Author Archives: antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor
2005/10 Negotiated Order and Network Form Organizations – Parhankangas, Ing, Hawk, Dane, and Kosits
2005/10 Negotiated Order and Network Form Organizations
Authors
Annaleena Parhankangas, David Ing, David L. Hawk, Gosia Dane, and Marianne Kosits
Abstract
Throughout the 20th century, the industrial age roots of hierarchical top-down planning and command-and-control supervision have been the foundations for management thinking. At the beginning of the 21st century, many futurists and systems thinkers have widely declared that businesses must equip themselves to be more responsive to rapidly changing environments. Dynamic, knowledge-based businesses require that rigid forms of business governance give way to networked forms.
Since many successful businesses have shifted from autonomous independent enterprises to building alliances and inter-organizational relationships, we advocate a renewed examination of negotiated order and a focus on the fluidity enabled by it. The traditional advantages of legal order are being outweighed by its inherent rigidity. Under conditions of rapid change, maintaining an internally consistent set of rules, essential to legal order, is inefficient and relatively ineffective.
Systems of negotiated order are characterized by situational coordination of interests, flexible definitions of desired end states, and spontaneous initiatives by interested stakeholders. We examine the development of the Linux community and its negotiated system of self-governance, and offer three additional business examples that suggest how negotiated order may provide a platform for stakeholders to innovatively leverage the dynamics of the contemporary environment.
Citation
Annaleena Parhankangas, David Ing, David L. Hawk, Gosia Dane, and Marianne Kosits, “Negotiated Order and Network Form Organizations”, in Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Volume 22, Number 5, (October 2005), pp. 431-452.
Content
- Request from authors, or access online at dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.717
- [view/download the preprint as DOC] (203 KB)
- [view/download the preprint as PDF] (257 KB)
Source: 2005/10 Negotiated Order and Network Form Organizations | Coevolving Innovations
‘the core protocols v.3.02’ from ‘the McCarthy Show’
[A nice example of a set of collaborative governance rules which look to boundary positions and (arguably) some emergent behaviours. These came up in the very live discussion about ‘governance’ of the facebook group ‘the ecology of systems thinking’, and I present them here as a nice example of the kind of organising approach where governance is built into the rules framework for all participants to access. I know nothing more about their context or creation other than the OP referred to them as rules for ‘high performing teams’]
From ‘the McCarthy show’
THE CORE PROTOCOLS V.3.02
(The Core is distributed under the terms of the GNU-PL. For exact terms see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt. The Core is considered as source code under that agreement. You are free to use and distribute this work or any derivations you care to make, provided you also distribute this source document in its entirety, including this paragraph.)
The following Core Protocols are made up of both commitments and protocols.
The Core Protocols
- Pass (Unpass)
- Check In
- Check Out
- Ask For Help
- Protocol Check
- Intention Check
- Decider
- Resolution
- Perfection Game
- Personal Alignment
- Investigate
The Core Commitments
- I commit to engage when present.
- To know and disclose
- what I want,
- what I think, and
- what I feel.
- To always seek effective help.
- To decline to offer and refuse to accept incoherent emotional transmissions.
- When I have or hear a better idea than the currently prevailing idea, I will immediately either
- propose it for decisive acceptance or rejection, and/or
- explicitly seek its improvement.
- I will personally support the best idea
- regardless of its source,
- however much I hope an even better idea may later arise, and
- when I have no superior alternative idea.
- I will seek to perceive more than I seek to be perceived.
- I will use teams, especially when undertaking difficult tasks.
- I will speak always and only when I believe it will improve the general results/effort ratio.
- I will offer and accept only rational, results-oriented behavior and communication.
- I will disengage from less productive situations
- When I cannot keep these commitments,
- When it is more important that I engage elsewhere.
- I will do now what must be done eventually and can effectively be done now.
- I will seek to move forward toward a particular goal, by biasing my behavior toward action.
- I will use the Core Protocols (or better) when applicable.
- I will offer and accept timely and proper use of the Protocol Check protocol without prejudice.
- I will neither harm—nor tolerate the harming of—anyone for his or her fidelity to these commitments.
- I will never do anything dumb on purpose.
Pass (Unpass)
The Pass protocol is how you decline to participate in something. Use it anytime you don’t want to participate in an activity.
Steps
- When you’ve decided not to participate, say “I pass. ”
- Unpass any time you desire. Unpass as soon as you know you want to participate again by saying “I unpass. ”
Commitments
- Hold reasons for passing private.
- Pass on something as soon as you are aware you are going to pass.
- Respect the right of others to pass without explanation.
- Support those who pass by not discussing them or their pass.
- Do not judge, shame, hassle, interrogate or punish anyone who passes.
