Any given framework would typically provide a quicks pathway to adoption as to aid framework adoption. Additionally, it would provide a level of educational opportunities that would enable users to achieve better understanding and provide the skill to tailor the Framework as needed.
Some of the reasons why frameworks fail:
Let’s discuss these in some detail.
Aggregated nature of a framework means that it’s an iceberg of knowledge, and it represents the cumulative knowledge it’s author’s as well as knowledge of giants on which shoulders those authors stood. These knowledge icebergs if not approached correctly, will seal your faith which is an unfortunate nature of the unknown.
Organisations are also icebergs of knowledge and represent the cumulative knowledge of all their participants, and the more brilliant they appear, the more knowledge and data-hungry they are. Organisations leverage a multitude of structural societal frameworks and employ humans to add value and help to deal with exceptions. This means that essentially organisation leverages societal structures to achieve an exception that would be mutually beneficial.
Let’s explore these concepts further when a new employee joins an organisation they bring with them a wealth of experience and unique perspective that is mutually helpful when integrated. This integration occurs slowly, which is the primary reason for success, as both organisation and employee explore alignment between their knowledge structures and have time to adjust. The best outcome is when both employee and organisational knowledge structures are similar and align without exceptions.
Knowledge structure alignment exceptions occur when either of the structures does not align cleanly and in all cases employee would be in a position to decide their actions. An employee can either use their influence to alter the organisations or strive for other goals. Most mutually beneficial goals are when employees choose to influence the organisation as it provides growth not only to employee and organisation but also for other employees within the organisation.
The scope and incentives of the initiative by the employee mean that the alignment of changes would either be local or organisation-wide, and though this process moulding and enriching of both knowledge structures occur. Throughout this process, the employee plays the role of a change agent whose incentive is to ensure the Framework and their knowledge is tightly integrated into the organisation. This, in essence, provides a way for an employee to leave an imprint on the organisational knowledge structure.
When it comes to aligning frameworks to organisations, essentially the same process occurs. The biggest difference in alignment of a framework to an organisation comes from the scope of impact and implementation timelines. The scope of impact for Framework tends to always be organisation-wide, even if they are appear localised appreciation of the Framework and its purpose needs support from adjacent participants as in to support and encourage the change efforts.
To join an organisation and a framework as knowledge icebergs intimate of both has to occur to ensure close alignment, any areas that don’t align would create tension and friction that would long term reverse the alignment and organisation would reject the Framework. This is not a negative outcome as it would allow the organisation to grow and understand what in fact does not work so that the organisation can align to something that does.
In the majority of situations, the rejection is done at a social level as frameworks tend to prescribe a particular operational method. Technical systems can cause failures in operation models, but those reasons explicit, structurally evident and have a degree of predictability. Failures that stem from social rejection are much harder to identify, evaluate and predict. Passive aversion towards change is a catalyst for the slow erosion of progress, its undetectable until its too late and even in the retrospective are hard to identify.
The structural systems of an organisation once they are established do not have an ability self-change, social layer, on the other hand, is in a constant state of change. Within an organisation, the social layer is the sole mechanisms for dealing with the unknown and adjusting organisational structures to fit. This means attempts to introduce any frameworks into an organisation would need tangible social reasons for all participants.
Typically in an organisation, maintaining information is a role dedicated to a set of specialised roles that act as eyes and ears for the organisation, these roles are typically the translators between groups of people. Job for the roles that do translation is to package the knowledge and information from one side and make it relevant to another side and vice versa. These roles are typically supported with specific tools and enable some collaboration and presentation of their content to the greater community. These tools are either formal modelling suites that require foundational training and specialisation to use or could be a collection of ad-hoc material compiled overtime to provide input in a social context.
Even when roles are formally incentivised to maintain quality of information and data, they are still dependant on the organisational capacity to produce quality data that can be used as-is without translation. In the absence of that those roles are left extending the knowledge gap by filling in the blank, this done from conceptual, logical, exception handling and social where its no new reusable information is created.
Extending incentives beyond central authority in organisations are not feasible as it distracts others from their core activities. Furthermore, any form of generating and maintaining non-social information silos outside of main control function becomes a form of side-hustle. It’s it a hard job to manage information without the support, and it’s just easier to create social process gates to avoid the hassle.
