2. Strong centers. This too seems straightforward. The parts
of an
organization must support the whole. The strong 'center' can
be achieved in
numerous ways: a strong vision; a strong individual's leadership (T.
J. Watson);
a strong set of procedures and processes to encourage behavior (3M
and its
innovation practices); or a strong tradition and hierarchy (Catholic
Church).
3. Boundaries. Just as interesting buildings that 'work' will
have strong
boundaries, an organization that works will have instantiate this same
concept
in terms of its buildings but also in terms of its culture and people.
We do
things 'the Nordstroms Way.' Think of the initiation and rejection
rituals of
the U. S. Marines or The Catholic Church.
4. Alternating repetition. I interpret this in the context
of organizations to
refer to activity patterns. Input, process, output. Pick
up the phone, answer
a person's question, put down the phone. Contact a client, discover
their
needs, make the sale. Research, develop, deploy. Set the
nail, tap, pound,
pound, pound. There are many patterns and if one were to see
these patterns
laid out a symptom of a well-working organization would be that these
activity
patterns had a rough periodicity to them. If they show so much
variability that
no pattern can be perceived, the organization is too disorganized.
5. Positive space. I interpret this to mean that organizations
that are ?full
of life? have many parts that are each trying to expand to fill all
the
'available space.' This might manifest itself physically in having
buildings
that are actually somewhat over-crowded (as opposed to long empty corridors),
but it could also be manifested in that every 'niche' within a defined
market
has someone working that market; that the individuals working these
markets are
internally competing with one another and 'pushing the limits' of their
own
niche outwards. Similarly, the product teams and divisions will
be competing
with each other; trying to add features to their products to spill
out into the
neighboring produccts. Notice that such an interpretation is
certainly not
without controversy! An 'efficiency expert' might claim that
internal
competition of this sort should be eliminated.
6. Good shape. It is a bit abstract or metaphorical to see how
this applies to
organizational design. My best guess is this. The suborganizations
themselves
all have a distinct 'shape' -- meaning a distinct purpose and function
and
character that 'holds together' conceptually in an elegant rather than
an
arbitrary way. At the same time, looked at from a larger perspective,
these
suborganizations participate in forming a coherency at the next level.
An
example of trying to do this (whatever the underlying reality) is the
map that
Nicholas Negroponte draws of the Media Lab and its parts and constituencies.
An
organization that has 'good shape' has a balance and splits that are
based on
something more fundamental that accidents of history, friendship, or
politics.
7. Local symmetries. As I interpret this, it means that in a living,
working,
organization, there is both the freedom and the desire at local levels
to make
symmetries that are appropriate to that level. Many of these
symmetries have to
do with the abstract qualities of work that must be done. For
instance, in
attempting to have a conversation between a customer and a customer
service rep,
there is a certain symmetry of ignorance and knowledge. Each
knows something
that the other doesn't. In a good conversation, there is a symmetry
of
knowledge exchange leading to a resolution. In a larger context,
in developing
a system to serve users, there should be a symmetry of value and power
that
mirrors the symmetry of knowledge and ignorance. In good management
practice,
there should be a symmetry between the employee contributing to the
higher level
team and the rewards that the larger team gives the employee.
In a team of
fishermen rowing a catamaran, there is a symmetry of stroking.
In the stock
market there is a buyer for every seller; prices fluctuate to make
this so. All
these local symmetries make up something that works, that is, in a
sense quite
beautiful; but it is not something that can be dictated by a detailed
master
plan; it is something that, however, can be fostered and encouraged
by the
overall climate and ?rules? of an organization.
8. Deep interlock and ambiguity. Ambiguity? Surely, this
is something that an
organization cannot want. But is that true?
Is IBM Research supposed to be doing long term research or helping the
company
solve today's problems? Both is the answer. And, in fact,
to the extent that
one can achieve a deep interlock between these apparently contradictory
goals,
the better. Is a sales person's job to maximize sales revenue
or satisfy the
customer? Both. And, again, to the extent that conditions
are created that
make for a deep interlock and ambiguity so that the salesperson themselves
feels
that they are doing both; that these are parts of one whole, we have
a
well-functioning sales organization.
9. Contrast. I take this to mean that an organization must create
within it
dynamic tensions of opposites. In animals, there are pre-existing,
well-defined, and opposite tendencies of behavior. The contrasts
can be shaded
by events but it is much better to have an animal that sometimes sleeps
and
sometimes is awake than one that is always half-awake. It is
better to
sometimes fight and sometimes flee than to always fight half-heartedly.
Similarly, an organization needs contrasts of people and of function
and of
activity. A healthy organization should have people who are complete
optimists
and believe anything is possible -- and complete pessimists who question
everything. An organization should have an organization (or process)
whose
purpose is to expand the company in every possible direction and an
organization
(or process) whose purpose is to contract the company as much as possible.