Notes
- In general, you will not be in good standing with your Core Commitments if you pass most of the time.
- You can pass on any activity; however, if you have adopted the Core Commitments, you cannot pass on a Decider vote and you must say “I’m in” when checking in.
- You can pass even though you have already started something.
Check In
Use Check In to begin meetings or anytime an individual or group Check In would add more value to the current team interactions.
Steps
- Speaker says “I feel [one or more of MAD, SAD, GLAD, AFRAID].” Speaker may provide a brief explanation. Or if others have already checked in, the speaker may say “I pass.” (See the Pass protocol.)
- Speaker says “I’m in.” This signifies that Speaker intends to behave according to the Core Commitments.
- Listeners respond, “Welcome.”
Commitments
- State feelings without qualification.
- State feelings only as they pertain to yourself.
- Be silent during another’s Check In.
- Do not refer to another’s Check In disclosures without explicitly granted permission from him or her.
Notes
- In the context of the Core Protocols, all emotions are expressed through combinations of MAD, SAD, GLAD, or AFRAID. For example, “excited” may be a combination of GLAD and AFRAID.
- Check In as deeply as possible. Checking in with two or more emotions is the norm. The depth of a group’s Check In translates directly to the quality of the group’s results.
- Do not do anything to diminish your emotional state. Do not describe yourself as a “little” mad, sad, glad, or afraid or say “I’m mad, but I’m still glad.”
- Except in large groups, if more than one person checks in, it is recommended that all do so.
- HAPPY may be substituted for GLAD, and SCARED may be substituted for AFRAID.
Check Out
Check Out requires that your physical presence always signifies your engagement. You must Check Out when you are aware that you cannot maintain the Core Commitments or whenever it would be better for you to be elsewhere.
Steps
- Say “I’m checking out.”
- Physically leave the group until you’re ready to Check In once again.
- Optionally, if it is known and relevant, you can say when you believe you’ll return.
- Those who are present for the CheckOut may not follow the person, talk to or about the person checking out or otherwise chase him or her.
Commitments
- Return as soon as you can and are able to keep the Core Commitments.
- Return and Check In without unduly calling attention to your return.
- Do not judge, shame, hassle, interrogate, or punish anyone who checks out.
Notes
- When you CheckOut do it as calmly and gracefully as possible so as to cause minimal disruption to others.
- Check Out if your emotional state is hindering your success, if your receptivity to new information is too low, or if you do not know what you want.
- Check Out is an admission that you are unable to contribute at the present time.
Ask For Help
The Ask For Help protocol allows you to efficiently make use of the skills and knowledge of others. Ask For Help is the act that catalyzes connection and shared vision. Use it continuously, before and during the pursuit of any result.
Steps
- Asker inquires of another, “[Helper’s name], will you X?”
- Asker expresses any specifics or restrictions of the request.
- Helper responds by saying “Yes” or “No” or by offering an alternative form of help.
Commitments
-
Always invoke the Ask For Help Protocol with the phrase “Will you . . .
- Have a clear understanding of what you want from the Helper or if you do not have a clear understanding of what help you want, signal this by saying “I’m not sure what I need help with, but will you help me?”
- Assume that all Helpers are always available and trust that any Helper accepts the responsibility to say “No.”
- Say “No” any time you do not want to help.
- Accept the answer “No” without any inquiry or emotional drama.
- Be receptive of the help offered.
- Offer your best help even if it is not what the asker is expecting.
- Postpone the help request if you are unable to fully engage.
- Request more information if you are unclear about the specifics of the help request.
- Do not apologize for asking for help.
Notes
- Asking for help is a low-cost undertaking. The worst possible outcome is a “No,” which leaves you no further ahead or behind than when you asked. In the best possible outcome, you reduce the amount of time required to achieve a task and/or learn.
- Helpers should say “No” if they are not sure if they want to help. They should say nothing else after turning down a request for help.
- You cannot “over-ask” a given person for help unless he or she has asked you to respect a particular limit.
- If you don’t understand the value of what is offered, or feel that it wouldn’t be useful, or believe yourself to have considered and rejected the idea offered previously, assume a curious stance instead of executing a knee-jerk “But . . .” rejection. (See the Investigate protocol.)
- Asking in time of trouble means you waited too long to ask for help. Ask for help when you are doing well.
- Simply connecting with someone, even if he or she knows nothing of the subject you need help on can help you find answers within yourself, especially if you ask that person to Investigate you.
Protocol Check
Use Protocol Check when you believe a protocol is being used incorrectly in any way or when a Core Commitment is being broken.
Steps
- Say “Protocol Check.”
- If you know the correct use of the protocol, state it. If you don’t, ask for help.