These and other factors place an organisation future at the mercy of social consequence, where its social selection of people that help along the journey defines its success. There is no quick solution; it means that organisations need to be very thorough when introducing frameworks into their organisations.
Organisations are like people; their ability to understand a framework depend on their historical experience and acquired knowledge, so “uploading” framework knowledge into an organisation does not work like in the Matrix. GXP will explore this “upload” notion and how this could be possible in organisations of the future.
]]>There is a clear need for a new way to help to govern organisations. This need is apparent from the continual search for efficiencies and effectiveness of organisations which demonstrated through transformations and a smorgasbord of frameworks available.
Existing patterns and frameworks focus on educating individual parts of the organisation in order to mature the organisation as a whole. Primarily this education efforts usually occur at a point in time where an organisation needs a boost to mature past current state. These education efforts are an oversight approach when applied and practised produces the desired outcome.
Fundamentally all organisations are socio-technical entities and at their very nature are very complicated at best. Maturing organisations is a process for developing the social and technical layers; this requires architecting and communicating of change across the organisation and its where the challenges start.
In organisations miscommunication is pathological, and it is prevalent in all types of socio-technical organisations startups, government and corporates. The primary reason for this is audience conflict, where teams loyalty at lower levels often erode its ability to deal with external ideas, other groups and its allegiance to the organisation as a whole.
These organisational communication issues further amplified by scale and velocity at which an organisation tries to move. In an organisation, geographic, corporate, and domain silos provide a ground on which miscommunication impeds communication and collaboration.
Socio-technical organisations need to promote empathy in an organisation that allows teams to respect each other’s contributions as well as maintain the shared purpose of organisational goal. Organisations that enable teams to embrace the shared language and establish mutual regard towards other groups would develop organisational cohesion that will further reinforce organisational success.
Significant social issues in organisations that impact performance fall into the following categories:
One of the approaches to deal with social issues is to encourage cohesion across teams. For organisations to establish organisational cohesion, all participants need to feel that their contribution is valuable and equally important. Enabling valuable contribution can be achieved by providing tailored experience at the team level, in turn, enabling teams to achieve their goals while ensuring that all groups are working off the same shared knowledge. Establishing a shared knowledge base and providing tailored experiences for groups creates a common purpose, facilitates communication and enables cooperation, all of this enabling coordination across the organisation.
Organisations are socio-technical platforms that attempt to facilitate socially driven change to technical systems created by the evolution of that organisation. Coordinating social change has become difficult to achieve without shared knowledge, that can be adopted and tailored though experiences for individuals that make up those organisations. By doing this, organisations will provide a method that will ensure that everyone involved feels that their contribution is valued and is equally important.
Establishing a shared knowledge that whole organisation use as a base for decisions requires a new type of governance platform. A new governance platform that will provide a foundation for defining governance models so that they can be leveraged by AI to provide direction and insights while maintaining human social participation. This platform will provide a central core to each organisation and will support all interactions across organisations and will enable orchestration of organisational systems and will enhance social participation.
Organisational complexity creates a paradox of organisational deafness, where the sheer amount of noise drowns individual ability to get a message heard, let alone have that message make an impact. This primarily because organisations are unable to listen and engage with all inputs to that organisation. This further eventuates the paradox leads to organisations to adopt the path of less resistance approach though out its delivery.
Forces that bring about change to an organisation are both external and internal. External forces bring about changes that an organisation is unable to control, and it relies on its social ecosystem to predict and counter all external effects. Organisational internal social ecosystem translates external input and converts these into internalising actions that adjust organisational structures—the more efficient this process, the more effective the organisation as a whole.
Organisations internal social ecosystem efficiency is coupled with the effectiveness of that organisation; therefore, organisations that focus on the health of their social ecosystem would see positive outcomes for the organisation as a whole. The ability of an organisational social ecosystem to actively listen and synchronise changes needed to the organisation is largely rendered impractical due to the complexity of organisations. This leaves a minority of inputs that are leveraged for establishing a direction for change.
The ability of an organisation to actively listen and act on all inputs would provide a method to synchronise changes need to achieve effectiveness.
