We're in an environment that is fluid, flat-structured and moves quickly; not having had imposed on it the rigidity of formal frameworks, process and governance. It works well for them and they seem to pocket some decent wedge, so fair play on them.
What our learned colleagues don't like is what they consider #immaturity due to the incompleteness of the enterprise picture; where we see it as a grey space that doesn't need to be filled in this organisation, at this point in time.
The obsession with taxonomies and frameworks leads architects especially to what we feel is doing the equivalent of a children's game; each bucket/segment/levrl must have a chip in it and ideally they should be evenly distributed as that aids the creation of a diagram later. Ideally of course for a consultant architect that should be either #threeThings or a #twoByTwo, depending upon the consultancy religion they worship at the altar of!
This is where a real, big-picture thinker doesn't get stuck on detail; an organisation is organic, the combination of flesh, stone, cables and tables - it won't meld to a tidy system model, rather we try to make it for our own ease of life, but must accept that abstraction as a notional falseness that does not aid the business itself.
But #maturity, that word really bites; it is used like an insult now. Like when we were young calling someone a #Reebok was an insult as clearly (to our minds) #Nike was superior; based on no actual premise but our own internal taxonomised ordered of cool trainer brands.
Working to maturity against a framework, technology stack or even a specific maturity scaling (IVI etc.) can be useful; but only when you truly understand the goal. 1 out of 4 is perfectly acceptable (and mature) score for some aspects of an organisation at some times; going to 2 and beyond could possible be over-engineering and prone to error - our mental model is more like the scales of old - you are where you need to be (mature?) if factors on each side balance out.
We're not sure whether this is a consultancy thing, maybe each "missing" maturity level is sitting there in a PowerPoint somewhere with a $ sign swinging underneath, or maybe it is just the set thinking that must be imposed to cookie-cutter produce a set of consultants to apply the same thing again and again. But it is less relevant now to our eyes; in a world of swirl and change wasting time applying a framework against which to measure is waste; which our old friend Deming talks at length about.
What is important are KPIs; measured, re-measured, compared then introspected in an open and transparent manner so as to aid improvement or, as least talked about. The decision to stand still; reduce or even remove are all just as valid as that to improve. What is the point having a corporate aspect of testing bulging with a score of 4, when your delivery scores just 1 and you delivery well and quickly to the business every day?
So; thinking about the bar and organisation has set for itself and the vision they have is really more important; not all are or ever will be the same; neither to organisations want to "grow up" to be a bigger version of themselves at the next highest level; some ideas will never flourish like that.
A comparison can be made here to people and the corporate ladder; how many are CEO material?
Very few of course; while the majority still are not even management or executive possibles; so we don't train them to be at the top of the pyramid.
But break outside of the corporate structure and you see any entirely different set of personal aims; the local grocer, if you're lucky enough to have one, has and needs different aims - his #maturity cannot be measured against a corporate clone as they're clearly not the same.
So, let's stop applying our vision and target on an enterprise; rather prise it from them and work to aid that rather than checking boxes...
No comments:
Post a Comment