" to change a particular dynamic order.
> > > It's best to remember that people are NOT machines by any stretch of the imagination. That's why more education/training or trying to change a culture can only take you so far. It can never lead to some form of total perfection when it comes to social systems. For example, "Does every pilot fly the same plane EXACTLY the same way?" That's an impossible feat!
> > > There is, however, a big difference between dynamic order and chaos when it comes to social systems. Nevertheless, let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that we can somehow develop perfectly functioning social systems. One doesn’t have to look far to see the misery we create by treating people like machines.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Charlie
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com>>
> > > To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-networks@googl egroups.com>>
> > > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:04 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
> > > Probably, I’ll repeat the basic that you all have passed years ago.
> > > Please, excuse me in advance.
> > > I am not arguing with Verna’s position – both ‘worlds’ should be
> > > modelled together for the better results. However, during the
> > > modelling process transaction of human habits constantly change the
> > > priorities. I am going to comment on the second paragraph of the last
> > > Verna’s post in this thread.
> > > 1) I cannot agree with “Business process modeling was never intended
> > > to include human interactions”. There is very well known example from
> > > 60s-70s when one of American bus companies got into troubles with
> > > accurate bus schedule. In spite of all possible precautious, busses
> > > always came later or earlier than the schedule declared. The problem
> > > was almost resolved (there are no such things as an absolute success)
> > > when the company applied schedule calculations based on the Fuzzy
> > > Logic theory developed by Dr. Lotfi Zadeh. This theory counted the
> > > probability of the person to act in certain way in given situation.
> > > Then, it became a ‘common knowledge’ that all business processes that
> > > consider human provided activities better be constricted using the
> > > Fuzzy Logic theory if the designer looks up for a success. The fact
> > > that just a few follow this rule is the problem of education and
> > > professionalism.
> > > 2) In certain situations business transactions require certain human
> > > activities regardless human wishes or habits. This is also the subject
> > > of education and training. Such things are “depersonalized” but in
> > > different industries “inhumane workplaces” save human lives.
> > > 3) As of “"dirty little secret" of process modeling is that when
> > > processes get complicated nobody follows the process”, this is very
> > > much cultural and, again, educational, matter. It is relatively common
> > > situation when a Business or Technical Architect comes to the
> > > organisation in trouble and finds that to rid of the troubles it is
> > > necessary to consider more different risks and act respectively. In
> > > response (in very many cases) the Architect hears that the proposed
> > > risk considerations is too complex and will not be suitable to the
> > > local culture. Does such response make any sense from the problem
> > > resolution perspective? I think it does not. If the task is to resolve
> > > problems (rather than to please the people), then representatives of
> > > the unsuitable culture have to be fired and new people who understand
> > > needed complexity to be hired. Albert Einstein said that things should
> > > be taken simple…but not simpler than they are. Oversimplification done
> > > to please inadequately qualified people degrades all values including
> > > the one from the business transactions (this was the major reason of
> > > multiple returns of outsourced Customer Service functions from Asia
> > > back to the US and Europe when the support was stuffed with
> > > inadequately qualified personnel)
> > > 4) If the business process is properly designed, it leaves room for
> > > unpredicted variations (like ‘driving’ aeroplanes) where it is
> > > possible, in other points the ‘highly structured process’ must be
> > > followed. This is why we have physics who live in the rules and laws
> > > hoping to find a new gap in them and lyrics/poets/writers who live due
> > > to violating rules in harmonically composed ways.
> > > So, if I do a business transition, I do it first and then consider the
> > > people; if I do a social Web Site, I consider people first and the do
> > > the software technicalities.
Again, a business's effectiveness is primarily dependent on the size of its "sweet spot" or the extent the formal and informal systems overlap. "Real" leadership is all about "value-added facilitation" not command and control.
----- Original Message ----- From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com> To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
It is known in technical architecture discipline that convinced
architects and developers work much better. Also, there are a lot of
people who come at work for the pay-check...
Thus, we are talking about the need of a methodology capable to
balance 'necessity' with 'willingness'; feeling of participation in
the decision-making process is compromised by the necessary hierarchy
of management; we cannot carry this feeling over from the management
meetings into the subordinate meetings. At some moment the worker will
fill 'managed' anyway...
- Michael
On Oct 27, 6:50 pm, David Meggitt <m...@davidmeggitt.com<mailto:m...@davidmeggitt.com>> wrote:
> Thanks Charlie, for a very concise overview of real life in
> organisations.
> Furthermore, I wonder how many appreciate that feedback doesn't work
> with real people!