The case for a new governance platform is all too apparent across all industries and social divides. Oldways of doing things within organisations cannot keep up with breadth, depth and scale of new age demands. The complexity of organisational dependencies, social ways of working and technology ecosystems create a foundation for unpredictable delivery.
Governance Experience Platform (GXP) is a platform that enables the development of Organisational Experiences that leverage foundational knowledge and structures that self-reinforces its foundations. GXP is a platform that will provide the foundations on which organisations can create organisational experiences that harness the shared knowledge into a shared data structure that further reinforce organisations foundations.
Organisations need to be able to create experiences that are efficient, effective and personalised to an individual level, crossing domain, organisational and geographic boundaries. GXP focus is to provide a foundation for creating experiences that facilitate social and procedural governance patterns, that can demonstrate and elevate the contribution of each individual to the social organisation journey.
Humanity needs a way to share governance models from small businesses and communities to conglomerates and countries. Current methods of sharing governance models rest on ad hoc consumer-driven approach. The breadth of governance landscape prevents correlation between governance models at any level. GXP will provide a mechanism to share organisational experiences across boundaries without compromising shared knowledge of those organisations.
GXP will enable organisational governance and provide a pathway to establish trusted relationships with governments that provide stewardship in shared societal responsibilities with organisations. Establishing a non-invasive pathway for governments to contribute to organisational governance would facilitate cohesion between organisations without removing the free-market competition fundamentals that drive economies where those organisations operate.
]]>Any given framework would typically provide a quicks pathway to adoption as to aid framework adoption. Additionally, it would provide a level of educational opportunities that would enable users to achieve better understanding and provide the skill to tailor the Framework as needed.
Some of the reasons why frameworks fail:
Let’s discuss these in some detail.
Aggregated nature of a framework means that it’s an iceberg of knowledge, and it represents the cumulative knowledge it’s author’s as well as knowledge of giants on which shoulders those authors stood. These knowledge icebergs if not approached correctly, will seal your faith which is an unfortunate nature of the unknown.
Organisations are also icebergs of knowledge and represent the cumulative knowledge of all their participants, and the more brilliant they appear, the more knowledge and data-hungry they are. Organisations leverage a multitude of structural societal frameworks and employ humans to add value and help to deal with exceptions. This means that essentially organisation leverages societal structures to achieve an exception that would be mutually beneficial.
Let’s explore these concepts further when a new employee joins an organisation they bring with them a wealth of experience and unique perspective that is mutually helpful when integrated. This integration occurs slowly, which is the primary reason for success, as both organisation and employee explore alignment between their knowledge structures and have time to adjust. The best outcome is when both employee and organisational knowledge structures are similar and align without exceptions.
Knowledge structure alignment exceptions occur when either of the structures does not align cleanly and in all cases employee would be in a position to decide their actions. An employee can either use their influence to alter the organisations or strive for other goals. Most mutually beneficial goals are when employees choose to influence the organisation as it provides growth not only to employee and organisation but also for other employees within the organisation.
The scope and incentives of the initiative by the employee mean that the alignment of changes would either be local or organisation-wide, and though this process moulding and enriching of both knowledge structures occur. Throughout this process, the employee plays the role of a change agent whose incentive is to ensure the Framework and their knowledge is tightly integrated into the organisation. This, in essence, provides a way for an employee to leave an imprint on the organisational knowledge structure.
When it comes to aligning frameworks to organisations, essentially the same process occurs. The biggest difference in alignment of a framework to an organisation comes from the scope of impact and implementation timelines. The scope of impact for Framework tends to always be organisation-wide, even if they are appear localised appreciation of the Framework and its purpose needs support from adjacent participants as in to support and encourage the change efforts.
To join an organisation and a framework as knowledge icebergs intimate of both has to occur to ensure close alignment, any areas that don’t align would create tension and friction that would long term reverse the alignment and organisation would reject the Framework. This is not a negative outcome as it would allow the organisation to grow and understand what in fact does not work so that the organisation can align to something that does.
