Part II of a presentation to IT University of Copenhagen. Explores underlying assumptions underpinning orthodox EA, and compares to alternative assumtions that would lead to a complexity approach to EA.

1. Part II
A Complexity Approach
How do we build a coalition
to execute our vision?

2. What is science?

3. Orthodox EA has its roots in natural sciences
General Systems Theory

4. - 4 =

5. - 4 = It depends…
… on which assumptions we make

6. - 4 =
- 1 4*
i 2*
2i
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number
All science is based on assumptions
Different theories are based on different assumptions

7. Orthodox EA
What characterizes this thought style?

8. 1 Orthodox EA presumes autonomy (and rationality)
Individual is primary and apart from other individuals

9. 2 Orthodox EA presumes determinacy
Spontaneity and improvisation is absent or insignificant

10. 3 Orthodox EA presumes openness
Everything can (and should) be shared and modelled

11. 4 Orthodox EA presumes enterprise intentionality
Enterprise treated as Entity with own strategy and goals

12. 5 Orthodox EA presumes agreement
Not aligned individual goals are illegitimate / selfish

13. 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 and hence freely available,
so that everything can (and should) be modelled and 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

14. Complexity II
What characterizes this thought style?

15. 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.

16. 1 Interdependence enable and constrain our actions
Socially unacceptable behavior can damage relationships

17. If our individual behavior is not socially acceptable
we risk exclusion i.e. others cease to have function for us
In an organizational setting exclusion can mean being fired, but
can also just mean that you do not participate in the fun stuff

18. 2 We often act habitually / acceptably to garner support.
Provocative actions can lead to renegotiation of norms.

19. In every society it may be observed that, if it is not to constitute
an insult, the counter-gift must be deferred and different,
because the immediate return of an exactly identical object
clearly amounts to a refusal (i.e. the return of the same object).
The ‘giving of a gift’ is a social construction / social convention
There is an ‘art’ to doing it properly Pierre Bourdieu

20. Phronesis: Wisdom / Practical Judgment – experience based
Knowing what it is right to do = being a virtuous person
Episteme: Theory and Basic assumptions – pure knowledge
Techne: Craftmanship / Method – can be taught

21. 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.

22. We must cease once and for all
to describe the effects of power in negative terms:
it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it ‘censors’,
it ‘abstracts’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals’.
In fact power produces; it produces reality;
it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.
Michel Foucault

23. We use physical constructs to symbolize social convention

24. 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.

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

26. 5 Collaborative innovation hinges on mutual trust
that others can contribute what we ourselves cannot

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

28. Assumptions underpinning my approach
(contrasted with assumptions underpinning Systems Theory)
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

29. No Universal Theory
Systems Theory explains systems e.g. mechanical
Process Theory explains humans organizing
Complexity may help us better understand how to
establish a coalition to execution our vision
(develop the business)
However, the ‘problem domains’ we work with and
architect are also complex i.e. there are also people
and power dynamics in an enterprise
(run the business)