> As Charlie indicates, neuroscience is providing evidence, for
> example, that "our reasoning doesn't take into account those
> counterintuitive relationship effects that come back and bite us."
> Refer, for an illuminating read, with profound impact, "Management
> Rewired," by Charles S. Jacobs, 2009.
> David
> On Oct 27, 6:02 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com<mailto:kal...@msn.com>> wrote:> Michael,
> > Unless a business eliminates all people (it’s totally automated) it will ALWAYS have an informal self-organizing social system that will exert a tremendous amount of influence on its operations. So, one really has two choices: ignore such emergent networks and let them function clandestinely or develop an organizational context/ecology that will “influence” most of the informal networks to support the business’s goals and objectives.
> > What one needs to do is place emphasis on continuously expanding what I call “the organizational sweet spot” where the formal and the informal systems overlap. Most people, essentially, will support formal organizational goals IF they understand how the goals benefit the business, its customers, society as a whole, their fellow worker, and themselves. It’s surprising how many workers are clueless of such outcomes.
> > You can have a “disciplined” work environment when you treat people humanely and when they grasp the benefits cited above. The key to success is to fully understand what one can and can’t control. Simply put, organizational contexts can be managed/adjusted but not the people who work and function within those work environments. The reason for that is straight forward. People’s “relationships” are emergent and thus can’t be managed. That is, they can be influenced but not controlled.
> > Unfortunately, that subtlety as to what can and can’t be controlled in a work environment is still hard to grasp for most managers. There is, however, a bright light at the end of the management tunnel. There are currently great strides being made in “social neuroscience” that is starting to take the guess work (that’s been mostly wrong) out of our management theory. Learning how to “unmanage” social systems will be the name of the game in the future.
> > Charlie
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com>>
> > To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-networks@googl egroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
> > Charlie,
> > I hope you would agree with me on that a social system and a busienss
> > enterprise are not the same things while the former includes the
> > latter (as everything else touched by humans). So, what are the
> > restrictions in the sicial system have to be applied to make
> > enterprise busienss repeatable, "depersonalized and inhumane
> > workplaces" to the degree needed for the disciplined production?
> > - Michael
> > On Oct 26, 6:43 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com<mailto:kal...@msn.com<mailto:kal...@msn.com%3Cmailto:kal...@msn.com>>> wrote:
> > > Michael,
> > > We need to remember that there are NO two people on this planet who are physiologically (mentally or physically) identical. Therefore, each person must first learn/interpret a given situation (process, problem, opportunity, etc.) in their own way before they can/will take some action.
> > > Engineers can develop efficient/perfect processes and systems but there is no such thing as a perfect social system/network. Some people, unfortunately, still think they can develop efficient/perfect social structures. They are essentially pursuing a fairy tale.
> > > Complex adaptive systems (self-organizing systems) such as social systems/networks develop certain distinguishable patters (dynamic order) over time but those patterns are in constant motion. For instance, it only takes one person in a complex adaptive system (network) who happens to have a "bad day" to change a particular dynamic order.
> > > It's best to remember that people are NOT machines by any stretch of the imagination. That's why more education/training or trying to change a culture can only take you so far. It can never lead to some form of total perfection when it comes to social systems. For example, "Does every pilot fly the same plane EXACTLY the same way?" That's an impossible feat!
> > > There is, however, a big difference between dynamic order and chaos when it comes to social systems. Nevertheless, let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that we can somehow develop perfectly functioning social systems. One doesn’t have to look far to see the misery we create by treating people like machines.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Charlie
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com%3Cmailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com>>>
> > > To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-networks@googl <mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com%3Cmailto:value-networks@googl> egroups.com>>
> > > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:04 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
> > > Probably, I’ll repeat the basic that you all have passed years ago.
> > > Please, excuse me in advance.
> > > I am not arguing with Verna’s position – both ‘worlds’ should be
> > > modelled together for the better results. However, during the
> > > modelling process transaction of human habits constantly change the
> > > priorities. I am going to comment on the second paragraph of the last
> > > Verna’s post in this thread.
> > > 1) I cannot agree with “Business process modeling was never intended
> > > to include human interactions”. There is very well known example from
> > > 60s-70s when one of American bus companies got into troubles with
> > > accurate bus schedule. In spite of all possible precautious, busses
> > > always came later or earlier than the schedule declared. The problem
> > > was almost resolved (there are no such things as an absolute success)
> > > when the company applied schedule calculations based on the Fuzzy
> > > Logic theory developed by Dr. Lotfi Zadeh. This theory counted the
> > > probability of the person to act in certain way in given situation.
