This document discusses two different thought styles for understanding organizational change: orthodox and complexity. Orthodox thought assumes autonomy, determinacy, openness, intentionality, and agreement. Complexity thought assumes mutual interdependence, self-disciplining, hidden transcripts, power differentials, and collaboration/competition. The practical implications of these thought styles are discussed, with orthodox thought leading to linear causality and complexity thought recognizing ongoing, emergent change. The document concludes that complexity thought better captures how organizations continuously change through enabling and constraining relationships.

1. Thinking differently about
Technology enabled Business Changes
Doctor of Management (Ph.D) Mikkel H Brahm
Head of Architecture, Nordea | Digital Banking
Seeking to Control Enterprise with Architecture
the limits and value of an engineering approach
from the perspective of an Enterprise Architect
http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/handle/2299/17596
Slides available at SlideShare
https://www.slideshare.net/mikkelbrahm

5. Agenda
• Orthodox thought style and taken-for-granted assumptions
• Complexity thought style and taken-for-granted assumptions
• (Practical implications of adopting a different thought style)
• Summary

6. Orthodox EA
What characterizes this thought style?

7. 1 Orthodox EA presumes autonomy (and rationality)
Individual is primary and apart from other individuals

8. 2 Orthodox EA presumes determinacy
Spontaneity and improvisation is absent or insignificant

9. 3 Orthodox EA presumes openness
Everything can (and should) be shared and modelled

10. 4 Orthodox EA presumes enterprise intentionality
Enterprise treated as Entity with own strategy and goals

11. 5 Orthodox EA presumes agreement
Not aligned individual goals are illegitimate / selfish

12. Assumptions that characterise orthodox EA
(and Systems Theory)
1. Autonomy
2. Determinacy
3. Openness
4. Intentionality
5. Agreement
• The individual is primary, makes meaning of experiences,
and makes rational decisions about which course of action to take
• Knowable set of stimuli-response; If we know what factors into a situation,
then we can predict what will happen in that situation
• Information is assumed to be shared openly / freely available,
so that everything can (and should) be modelled/documented
• The Enterprise is treated as an entity with intentionality,
and conflicting individual intentionality is made illegitimate
• People are assumed to agree on goals and means,
or at least architecture cannot begin until agreement is reached

13. Complexity
What characterizes this thought style?

14. people have function for each other
we are born into relationships to people upon whom we depend
Elias, Norbert (1991).
The Society of Individuals.
Basil Blackwell.

15. 1 Interdependence enable and constrain our actions
Socially unacceptable behavior can damage relationships

16. Norms what it is normal to do aka customs
+ Values how we make value judgements
culture eats strategy for breakfast
Peter Drucker
Culture the way of life / living / organizing

17. 2 We often act habitually / acceptably to garner support.
Provocative actions can lead to renegotiation of norms.

18. Phronesis = wisdom / practical judgment
Knowing what it is right to do = being a virtuous person
Techne = technical knowledge / knowhow
Craftsmanship that can be taught

19. 3 Power dynamics enable and constrain what it is prudent
to say both for subordinates and for the power holders
5 times “Why?” => Socially acceptable rationalization
Scott, John C (1990).
Domination and the Arts of
Resistance - Hidden transcripts.
Yale University Press.

21. 4 Power is never equally distributed. Any leverage can be
used to further one’s interests in any other area.
Jackall, Robert (2010).
Moral Mazes –
The World of Corporate Managers.
Oxford University Press.

22. Linear causality
Culture forms Behaviour OR Behaviour forms Culture
Circular or Transformative causality
Culture forms Behaviour AND Behaviour forms Culture

23. 5 Collaborative innovation hinges on mutual trust
that others can contribute what we ourselves cannot

24. Radically different assumptions
1. Autonomy
2. Determinacy
3. Openness
4. Intentionality
5. Agreement
1. Mutual interdependence
2. Self-disciplining and Spontaneity
3. Hidden Transcript and Public Transcript
4. Figuration of relationships with power-differentials
5. Web of Intentionality - Collaboration and Competition

25. Practical implications
What difference does it make how I think?

26. Practical examples of Orthodoxy
Outcome
Mean /
Objective
Mean /
Objective
Mean Mean MeanMean
Linear
Causality
=>
Predictable