Commitments
- Say “Protocol Check” as soon as you become aware of the incorrect use of a protocol, or of a broken Core Commitment. Do this regardless of the current activity.
- Be supportive of anyone using Protocol Check.
- Do not shame or punish anyone using Protocol Check.
- Ask for help as soon as you realize you are unsure of the correct protocol use.
Intention Check
Use Intention Check to clarify the purpose of your own or another’s behavior. Use it when you aren’t expecting a positive outcome resulting from the current behavior. Intention Check assesses the integrity of your own and another’s intention in a given case.
Steps
- Ask “What is your/my intention with X?” where X equals some type of actual or pending behavior to the person whose intention you want to know.
- If it would be helpful, ask “What response or behavior did you want from whom as X?”
Commitments
- Be aware of your own intention before checking the intention of another.
- Investigate sufficiently to uncover the intention of the person or his actions.
- Make sure you have the intention to resolve any possible conflict peacefully before intention checking someone else. If you do not have a peaceful intention, Check Out.
- Do not be defensive when someone asks you what your intention is. If you can’t do this, Check Out.
Notes
- If conflict arises that seems irresolvable, Check Out and Ask For Help.
Decider
Use Decider anytime you want to move a group immediately and unanimously towards results.
Steps
- Proposer says “I propose [concise, actionable behavior].”
- Proposer says “1-2-3.”
- Voters, using either Yes (thumbs up), No (thumbs down), or Support-it (flat hand), vote simultaneously with other voters.
- Voters who absolutely cannot get in on the proposal declare themselves by saying “I am an absolute no. I won’t get in.” If this occurs, the proposal is withdrawn.
- Proposer counts the votes.
- Proposer withdraws the proposal if a combination of outliers (No votes) and Support-it votes is too great or if proposer expects not to successfully conclude Resolution (below). You can approximate “too great” by using the followingheuristics:
- approximately 50% (or greater) of votes are Support-it, OR
- the anticipated gain if the proposal passes is less than the likely cost of Resolution effort
- Proposer uses the Resolution protocol with each outlier to bring him in by asking, “What will it take to get you in?”
- Proposer declares the proposal carried if all outliers change their votes to Yes or Support-it.
- The team is now committed to the proposed result.
Commitments
- Propose no more than one item per proposal.
- Remain present until the Decider protocol is complete; always remain aware of how your behavior either moves the group forward or slows it down.
- Give your full attention to a proposal over and above all other activity.
- Speak only when you are the proposer or are directed to speak by the proposer.
- Keep the reasons you voted as you did to yourself during the protocol.
- Reveal immediately when you are an absolute no voter and be ready to propose a better idea.
- Be personally accountable for achieving the results of a Decider commitment even if it was made in your absence.
- Keep informed about Decider commitments made in your absence.
- Do not argue with an absolute no voter. Always ask him or her for a better idea.
- Actively support the decisions reached.
- Use your capacity to “stop the show” by declaring you “won’t get in no matter what” with great discretion and as infrequently as possible.
- Insist at all times that the Decider and Resolution protocols be followed exactly as per specification, regardless of how many times you find yourself doing the insisting.
- Do not pass during a Decider.
- Unceasingly work toward forward momentum; have a bias toward action.
- Do not look at how others are voting to choose your own vote.
- Avoid using Decider in large groups. Break up into small subgroups to make decisions, and use the large group to report status.
Notes
- Vote No only when you really believe the contribution to forward momentum you will make to the group after slowing or stopping it in the current vote will greatly outweigh the (usually considerable) costs you are adding by voting No.
- If you are unsure or confused by a proposal, support it and seek clarification offline after the proposal is resolved. If you have an alternate proposal after receiving more information, you can have faith that your team will support the best idea. (See “The Core Commitments”)
- Voting No to make minor improvements to an otherwise acceptable proposal slows momentum and should be avoided. Instead, offer an additional proposal after the current one passes or, better yet, involve yourself in the implementation to make sure your idea gets in.
- Withdraw weak proposals. If a proposal receives less than seventy percent (approximately) Yes votes, it is a weak proposal and should be withdrawn by the proposer. This decision is, however, at the discretion of the proposer.
- Think of yourself as a potential solo outlier every time you vote No.
- Vote Absolute No only when you are convinced you have a significant contribution to make to the direction or leadership of the group, or when integrity absolutely requires it of you.
Resolution
When a Decider vote yields a small minority of outliers, the proposer quickly leads the team, in a highly structured fashion, to deal with the outliers. The Resolution protocol promotes forward momentum by focusing on bringing outliers in at least cost.
Steps
- Proposer asks outlier “What will it take to get you in?”