> > > Then, it became a ‘common knowledge’ that all business processes that
> > > consider human provided activities better be constricted using the
> > > Fuzzy Logic theory if the designer looks up for a success. The fact
> > > that just a few follow this rule is the problem of education and
> > > professionalism.
> > > 2) In certain situations business transactions require certain human
> > > activities regardless human wishes or habits. This is also the subject
> > > of education and training. Such things are “depersonalized” but in
> > > different industries “inhumane workplaces” save human lives.
> > > 3) As of “"dirty little secret" of process modeling is that when
> > > processes get complicated nobody follows the process”, this is very
> > > much cultural and, again, educational, matter. It is relatively common
> > > situation when a Business or Technical Architect comes to the
> > > organisation in trouble and finds that to rid of the troubles it is
> > > necessary to consider more different risks and act respectively. In
> > > response (in very many cases) the Architect hears that the proposed
> > > risk considerations is too complex and will not be suitable to the
> > > local culture. Does such response make any sense from the problem
> > > resolution perspective? I think it does not. If the task is to resolve
> > > problems (rather than to please the people), then representatives of
> > > the unsuitable culture have to be fired and new people who understand
> > > needed complexity to be hired. Albert Einstein said that things should
> > > be taken simple…but not simpler than they are. Oversimplification done
> > > to please inadequately qualified people degrades all values including
> > > the one from the business transactions (this was the major reason of
> > > multiple returns of outsourced Customer Service functions from Asia
> > > back to the US and
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Charles Ehin <kal...@msn.com> wrote:
> Michael,
> Again, a business's effectiveness is primarily dependent on the size of its
> "sweet spot" or the extent the formal and informal systems overlap. "Real"
> leadership is all about "value-added facilitation" not command and control.
> Charlie
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Michael _P <m3pou...@yahoo.com>
> *To:* Value Networks <value-networks@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:43 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Implementing Value Networks
> It is known in technical architecture discipline that convinced
> architects and developers work much better. Also, there are a lot of
> people who come at work for the pay-check...
> Thus, we are talking about the need of a methodology capable to
> balance 'necessity' with 'willingness'; feeling of participation in
> the decision-making process is compromised by the necessary hierarchy
> of management; we cannot carry this feeling over from the management
> meetings into the subordinate meetings. At some moment the worker will
> fill 'managed' anyway...
> - Michael
> On Oct 27, 6:50 pm, David Meggitt <m...@davidmeggitt.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Charlie, for a very concise overview of real life in
> > organisations.
> > Furthermore, I wonder how many appreciate that feedback doesn't work
> > with real people!
> > As Charlie indicates, neuroscience is providing evidence, for
> > example, that "our reasoning doesn't take into account those
> > counterintuitive relationship effects that come back and bite us."
> > Refer, for an illuminating read, with profound impact, "Management
> > Rewired," by Charles S. Jacobs, 2009.
> > David
> > On Oct 27, 6:02 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com> wrote:> Michael,
> > > Unless a business eliminates all people (it’s totally automated) it
> will ALWAYS have an informal self-organizing social system that will exert a
> tremendous amount of influence on its operations. So, one really has two
> choices: ignore such emergent networks and let them function clandestinely
> or develop an organizational context/ecology that will “influence” most of
> the informal networks to support the business’s goals and objectives.
> > > What one needs to do is place emphasis on continuously expanding what I
> call “the organizational sweet spot” where the formal and the informal
> systems overlap. Most people, essentially, will support formal
> organizational goals IF they understand how the goals benefit the business,
> its customers, society as a whole, their fellow worker, and themselves. It’s
> surprising how many workers are clueless of such outcomes.
> > > You can have a “disciplined” work environment when you treat people
> humanely and when they grasp the benefits cited above. The key to success is
> to fully understand what one can and can’t control. Simply put,
> organizational contexts can be managed/adjusted but not the people who work
> and function within those work environments. The reason for that is straight
> forward. People’s “relationships” are emergent and thus can’t be managed.
> That is, they can be influenced but not controlled.
> > > Unfortunately, that subtlety as to what can and can’t be controlled in
> a work environment is still hard to grasp for most managers. There is,
> however, a bright light at the end of the management tunnel. There are
> currently great strides being made in “social neuroscience” that is starting
> to take the guess work (that’s been mostly wrong) out of our management
> theory. Learning how to “unmanage” social systems will be the name of the
> game in the future.