When
brainstorming, to be as effective as possible, no real-world constraints
should
be allowed. When choosing which brainstorming ideas to pursue,
every real-world
constraint should be applied.
10. Gradients. Taken together, Contrast and Interlock, as well
as Gradients and
Boundaries, would seem to push design in opposite directions.
Yet, there are
architectural examples that seem to provide both of each property pair
simultaneously. Living organisms also simultaneously exhibit
both properties.
An unresolved issue is when, how, where, and in what degree do we push
Gradient
more versus Boundary more. When should Contrast be emphasized
and when Deep
Interlock and Ambiguity?
It would seem off-hand that traditional command and control organizations
have
tended to emphasize Contrast and Boundaries to the detriment of Interlock
and
Gradients. One would hope that in an adaptive organization, people
would pitch
in more and help each other out 'across' organizational boundaries.
Some examples of where gradients might be effective might include the
following.
One could imagine a gradient funding system wherein projects would
not be either
'in' or 'out' of a plan, but gradually get (or lose) more funding as
the
benefits and costs became clearer. Organizations already use
a gradient market
introduction system where successive 'trials' allow for increasing
commitment to
a product with favorable results. One can also conceptualize
summer employment
as a chance for company and individual to examine the suitability of
longer term
employment. Often cross-organizational activities that result in mergers
and
acquisitions begin as much more limited partnering arrangements.
A natural
example of gradient might be that very large customers get very large
account
teams while progressively smaller customers get smaller account teams.
11. Roughness. Basically, anything that tries to function in a complex
living
world must make adjustments from any over-arching plan. In organizational
terms, this quality refers to exceptions, localization, and personalization.
Software should be customizable to some degree. The interpretation
of policy
must vary depending on circumstances. Indeed, one of the main
functions of
management personnel is to provide the judgement that allows roughness
to occur.
12. Echoes. This seems most naturally construed as the organization
pulling
toward an overall vision so that many different aspects of the activities
have
the same 'flavor.' If Customer Service is paramount, that should
manifest
itself in a thousand small ways. Each of the individual acts
that provide
excellent customer service is different, but each is an echo of each
other and
an echo of the larger whole -- the vision.
13. The Void. Chrisopher Alexander writes (The Nature of Order,
Part I, p. 80)
"In the most profound centers which have perfect wholeness there is
at the heart
a void, which is like water, in infinite depth -- surrounded by, and
contrasted
with the clutter of the stuff and fabric all around it....Is there
a way that
the presence of the void arises mathematically, as part of a stable
unified
structure, or is it merely a psychological requirement? It is
the latter. A
living structure can?t be all detail. The buzz finally diffuses
itself, and
destroys its own structure. The calm is needed to alleviate the
buzz."
One obvious interpretation of how this might apply to organizations
is simply to
emphasize the danger of over-optimizing and re-engineering to the point
where
there is zero rest, zero inactivity, and every second is filled with
predetermined activity. Living organisms are certainly not like
that. They
rest, they store food, they can sustain injury and survive. In
each overall
pattern of activity, there needs to be some time for reflection, for
quiet, for
nothing. Otherwise, how can the organization possibly learn and
improve over
time let alone recover from some unforseen catastrophe?
14. Simplicity and Inner Calm. Christopher Alexander (Ibid., p. 85)
writes
"Everything essential has been left; nothing extraneous is left.
But the result
is simple in a profound sense, but not in the superficial geometric
sense. So
it is not true that outward simplicity creates inner calm; it is only
inner
simplicity, true simplicity of heart, which creates it."
Applied to an organizational context, I believe it means that an organization
with an elegant business model -- a unique and coherent vision of what
it is
about -- gives rise to true simplicity. It does not necessarily
arise because
of a superficially simple org chart. The organization must ask
itself
constantly: "Why are we doing this? Why do we have this organization?
Does it
forward the essence of our organization or detract from it?"
15. Not-separateness. "What 'Not-separateness' means, quite
simply, is that we
experience a living whole as being at one with the world, and not separate
from
it -- according to its degree of wholeness." So too, an organization
that is
'out of touch' with the competitive landscape, with technological trends
and
breakthroughs, with social changes, with legislative and legislative
changes, or
with the needs of its customers will not long survive.
On a small scale, we can think of a corner pawn shop that gives nothing
to the
community and ends up being the first place destroyed in a riot.
On a larger
scale, we can imagine a large company that does nothing about falling
educational standards until it suddenly finds such a shortage of competent
labor
that it can no longer vie effectively with its foreign competitors.
There are a thousand ways an organization can fail to adapt to its surroundings
if it is cut off from them.