- Outlier states in a single, short, declarative sentence the precise modification required to be in.
- Proposer offers to adopt the outlier’s changes or withdraws the proposal.
Notes
- If the outlier’s changes are simple, a simple Eye Check is performed to determine if everyone is still in.
- If the outlier’s changes are complex, the proposer must withdraw the current proposal and then submit a new proposal that incorporates the outlier’s changes.
- If the outlier begins to say why he voted No or to explain anything other than what it will take to get him in, the proposer must interrupt the outlier with “What will it take to get you in?”
Perfection Game
The Perfection Game protocol will support you in your desire to aggregate the best ideas. Use it whenever you desire to improve something you’ve created.
Steps
- Perfectee performs an act or presents an object for perfection, optionally saying “Begin” and “End” to notify the Perfector of the start and end of the performance.
- Perfector rates the value of the performance or object on a scale of 1 to 10 based on how much value the Perfector believes he or she can add.
- Perfector says “What I liked about the performance or object was X,” and proceeds to list the qualities of the object the Perfector thought were of high quality or should be amplified.
- Perfector offers the improvements to the performance or object required for it to be rated a 10 by saying “To make it a ten, you would have to do X.”
Commitments
- Accept perfecting without argument.
- Give only positive comments: what you like and what it would take to “give it a 10.”
- Abstain from mentioning what you don’t like or being negative in other ways.
- Withhold points only if you can think of improvements.
- Use ratings that reflect a scale of improvement rather than a scale of how much you liked the object.
- If you cannot say something you liked about the object or specifically say how to make the object better, you must give it a 10.
Notes
- A rating of 10 means you are unable to add value, and a rating of 5 means you will specifically describe how to make the object at least twice as good.
- The important information to transmit in the Perfection Game protocol improves the performance or object. For example, “The ideal sound of a finger snap for me is one that is crisp, has sufficient volume, and startles me somewhat. To get a 10, you would have to increase your crispness.”
- As a perfectee, you may only ask questions to clarify or gather more information for improvement. If you disagree with the ideas given to you, simply don’t include them.
Personal Alignment
The Personal Alignment protocol helps you penetrate deeply into your desires and find what’s blocking you from getting what you want. Use it to discover, articulate, and achieve what you want. The quality of your alignment will be equal to the quality of your results.
Steps
- Want. Answer the question: “What specifically do I want?”
- Block. Ask yourself, “What is blocking me from having what I want?”
- Virtue. Figure out what would remove this block by asking yourself “What virtue—if I had it— would shatter this block of mine?”
- Shift. Pretend the virtue you identified is actually what you want.
- Again. Repeat steps 2 to 4 until this process consistently yields a virtue that is powerful enough to shatter your blocks and get you what you originally thought you wanted.
- Done. Now write down a personal alignment statement in the form “I want [virtue].” For example, “I want courage.”
- Signal/Response/Assignment. Create a signal to let others know when you are practicing your alignment, and provide a response they can give you to demonstrate support. For example, “When I say/do ‘X,’ will you say/do ‘Y’?” Optionally, turn it into an assignment by saying you will do X a certain number of times per day, where X equals an activity that requires you to practice living your alignment.
- Evidence. Write, in specific and measurable terms, the long-term evidence of practicing this alignment.
- Help. Ask each member of your group for help. They help by giving the response you would like when you give your signal that you are practicing your alignment.
Commitments
- Identify an alignment that will result in your personal change and require no change from any other person.
- Identify blocks and wants that are specific and personal.
- Identify blocks that, if solved, would radically increase your effectiveness in life, work, and play.
- Choose a virtue that is about you and preferably one word long. For example: integrity, passion, self-care, peace, fun.
- Ask for help from people who know you and/or know alignments.
- Identify evidence that is measurable by an objective third party.
Notes
- The most popular personal alignments are “I want (Integrity, Courage, Passion, Peace, Self-Awareness or Self-Care)”.
- If you are struggling with figuring out what you want, adopt the alignment “I want self-awareness.” There is no case where increased self-awareness would not be beneficial.
- A personal block is something you find within yourself. It does not refer to circumstances or other people. Assume that you could have had what you want by now, that your block is a myth that somehow deprives you of your full potential.
- Ideally, identify both immediate and long-term evidence of your alignment. Write down results that start now (or very soon), as well as results you’ll see at least five or more years in the future.
- As a default signal, tell your teammates or others who are close to you that you are working on your alignment when you are practicing it. If they don’t know the protocol, just tell them what virtue you are working on and ask for their help.
- When members of a team are completing their personal alignments together (asking each other for help), the final step of the process is most powerful if done as a ceremony.