27. Practical examples of Orthodoxy
Mean Mean
Mean
Mean
Outcome
Organisation / needs in t0 = organisation / needs in t1
i.e. we control when the organization does and does not change
t0 t1

28. Practical examples of Orthodoxy
Idealization of stable states
Splitting thought from action as a means to control
Analyze Design Execute
Unfreeze Change Refreeze
(Kurt Lewin)

29. Technology and Mechanisms
1. Autonomy
2. Determinacy
3. Openness
4. Intentionality
5. Agreement
1. Interdependence
2. Self-disciplining
3. Hidden Transcript
4. Power Figuration
5. Collaborate/compete
1. Transcription
2. Turing machines
3. Knowable but complicated
4. Scripted Action & Prescription
5. No responsiveness
(Bruno Latour)

30. • Organising is enabling and constraining social figuration
in the process of becoming
• Business changes (more and less significant) occur all the time
• There are no stable states of a social figuration
• When intentional changes do not work as intended,
human actors respond in ways that make sense (i.e. work-arounds)
• Mechanisms cannot adopt a different behavior to make more sense
without new scripted action being transcribed into them
• Small (itterative) changes require less workarounds to work
than big bang re-engineering of business processes
What difference does Complexity make?

31. Taking the attitude of the other is what allows us
to understand their perception of us – and allows us to “fit in”

32. George Herbert Mead describes “the attitude of the engineer”
as an enlarged sense of social self and attitudes of others

33. To engineer something helpful, we must understand both
the person we are trying to help and their journey (fulfil need)

34. Summary
Two different ways of thinking about change

35. No Universal Theory
•Systems / mechanisms (e.g. IT/IS)
• Systems Theory (e.g. TOGAF/ADM)
•Human Organization
• Complex Responsive
Processes of Relating
•Others may apply
• (outside scope of my research)

36. ENTERPRISE
Intentional process (of doing and organizing business)
emerging from enabling/constraining figurations of relationships always in flux
ARCHITECTURE
Organisation of structuring structures
(including human conventions and mechanisms)

37. Orthodox EA
(eg TOGAF/ADM)
Organization = System
Universal goal
Linear causality
Organizational knowledge
Unfreeze > Change > Freeze
Resistance to change
Analyze > Architect/Design > Realize
My emerging view
(Complexity)
Organizing = Enabling/constraining
Web of intentionality
Transformative causality
Knowledge withheld or shared
Influence Ongoing Changes
Domination and Resistance
Piecemeal Growth

38. • It is difficult to succeed with (IT-)projects
primarily because we wrongly assume that it ought to be easy
• Everyone has multiple intentions – including customers & 3rd parties
some of which we are willing to declare openly
• Rather than full agreement we have temporary alliances
• People are responsive and can fix design flaws (work-arounds)
• Technology is not responsive and can only be fixed by engineers
• Therefore do not automate that which must have maximum flexibility
• Business changes occur always & technology does not adapt
• Technical debt accumulates over time => continuous improvement
What difference does Complexity make?

39. Stacey, Ralph D. and Mowles, Chris (2016).
Strategic management and Organisational Dynamics: The
Challenge of Complexity to Ways of Thinking About
Organisations. 7th ed. United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
Stacey, Ralph D (2012).
Tools & Techniques
of Leadership and Management.
Routledge.
Jackall, Robert (2010).
Moral Mazes –
The World of Corporate Managers.
Oxford University Press.
Scott, John C (1990).
Domination and the Arts of Resistance -
Hidden transcripts.
Yale University Press.
Elias, Norbert (1978).
What is Sociology?
Columbia University Press.
Elias, Norbert (1991).
The Society of Individuals.
Basil Blackwell.
Latour, Bruno (2005).
Reassembling the Social – An introduction
to Actor-Network-Theory.
Oxford University Press.
Mead, George Herbert (1934).
Mind, Self, & Society.
The University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977)
Outline of a Theory of Practice.
Cambridge University Press
Scott, John C (1998).
Seeing like a State – How Certain Schemes to Improve
the Human Condition Have Failed.
Yale University Press.
Guenther, Milan (2013).
Intersection – How Enterprise Design bridges the gap
between Business, technology and People.
Elsevier.
Ries, Eric (2013).
The Lean Startup – How today’s Entrepreneurs use Continuous
Innovation to create radically successful Businesses.
Crown Business.