> > > Charlie
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com <m3pou...@yahoo.com>>
> > > To: Value Networks<mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com<value-networks@googlegroups .com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:12 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
> > > Charlie,
> > > I hope you would agree with me on that a social system and a busienss
> > > enterprise are not the same things while the former includes the
> > > latter (as everything else touched by humans). So, what are the
> > > restrictions in the sicial system have to be applied to make
> > > enterprise busienss repeatable, "depersonalized and inhumane
> > > workplaces" to the degree needed for the disciplined production?
> > > - Michael
> > > On Oct 26, 6:43 pm, "Charles Ehin" <
> kal...@msn.com<mailto:kal...@msn.com<kal...@msn.com%3Cmailto:kal...@msn.com>>>
> wrote:
> > > > Michael,
> > > > We need to remember that there are NO two people on this planet who
> are physiologically (mentally or physically) identical. Therefore, each
> person must first learn/interpret a given situation (process, problem,
> opportunity, etc.) in their own way before they can/will take some action.
> > > > Engineers can develop efficient/perfect processes and systems but
> there is no such thing as a perfect social system/network. Some people,
> unfortunately, still think they can develop efficient/perfect social
> structures. They are essentially pursuing a fairy tale.
> > > > Complex adaptive systems (self-organizing systems) such as social
> systems/networks develop certain distinguishable patters (dynamic order)
> over time but those patterns are in constant motion. For instance, it only
> takes one person in a complex adaptive system (network) who happens to have
> a "bad day" to change a particular dynamic order.
> > > > It's best to remember that people are NOT machines by any stretch of
> the imagination. That's why more education/training or trying to change a
> culture can only take you so far. It can never lead to some form of total
> perfection when it comes to social systems. For example, "Does every pilot
> fly the same plane EXACTLY the same way?" That's an impossible feat!
> > > > There is, however, a big difference between dynamic order and chaos
> when it comes to social systems. Nevertheless, let’s not deceive ourselves
> into thinking that we can somehow develop perfectly functioning social
> systems. One doesn’t have to look far to see the misery we create by
> treating people like machines.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Charlie
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Michael _P<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com<mailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com<m3pou...@yahoo.com%3Cmailto:m3pou...@yahoo.com>
> > > > To: Value Networks<
> mailto:value-networks@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-networks@googl<value-ne tworks@googlegroups.com%3Cmailto:value-networks@googl>
> egroups.com>>
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:04 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Implementing Value Networks
> > > > Probably, I’ll repeat the basic that you all have passed years ago.
> > > > Please, excuse me in advance.
> > > > I am not arguing with Verna’s position – both ‘worlds’ should be
> > > > modelled together for the better results. However, during the
> > > > modelling process transaction of human habits constantly change the
> > > > priorities. I am going to comment on the second paragraph of the last
> > > > Verna’s post in this thread.
> > > > 1) I cannot agree with “Business process modeling was never intended
> > > > to include human interactions”. There is very well known example from
> > > > 60s-70s when one of American bus companies got into troubles with
> > > > accurate bus schedule. In spite of all possible precautious, busses
> > > > always came later or earlier than the schedule declared. The problem
> > > > was almost resolved (there are no such things as an absolute success)
> > > > when the company applied schedule calculations based on the Fuzzy
> > > > Logic theory developed by Dr. Lotfi Zadeh. This theory counted the
> > > > probability of the person to act in certain way in given situation.
> > > > Then, it became a ‘common knowledge’ that all business processes that
> > > > consider human provided activities better be constricted using the
> > > > Fuzzy Logic theory if the designer looks up for a success. The fact
> > > > that just a few follow this rule is the problem of education and
> > > > professionalism.
> > > > 2) In certain situations business transactions require certain human
> > > > activities regardless human wishes or habits. This is also the
> subject
> > > > of education and training. Such things are “depersonalized” but in
> > > > different industries “inhumane workplaces” save human lives.
> > > > 3) As of “"dirty little secret" of process modeling is that when
> > > > processes get complicated nobody follows the process”, this is very
> > > > much cultural and, again, educational, matter. It is relatively
> common
> > > > situation when a Business or Technical Architect comes to the
> > > > organisation in trouble and finds that to rid of the troubles it is
> > > > necessary to consider more different risks and act respectively. In
> > > > response (in very many cases) the Architect hears that the proposed
> > > > risk considerations is too complex and will not be suitable to the
> > > > local culture. Does such response make any sense from the problem
> > > > resolution perspective? I think it does not. If the task is to
> resolve
> > > > problems (rather than to please the people), then representatives of
> > > > the unsuitable culture have to be fired and new people who understand
> > > > needed complexity to be hired. Albert Einstein said that things
> should
> > > > be taken simple…but not simpler than they are. Oversimplification
> done
|