Investigate
Investigate allows you to learn about a phenomenon that occurs in someone else. Use it when an idea or behavior someone is presenting seems poor, confusing, or simply interesting.
Steps
- Act as if you were a detached but fascinated inquirer, asking questions until your curiosity is satisfied or you no longer want to ask questions.
Commitments
- Ask well-formed questions.
- Ask only questions that will increase your understanding.
- Ask questions only if the subject is engaged and appears ready to answer more.
- Refrain from offering opinions.
- Do not ask leading questions where you think you know how he or she will answer.
- If you cannot remain a detached, curious investigator with no agenda, stop using the protocol until you can come back to it and keep these commitments.
Notes
- Do not theorize about the subject or provide any sort of diagnosis.
- Consider using the following forms for your questions:
- What about X makes you Y Z?
- Would you explain a specific example?
- How does X go when it happens?
- What is the one thing you want most from solving X?
- What is the biggest problem you see regarding X now?
- What is the most important thing you could do right now to help you with X?
- Ineffective queries include the following:
- Questions that lead or reflect an agenda.
- Questions that attempt to hide an answer you believe is true.
- Questions that invite stories.
- Questions that begin with “Why.”
- Stick to your intention of gathering more information.
- If you feel that you will explode if you can’t say what’s on your mind, you shouldn’t speak at all. Consider checking your intention or Check Out.
Source: Online « The McCarthy Show
Design for a self-regenerating organisation – Geoghegan and Pangaro (Semantic Scholar)
Design for a self-regenerating organisation
- Published 2009 in Int. J. General Systems
-
DOI:10.1080/03081070802633700
Source: Design for a self-regenerating organisation – Semantic Scholar
Complexity Theory and Organization Science – Semantic Scholar
Complexity Theory and Organization Science
- Published 2007
Source: Complexity Theory and Organization Science – Semantic Scholar
Cybernetics and Second-Order Cybernetics – Francis Heylighen (Semantic Scholar)
Cybernetics and Second-Order Cybernetics
- Published 2001
It seems ‘semantic scholar’ is a bit of a treasure trove – full pdfs available
Source: Cybernetics and Second-Order Cybernetics – Semantic Scholar
Adaptation , Learning , and the Art of War : a Cybernetic Perspective – Sung Kato (Semantic Scholar)
Adaptation , Learning , and the Art of War : a Cybernetic Perspective
- Published 2014
Source: Adaptation , Learning , and the Art of War : a Cybernetic Perspective – Semantic Scholar
A Grammar of Systems (series, 2015-2017) – YouTube
via Peter Jones
playlist (deliberately broken link otherwise it posts the video):
https://www.youtube.com/
playlist?list=PLT-vY3f9uw3DeVTbNWmRuovh00appA-la
channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMFRHxffBlmapWkdvI2RpEg
Home – EJOR Special Issue on Community Operational Research – Research Guides at University of Massachusetts Boston
EJOR Special Issue on Community Operational Research: Home
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Community Operational Research (COR) is based on meaningful engagement with communities to bring about transformational research and practice along with community empowerment and social change. We work directly with communities to identify, formulate, model and solve problems in which decisions and choices are the core focus. Our training and practice cross disciplinary, application and methodological boundaries: we are planners, engineers, management scholars, policy analysts and many others. The purpose of this website is to introduce you to a special issue of European Journal of Operational Research titled “Community Operational Research: Innovations, Internationalization and Agenda-Setting Applications” which has appeared in August 2018. The 31 papers in this special issue address issues in rural development, theory and methodology, working with youth, urban planning and many other areas. They represent applications of decision modeling that are more familiar to persons with traditional training in operations research and the management sciences, as well as those that reflect progressive notions of how qualitative analysis and a systems view can support positive community change.
Sometimes the perspective of authors in this special issue is on what decisions to make to achieve particular outcomes: How can we design design an energy generation strategy for a small town that balances environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and local energy autonomy? What are new ways to ensure access to nutritious and affordable food in lower-income, primarily immigrant communities that combines behavior changes by residents with new services by stores and government agencies? How can we develop a peace education program in an area rife with political and other violence in which young people learn of alternatives to violence to solve conflicts?
Other times the authors in this special issue seek to examine events that have already occurred to learn how a community-engaged decision modeling perspective can explain what we have observed: If co-production of health care through community engagement and shared responsibility for health care fail in one place after succeeding in another place, could a better understanding of doctors’ professional identities combined with putting key stakeholders at the center of system redesign result in improved outcomes in the future? In the wake of a destructive tsunami and subsequent rebuilding, how can an arts-based methodology help us understand how a community in crisis draws on social networks, cultural practices and collective interventions to build from within?
