So much becomes clear when you actually label the relationships between things. It’s something I do every day, and I do it very naturally. But it is not something everyone does naturally.
I see something here in the mental models underlying these relationships - the different basic metaphors we use to make sense of organizations. Organization as machine, as organism, as network, as psychic prison etc - from Gareth Morgan’s, “Images of Organization”.
I think this whole concept changes when modeled according to the Amazon process, where the PR/FAQ is the starting point for all processes. The process may start with a one pager. The PR/FAQ can be followed by a 6 pager , mostly triggered by request. After copious reviews, the manager selects OP1 and OP2 candidates where the PR/FAQ and pagers are thrown into the “review” pile.
What makes Amazon so dynamic in these processes are fastidious gates and checks, premised on the premise of “working backwards”.
So the process is actually quite linear, orderly and the least messy of any org I’ve ever worked for ;)
It was also deeply engraved in my thinking and I‘m suffering when it’s not happening. I was raised on old school stuff like UML. I would even label the nodes with qualities / adjectives.
I believe it's One of the main reasons C4 model started... The things that connects things need proper label and visibility at various levels of information.
There is leverage for an operating system in the relationships, not the hierarchy. Two orgs can use the same words but behave different. The Amazon sketch makes a similar point, but in opposite directions.
There is something powerful in a map. Yet I always find the challenge between the super simplified and the practical detailed. All too often the map becomes a distraction at times. The London tube map.. once you've walked and travelled the routes makes sense. To a newcomer it's confusing and misleading. So.. yes a beautiful mess indeed, and a clever complex post.
I see something here in the mental models underlying these relationships - the different basic metaphors we use to make sense of organizations. Organization as machine, as organism, as network, as psychic prison etc - from Gareth Morgan’s, “Images of Organization”.
I think this whole concept changes when modeled according to the Amazon process, where the PR/FAQ is the starting point for all processes. The process may start with a one pager. The PR/FAQ can be followed by a 6 pager , mostly triggered by request. After copious reviews, the manager selects OP1 and OP2 candidates where the PR/FAQ and pagers are thrown into the “review” pile.
What makes Amazon so dynamic in these processes are fastidious gates and checks, premised on the premise of “working backwards”.
So the process is actually quite linear, orderly and the least messy of any org I’ve ever worked for ;)
A beautiful mess indeed! :-)
It was also deeply engraved in my thinking and I‘m suffering when it’s not happening. I was raised on old school stuff like UML. I would even label the nodes with qualities / adjectives.
I believe it's One of the main reasons C4 model started... The things that connects things need proper label and visibility at various levels of information.
There is leverage for an operating system in the relationships, not the hierarchy. Two orgs can use the same words but behave different. The Amazon sketch makes a similar point, but in opposite directions.
This has been some of the best relationship thoughts I’ve had in forever (the last post too). Thanks so much!
What a beautiful mess indeed!
There is something powerful in a map. Yet I always find the challenge between the super simplified and the practical detailed. All too often the map becomes a distraction at times. The London tube map.. once you've walked and travelled the routes makes sense. To a newcomer it's confusing and misleading. So.. yes a beautiful mess indeed, and a clever complex post.