Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Agile Enterprise: The Third Matrix


Published on

Presentation at the inaugural Requisite Agility Unsymposium

Published in: Leadership & Management
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Agile Enterprise: The Third Matrix

  1. 1. Janne J. Korhonen February 10, 2019 New York City
  2. 2. This is your last chance CC BY-NC-ND 2.0: Tori Cat @ Flickr
  3. 3. Background: phsymyst@Flickr “The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime...” – The Architect, Matrix Reloaded
  4. 4. The First Matrix Plan- Autonomous System Episodic Changes Laminar Environment • Change is slower than or comparable to response (Ansoff and Sullivan, 1993) • Recurring or forecastable future (ibid.) • Cause and effect relationships are repeatable, perceivable and predictable (Kurtz and Snowden, 2003) • Autonomy in choosing how to achieve the goal (Verhaagen, 2000) • Goal-seeking system (Ackoff, 1971) • “Black box” perspective (Korhonen, 2018)
  5. 5. Organizing Logic of the First Matrix • Emery: Design Principle 1: – The parts of the system are redundant; each part is replaceable – Asymmetrical dependence (Feibleman and Friend, 1945): the sharing of parts is necessary to one of the parts but not to both – Control of work is located at least one level above those doing the work – Special control mechanisms (specialized parts) and levels of control • Division of labor (Taylorism) • Standardization of work content and skills • Command and control: vertical authority • Grouping by function (Mintzberg): knowledge base, skills, process, function • Pooled interdependence (Thompson) • Coordination by standardization (Thompson)
  6. 6. Photo: phsymyst@Flickr “...A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure.”
  7. 7. Limitations of the First Matrix • Segmentation of the social field • Costs of task fractionation • No mechanism for coordinating the work flow across functional silos • Narrow, soulless jobs • Diffusion of standardized best practices • In an evolving environment, there is no time to excavate trenches • Ill at ease with competition
  8. 8. Photo: phsymyst@Flickr “I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature...”
  9. 9. The Second Matrix Goal- Autonomous System Frequent Changes Evolving Environment • Predictable or partially predictable future; change faster than response; extrapolable or discontinuous but familiar events (Ansoff and Sullivan, 1993) • Cause and effect are knowable and separated over time and space (Kurtz and Snowden, 2003) • Autonomy to determine “prevailing interests” (Verhaagen, 2000) • Purposeful system (Ackoff, 1971) • “White box” perspective (Korhonen, 2018)
  10. 10. Organizing Logic of the Second Matrix • Design Principle 1 prevails • Predict and control • Vertical and inter-functional accountability and authority • Grouping by function (Mintzberg): knowledge base, skills, process, function • Sequential interdependence (Thompson) • Coordination by plan (Thompson)
  11. 11. Photo: phsymyst@Flickr “However, I was again frustrated by failure.”
  12. 12. Limitations of the Second Matrix • Design Principle 1 begets an inherently error- amplifying system – T = (1–F)n • Restricts purposeful behavior • Inhibits organizational learning • Fool-proof bureaucratic structures are rigid and unresponsive • Non-cooperative and dependent relationships are not adaptive in turbulent environment
  13. 13. Photo: phsymyst@Flickr “I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection.”
  14. 14. The Third Matrix Norm- Autonomous System Ongoing and Disruptive Changes Turbulent Environment • Accelerated evolution of product concepts, manufacturing process capabilities, and product coordination technologies; much more varied and demanding customer preferences (Sanchez, 1996) • Unpredictable and invisible future; change much faster than response; discontinuous and novel events (Ansoff and Sullivan, 1993) • “Co-jumping on a trampoline” (van Eijnatten, 2004) • Cause and effect are only coherent in retrospect and do not repeat (Kurtz and Snowden, 2003) • Autonomy of changing the norm system and respective goals (Verhaagen, 2000) • “Out-of-box” perspective (Korhonen, 2018)
  15. 15. Organizing Logic of the Third Matrix • Design Principle 2: – The functions of the parts are redundant; as long as a part retains any functional capability, it is of some value to the system (Emery, 1977) – Symmetrical dependence (Feibleman and Friend, 1945): the sharing of parts is necessary to both of the parts • Sense and respond • Mutual accountability and empowerment • Values-driven culture and inspirational purpose • Viable multiorganization structures; shared destiny relationships • Grouping by market (Mintzberg): output, client, geography • Reciprocal interdependence (Thompson) • Coordination by mutual adjustment (Thompson)
  16. 16. Salient Questions • How does all this pertain to Requisite Organization, Agile? • How are Levels of Work (Requisite Strata) concomitant with the organizing logics? • How would “Requisite Agility” look like, i.e. organizational design patterns for Turbulent environment? • What would endure, cease, and change in the RORA recast?
  17. 17. Complexity of the Environment Must be Matched with Complexity of Work Episodic Changes Frequent Changes Disruptive and Ongoing Changes Turbulent Environment Evolving Environment Laminar Environment I II III IV V VI VII Sense & Respond Predict & Control Command & Control
  18. 18. Environmental Contingency Turbulent Environment Segmented, uncoordinated, immachinate, immutable Unsustainable, unresponsive Active adaptation: sensing, sense- making, responding Evolving Environment Management by objectives, analysis and problem solving, innovation and change Laminar Environment Stable processes, scalable structures First Matrix Second Matrix Third Matrix
  19. 19. Cross-Typological Musings Environment (Causal Texture, sensu Emery and Trist, 1965) Str Requisite System Managerial Ideology (Barley and Kunda, 1992) Spiral Dynamics Turbulent (Turbulent) VI Norm-Autonomous “Out-of-box” DP 2 Platforms (2010–) (rational) Green V Organizational Culture (1980–2010?) (normative) Evolving (Disturbed, reactive) IV Goal-Autonomous “White box” DP 1 Systems Rationalism (1955–1980) (rational) Orange III Human Relations (1923–1955) (normative) Laminar (Clustered, placid) II Plan-Autonomous “Black box” DP 1 Scientific Management (1900–1923) (rational) Blue (Amber) I Industrial Betterment (1870–1900) (normative)
  20. 20. Depth Dimension of WorkTurbulent VI (VI,6) V (V,5) (V,6) Evolving IV (IV,4) (IV,5) (IV,6) III (III,3) (III,4) (III,5) (III,6) Laminar II (II,2) (II,3) (II,4) (II,5) (II,6) I (I,1) (I,2) (I,3) (I,4) (I,5) (I,6) Output Prescription Specification Goal Objective Norm Plan-Autonomous Work Goal-Autonomous Work Norm-Autonomous Work Maladaptation
  21. 21. I II Traditional Project Management • Each project team member is assigned one task at a time to deliver prescribed output according to controls, standards and rules (I,1) • Project Manager deals with pre-specified types of complex open-ended situations, prescribing the required input, process, tools, and outputs; assigns and coordinates tasks (II,2)
  22. 22. Traditional “Agile” Development • The team members specify the output specifications (II,3), design their process (II,2), and cooperate to accomplish the team goals (I,3) • Hands-off chapter and tribe leadership (III,4) I/II III
  23. 23. Requisitely Agile Development? • Self-governing teams (II,5) and teams of teams (III,5) mutually adjusted through a co-determined norm system II III
  24. 24. Questions?