The goal of this website is to provide convenient information on the articles and the authors so that visitors can make connections between diverse topics, methodologies, analytic methods and application domains and become an active participant in the COR community of practice. We do so by enabling visitors to learn about the subjects, topic themes, keywords, authors and key resources related to community operational research as it is currently theorized and practiced. The website has the following sections:
- Biographical information for the editorial team and manuscript lead authors;
- Information on manuscripts based on title, theme as described in editorial, country of focus of study, primary methodology/analytics classification and keywords, including links to manuscripts in the special issue;
- COR resources, with links to important books, research articles and key publication outlets related to community operational research and related fields.
We hope that this special issue inspires new practitioners to take up the banner of Community OR and make their own contributions, right across the world. If you personally are inspired, do not hesitate to get involved with the community concerns that matter to you most. Importantly, please write up your experiences for publication, and not just for scholarly outlets such as this one. Let us make sure the dialogue on Community OR continues to thrive!
We invite you to learn more about this Special Issue by reading the editorial. The Elsevier website for the Special Issue is here.
Sincerely,
The Editorial Team
Embracing Emergence: Problem Solving on Complex Projects | UTS ePRESS
Embracing Emergence: Problem Solving on Complex Projects
International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) 2017, 11-14 June 2017
Published by UTS ePRESS | http://pmrp.epress.lib.uts.edu.au
CONFERENCE PAPER
1 Director, Australia, Gedeth Network. gina.bowman@gedeth.com
2 Director, Project Management Program, University of Sydney, Adjunct Professor, Bond University; Visiting Professor, Cranfield University School of Management; Professor of Systemic Management, ISCE. lynn.crawford@sydney.edu.au
*Corresponding author: Gina Bowman. Gedeth Network. gina.bowman@gedeth.com
Name: International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) 2017
Location: Boston University, United States
Dates: 11-14 June 2017
Host Organisation: Metropolitan College at Boston University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5130/pmrp.irnop2017.5698
Published: 07/06/2018
Citation: Bowman, G. and Crawford, L. 2017. Embracing emergence: problem solving on complex projects. International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) 2017, UTS ePRESS, Sydney: NSW, pp. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.5130/pmrp.irnop2017.5698
© 2018 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Synopsis
Managing within the unpredictable and complex environments of today’s projects calls for new competencies to help interpret and respond to problems. Quantum storytelling can play a powerful role in reinterpreting project concepts such as risks, and their resulting problems, by harnessing the properties of emergence. The reframing of problems is explored through a complexity lens and underpinned by stories from the international development sector.
Research design
Actuality research, with its focus on the lived experience, provided the foundation for a research study exploring how project managers currently interpret problems on complex projects. Application of the storytelling diamond model supported methodology choice, and in-depth interviews were undertaken with six project managers from two organizations managing complex projects.
Relevance for practice
We believe that developing an understanding of quantum storytelling and its potential application to managing projects has the capacity to assist project teams to make sense of the emergent nature of complex projects and to consider alternative approaches to solving problems.
Main Findings
The findings provide insight into how the project managers interviewed currently interpret problems and the resulting approaches to solving them. Their stories outline the themes that populate both the organizational and sectorial narrative of their projects.
We argue that traditional project methods apply control frames and behaviours through which to interpret concepts like problems, but in the real world, adaptable and flexible behaviours are required to tackle them as they evolve in the field. We determine that the traditional “plan and manage” contingency approach is not delivering to these project managers the competencies required to manage their projects.
Research implications
Our paper illustrates how a storytelling methodology can be used to explore problems and identifies the potential to further develop storytelling competency through adopting a complexity mindset with its inherent understanding of the property of emergence.
Keywords
Complex Projects, Problems, Storytelling, Complexity, Emergence
Source: Embracing Emergence: Problem Solving on Complex Projects | UTS ePRESS
Principles of Chaos Engineering
PRINCIPLES OF CHAOS ENGINEERING
Last Update: 2018 May
Chaos Engineering is the discipline of experimenting on a distributed system
in order to build confidence in the system’s capability
to withstand turbulent conditions in production.
Advances in large-scale, distributed software systems are changing the game for software engineering. As an industry, we are quick to adopt practices that increase flexibility of development and velocity of deployment. An urgent question follows on the heels of these benefits: How much confidence we can have in the complex systems that we put into production?
Even when all of the individual services in a distributed system are functioning properly, the interactions between those services can cause unpredictable outcomes. Unpredictable outcomes, compounded by rare but disruptive real-world events that affect production environments, make these distributed systems inherently chaotic.
