Comments on: Musing about collective intelligence and Agile and complex systems problems http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/23/musing-about-collective-intelligence-and-agile-and-complex-systems-problems/ a blog about information Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:20:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jacob Jesson http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/23/musing-about-collective-intelligence-and-agile-and-complex-systems-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-147088 Jacob Jesson Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:32:13 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/23/musing-about-collective-intelligence-and-agile-and-complex-systems-problems/#comment-147088 Excellent post, thank you! About the same time you met with Doug Engelbart, I was in Cambridge for a session at the New England Complex Systems Institute. Two of MIT's finest business minds were there, Peter Senge and John Sterman. Yaneer Bar-Yam led the session. The presentations and discussions focused on how to apply complex systems thinking in a business context. The concept of evolutionary processes, or in the case of IT, evolutionary engineering were front and center. Your post, and the following comments, are spot on in so many ways. A significant challenge I face in my practice is finding a means for large and established organizations to transform into a more evolutionary type business and IT model. Newer and smaller organizations have the benefit of either starting off "correctly" or transforming quickly due to their small size. I firmly believe that the transformative process for larger organizations is an evolutionary process as well. I agree with Doug that the whole structure should be considered. Too often though, the complexity of the whole structure is used as a justification for why the whole structure is too big to consider. I think that the "too big to consider" argument assumes that a firm control structure must be in place and thus all of the variables must be closely managed. Clearly this is impossible. As Doug points out, this type of control thinking is what is causing the problem in the first place. So, it is in this context that the transformative process must also incorporate the same concepts as the "agile" environment we seek. Excellent post, thank you! About the same time you met with Doug Engelbart, I was in Cambridge for a session at the New England Complex Systems Institute. Two of MIT’s finest business minds were there, Peter Senge and John Sterman. Yaneer Bar-Yam led the session. The presentations and discussions focused on how to apply complex systems thinking in a business context. The concept of evolutionary processes, or in the case of IT, evolutionary engineering were front and center. Your post, and the following comments, are spot on in so many ways.

A significant challenge I face in my practice is finding a means for large and established organizations to transform into a more evolutionary type business and IT model. Newer and smaller organizations have the benefit of either starting off “correctly” or transforming quickly due to their small size. I firmly believe that the transformative process for larger organizations is an evolutionary process as well.

I agree with Doug that the whole structure should be considered. Too often though, the complexity of the whole structure is used as a justification for why the whole structure is too big to consider. I think that the “too big to consider” argument assumes that a firm control structure must be in place and thus all of the variables must be closely managed. Clearly this is impossible. As Doug points out, this type of control thinking is what is causing the problem in the first place. So, it is in this context that the transformative process must also incorporate the same concepts as the “agile” environment we seek.

]]> By: Bob Lucas http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/23/musing-about-collective-intelligence-and-agile-and-complex-systems-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-142866 Bob Lucas Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:00:40 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/23/musing-about-collective-intelligence-and-agile-and-complex-systems-problems/#comment-142866 I have come to a very similar conclusion via my experience with the US DOD environment and it's forced expansion of it area of responsibilities due to current events. The world is so large and complex that we need to evolve a living organism model where we bring together smart and experienced people and support them with rapid access to whatever knowledge base required. Let them rapidly consider different options in an iterative process so they can evolve optimal solutions and react/adjust in agile manner to the changing environment. I have come to a very similar conclusion via my experience with the US DOD environment and it’s forced expansion of it area of responsibilities due to current events.

The world is so large and complex that we need to evolve a living organism model where we bring together smart and experienced people and support them with rapid access to whatever knowledge base required. Let them rapidly consider different options in an iterative process so they can evolve optimal solutions and react/adjust in agile manner to the changing environment.

]]> By: Stephen Smoliar http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/23/musing-about-collective-intelligence-and-agile-and-complex-systems-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-136649 Stephen Smoliar Thu, 24 May 2007 17:16:44 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/23/musing-about-collective-intelligence-and-agile-and-complex-systems-problems/#comment-136649 I worry that all this talk about fractals amounts to a rehash of Haeckel's theory of recapitulation ("ontogeny recapituaaltes phylogeny") seen through the lenses of Mandelbrot's "fractal geometry of nature" and mapped over to "organic organizations!" I prefer to put my money on Giddens' structuration theory. This assumes a dialectical relationship between the STRUCTURES of rules and resources in any social organization and the "regular social practices" that actually take place around those rules and resources. Giddens is less interested in the question of whether an organization should be hierarchical and more interested in how to REPRODUCE successful engagements between structures and practices. I worry that all this talk about fractals amounts to a rehash of Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation (“ontogeny recapituaaltes phylogeny”) seen through the lenses of Mandelbrot’s “fractal geometry of nature” and mapped over to “organic organizations!” I prefer to put my money on Giddens’ structuration theory. This assumes a dialectical relationship between the STRUCTURES of rules and resources in any social organization and the “regular social practices” that actually take place around those rules and resources. Giddens is less interested in the question of whether an organization should be hierarchical and more interested in how to REPRODUCE successful engagements between structures and practices.

]]> By: Doug http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/23/musing-about-collective-intelligence-and-agile-and-complex-systems-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-136628 Doug Thu, 24 May 2007 16:17:44 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/23/musing-about-collective-intelligence-and-agile-and-complex-systems-problems/#comment-136628 JP, My recent reading has been in and around Corporate Democracy. This relates to all you are saying about an Agile and fractal nature of an organization. Some related links: http://www.gbn.com/BookClubSelectionDisplayServlet.srv?si=69 http://www.designnine.com/library/docs/other_papers/Democratic_Company.pdf and http://worldblu.com/ although this site has not been updated for a while. These ideas and what you have said in this post are swimming in a mixup in my brain. I would love to have some discussion to help put them in order. The organization should not be de-fractalised. It needs to embrace the Agile and open methods. By changing the basic organization from a management hierarchy, into smaller groups making decisions, and putting the power at the edges of the network all the benefits of the Agile methods are available. The issue is really about the people with power giving up control and trusting that the folks on the edges know what they are doing. The same issue keeps corporate CIOs from using OSS. They don't have someone to blame, another form of control. The discussion needs to be wider than just using OSS or Agile methods. The whole structure of the organization should be considered. JP,
My recent reading has been in and around Corporate Democracy. This relates to all you are saying about an Agile and fractal nature of an organization.
Some related links:
http://www.gbn.com/BookClubSelectionDisplayServlet.srv?si=69
http://www.designnine.com/library/docs/other_papers/Democratic_Company.pdf
and http://worldblu.com/ although this site has not been updated for a while.

These ideas and what you have said in this post are swimming in a mixup in my brain. I would love to have some discussion to help put them in order.

The organization should not be de-fractalised. It needs to embrace the Agile and open methods. By changing the basic organization from a management hierarchy, into smaller groups making decisions, and putting the power at the edges of the network all the benefits of the Agile methods are available.
The issue is really about the people with power giving up control and trusting that the folks on the edges know what they are doing. The same issue keeps corporate CIOs from using OSS. They don’t have someone to blame, another form of control.
The discussion needs to be wider than just using OSS or Agile methods. The whole structure of the organization should be considered.

]]>