In the majority of situations, the rejection is done at a social level as frameworks tend to prescribe a particular operational method. Technical systems can cause failures in operation models, but those reasons explicit, structurally evident and have a degree of predictability. Failures that stem from social rejection are much harder to identify, evaluate and predict. Passive aversion towards change is a catalyst for the slow erosion of progress, its undetectable until its too late and even in the retrospective are hard to identify.
The structural systems of an organisation once they are established do not have an ability self-change, social layer, on the other hand, is in a constant state of change. Within an organisation, the social layer is the sole mechanisms for dealing with the unknown and adjusting organisational structures to fit. This means attempts to introduce any frameworks into an organisation would need tangible social reasons for all participants.
Typically in an organisation, maintaining information is a role dedicated to a set of specialised roles that act as eyes and ears for the organisation, these roles are typically the translators between groups of people. Job for the roles that do translation is to package the knowledge and information from one side and make it relevant to another side and vice versa. These roles are typically supported with specific tools and enable some collaboration and presentation of their content to the greater community. These tools are either formal modelling suites that require foundational training and specialisation to use or could be a collection of ad-hoc material compiled overtime to provide input in a social context.
Even when roles are formally incentivised to maintain quality of information and data, they are still dependant on the organisational capacity to produce quality data that can be used as-is without translation. In the absence of that those roles are left extending the knowledge gap by filling in the blank, this done from conceptual, logical, exception handling and social where its no new reusable information is created.
Extending incentives beyond central authority in organisations are not feasible as it distracts others from their core activities. Furthermore, any form of generating and maintaining non-social information silos outside of main control function becomes a form of side-hustle. It’s it a hard job to manage information without the support, and it’s just easier to create social process gates to avoid the hassle.
These and other factors place an organisation future at the mercy of social consequence, where its social selection of people that help along the journey defines its success. There is no quick solution; it means that organisations need to be very thorough when introducing frameworks into their organisations.
Organisations are like people; their ability to understand a framework depend on their historical experience and acquired knowledge, so “uploading” framework knowledge into an organisation does not work like in the Matrix. GXP will explore this “upload” notion and how this could be possible in organisations of the future.
]]>Copy-paste governance approach does not work. This approach refers to an attempt to replicate the governance approach from one context to another. In the organisational context, this means copying/mimicking a governance pattern of another organisation.
Organisational governance patterns are evolutionary; they are outcomes of micro transformations performed by the organisation over numbers of years. They are representative of the social and technical structures as well as the evolution journey of that organisation.
Organisational governance is the historical record of the organisation evolution; it a combination of persistence and maturity of each part of the organisation over time. Thus simply copying governance pattern of an organisation in time to another organisation does not produce the same results.
Organisations are complex socio-technical organisms, and applying externally conceived governance patterns would mean that all of the parts that make up organisation would need to go through a transformation on a maturity curve that was followed by the organisation from which governance pattern being copied.
Across all industries, organisations use oversight as the primary method of leadership and stewardship, and this approach is well defined by oversight governance. In summary oversight governance means that all of the corrective actions are applied post specific events; it’s a reactive command and control approach. This approach works when the central command has ample experience to deal with issues as they arise. When things get too complicated, this approach leads to failure, in best cases, adding to the command experience and allowing a clean to restart.
Across all industries, the old way of helping organisations mature is not scaling; this is primarily due to the level of complexity that has evolved in social and technical layers of organisations. Tried and tested societal patterns for managing change are tested as socio-technical complexity increases. Existing models are complex and primarily used as an oversight stewardship approach, usually as a reaction to the organisation in need of help. The situation further complicated by barriers for knowledge sharing.
A better approach would be to provide a governance foundation as a form of a scaffold for new organisations so that as they evolve, they unlock and leverage parts of the framework that matches their maturity. This approach would provide a mechanism that would minimise routine transformations that are influence organisations of today.
Furthermore, this approach would provide a method of sharing and leveraging knowledge across organisations, as well as provide a central holistic knowledge area for contributors to focus their attention without creating unnecessary deviations. At the same time providing a platform for sharing patterns and maintaining the visibility of contribution by the authors.
]]>This site will aim to collate relevant knowledge that provides a foundation for developing governance frameworks.
As well as providing insight on available governance frameworks, a new concept’s for governance will be explored.
Welcome to the journey!
]]>