We need to identify weaknesses before they manifest in system-wide, aberrant behaviors. Systemic weaknesses could take the form of: improper fallback settings when a service is unavailable; retry storms from improperly tuned timeouts; outages when a downstream dependency receives too much traffic; cascading failures when a single point of failure crashes; etc. We must address the most significant weaknesses proactively, before they affect our customers in production. We need a way to manage the chaos inherent in these systems, take advantage of increasing flexibility and velocity, and have confidence in our production deployments despite the complexity that they represent.
An empirical, systems-based approach addresses the chaos in distributed systems at scale and builds confidence in the ability of those systems to withstand realistic conditions. We learn about the behavior of a distributed system by observing it during a controlled experiment. We call this Chaos Engineering.
CHAOS IN PRACTICE
To specifically address the uncertainty of distributed systems at scale, Chaos Engineering can be thought of as the facilitation of experiments to uncover systemic weaknesses. These experiments follow four steps:
- Start by defining ‘steady state’ as some measurable output of a system that indicates normal behavior.
- Hypothesize that this steady state will continue in both the control group and the experimental group.
- Introduce variables that reflect real world events like servers that crash, hard drives that malfunction, network connections that are severed, etc.
- Try to disprove the hypothesis by looking for a difference in steady state between the control group and the experimental group.
The harder it is to disrupt the steady state, the more confidence we have in the behavior of the system. If a weakness is uncovered, we now have a target for improvement before that behavior manifests in the system at large.
ADVANCED PRINCIPLES
The following principles describe an ideal application of Chaos Engineering, applied to the processes of experimentation described above. The degree to which these principles are pursued strongly correlates to the confidence we can have in a distributed system at scale.
Build a Hypothesis around Steady State Behavior
Focus on the measurable output of a system, rather than internal attributes of the system. Measurements of that output over a short period of time constitute a proxy for the system’s steady state. The overall system’s throughput, error rates, latency percentiles, etc. could all be metrics of interest representing steady state behavior. By focusing on systemic behavior patterns during experiments, Chaos verifies that the system does work, rather than trying to validate how it works.
Vary Real-world Events
Chaos variables reflect real-world events. Prioritize events either by potential impact or estimated frequency. Consider events that correspond to hardware failures like servers dying,software failures like malformed responses, and non-failure events like a spike in traffic or a scaling event. Any event capable of disrupting steady state is a potential variable in a Chaos experiment.
Run Experiments in Production
Systems behave differently depending on environment and traffic patterns. Since the behavior of utilization can change at any time, sampling real traffic is the only way to reliably capture the request path. To guarantee both authenticity of the way in which the system is exercised and relevance to the current deployed system, Chaos strongly prefers to experiment directly on production traffic.
Automate Experiments to Run Continuously
Running experiments manually is labor-intensive and ultimately unsustainable. Automate experiments and run them continuously. Chaos Engineering builds automation into the system to drive both orchestration and analysis.
Minimize Blast Radius
Experimenting in production has the potential to cause unnecessary customer pain. While there must be an allowance for some short-term negative impact, it is the responsibility and obligation of the Chaos Engineer to ensure the fallout from experiments are minimized and contained.
Chaos Engineering is a powerful practice that is already changing how software is designed and engineered at some of the largest-scale operations in the world. Where other practices address velocity and flexibility, Chaos specifically tackles systemic uncertainty in these distributed systems. The Principles of Chaos provide confidence to innovate quickly at massive scales and give customers the high quality experiences they deserve.
Join the ongoing discussion of the Principles of Chaos and their application in the Chaos Community Google Group.
Translations: FR | RU | 中文 (简体) | 한국어 | Spanish | TR | PT-BR | العَرَبِيَّة | 日本語
If you want to add your translation, please submit a pull request against the Github repository.
Source: Principles of Chaos Engineering
Cheat sheet: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/chaos-engineering-a-cheat-sheet/
The rise of: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/04/the-rise-of-chaos-engineering/
History, practices, principles: https://www.gremlin.com/community/tutorials/chaos-engineering-the-history-principles-and-practice/
2003/07 Governance and the Practice of Management in Long-Term Inter-Organizational Relations | Coevolving Innovations
2003/07 Governance and the Practice of Management in Long-Term Inter-Organizational Relations
Authors
David Ing, David Hawk, Ian Simmonds, and Marianne Kosits
Abstract
Outsourcing, strategic alliances and joint ventures are dominant forms of extending organizational reach. The scope and direction of these associations is set through management and governance of the inter-organizational relation. Yet, an understanding of the distinctions between management and government are often missing, both for those who initiate and for those who operate within a joint initiative.
This article reviews the concepts of management and governance in an inter-organizational context from the foundations of general systems and social theory. The motivations of efficiency and synergy are compared. Choices made about long-term alliances are highlighted in distinctions between designs that are complicated and designs that are complex, and between interactions that are loosely coupled and interactions that are tightly coupled. The influences of management and governance are considered in the cybernetic frame that distinguishes between external control and self-control.
Recommendations for business include considering of multiple lines of authority, as heterarchy; and the adoption of a social practice perspective that can include aspects of solidarity and style, uncovered in the disclosing of new worlds.
Citation
David Ing, David Hawk, Ian Simmonds, and Marianne Kosits, “Governance and the Practice of Management in Long-Term Inter-Organizational Relations”, Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the System Sciences, at Hersonissos, Crete, July 7-11, 2003.
Content
- [view/download the article as PDF] (104 KB)
Social interactions shape individual and collective personality in social spiders
The behavioural composition of a group and the dynamics of social interactions can both influence how social animals work collectively. For example, individuals exhibiting certain behavioural tendencies may have a disproportionately large impact on the group, and so are referred to as keystone individuals, while interactions between individuals can facilitate information transmission about resources. Despite the potential impact of both behavioural composition and interactions on collective behaviour, the relationship between consistent behaviours (also known as personalities) and social interactions remains poorly understood. Here, we use stochastic actor-oriented models to uncover the interdependencies between boldness and social interactions in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. We find that boldness has no effect on the likelihood of forming social interactions, but interactions do affect boldness, and lead to an increase in the boldness of the shyer individual. Furthermore, spiders tend to interact with the same individuals as their neighbours. In general, boldness decreases…
View original post 117 more words
Entropy | Special Issue : Information Theory in Complex Systems
Complex systems are ubiquitous in the natural and engineered worlds. Examples are self-assembling materials, the Earth’s climate, single- and multi-cellular organisms, the brain, and coupled socio-economic and socio-technical systems, to mention a few canonical examples. The use of Shannon information theory to study the behavior of such systems, and to explain and predict their dynamics, has gained significant attention, both from a theoretical and from an experimental viewpoint. There have been many advances in applying Shannon theory to complex systems, including correlation analyses for spatial and temporal data and construction and clustering techniques for complex networks. Progress has often been driven by the application areas, such as genetics, neurosciences, and the Earth sciences.
The application of Shannon theory to data of real-world complex systems are often hindered by the frequent lack of stationarity and sufficient statistics. Further progress on this front call for new statistical techniques based on Shannon information…
View original post 87 more words
The Anastomotic Reticulum (Stafford Beer) – an incomplete note in search of further elucidation
This is an incomplete note about an important and interesting concept, in the hope that it will create an attractor for more explanation!
Image from this weird notes page (incomplete): Norm-Critical Innovation | Knowledge Management Research Group
I came across this in https://medium.com/@aidan.ward.antelope/of-bullshit-anastomosis-767bc0fc4e57
The detection of bullshit is a crucial feature of our lives: we are, after all, drowning in it. If you think anastomosis probably IS bullshit, go to the bottom of the class. Anastomosis seems to be little known about but is a crucial structure for bullshit filtering. Nassim Taleb, in his latest popular book, Skin in the Game, says his whole series of books including the Black Swan and Antifragile amount to a life project of bullshit detection. Spoiler alert: he finds no shortage of BS, especially in government functions.
Anastomosis? I have three pillars. Stafford Beer, whose Viable Systems Model I have used extensively, describes the cybernetic function of our brains as an anastomotic reticulum. Alan Rayner, in The Origin of Life Patterns, has anastomotic flow forms as how reality happens. And in a recent article which we will explore a little, Wired into Pain, Tom Jesson explains how our nervous system uses anastomotic patterns to separate the pain we need to pay attention to from all the other signals that are not as significant in preserving our life. Yes, our pain has bullshit filtering built in.
In James Scott’s wonderful new book Against the Grain, it seems that the cradle of civilisation itself was the system of marshes and braided distributory channels in lower Mesopotamia (Greek — between the rivers). Our very being is anastomotic whether we know it or not. The complex ecologies that surged back and forth, our ability to partake of multiple food webs, the social structures that were played with and developed. How far we have fallen.
This article gives part of an explanation (pdf):
Click to access 10.1007%2F978-3-642-15509-3_14.pdf
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastomosis:
An anastomosis (plural anastomoses) is a connection or opening between two things (especially cavities or passages) that are normally diverging or branching, such as between blood vessels, leaf veins, or streams. Such a connection may be normal (such as the foramen ovale in a fetus’s heart) or abnormal (such as the patent foramen ovale in an adult’s heart); it may be acquired (such as an arteriovenous fistula) or innate (such as the arteriovenous shunt of a metarteriole); and it may be natural (such as the aforementioned examples) or artificial (such as a surgical anastomosis).

Ray Ison






You must be logged in to post a comment.