Ruth — of systems & designHere are pages related to Scope of Complexity and Time Span of Discretion
with credits to @PavelASamsonov @johncutlefish @cyetain @yvonnezlam and Nivia Henry and others :)
They expand on the pages that Yvonne added here:
https://mastodon.social/@yvonnezlam/112475015951527765
https://mastodon.social/@yvonnezlam/112475015951527765
Where could those 4 pages possibly go next? Welll.... right now they go to:
Each of those “with credit to” quotes (ie what is quoted on the pages upthread), contains an important idea (or set thereof). And as with anything “systemsy,” interaction across ideas (and with context, in this case your thinking-understanding and its history), gives rise to new ideas.
And that brings us back to this page..
And pretty soon you have over 500 pages — and it’s still incomplete!!!
fanf42@RuthMalan oh yes please, these resources are awesome!
@fanf42 thank you!! I needed to hear that today *in particular*
Some of the ideas are here, but i do need to update it to latest version : https://ruthmalan.com/Leadership/20221031TechnicalLeadership.pdf
Another important cluster of ideas:
@RuthMalan skimming through the book, there's SO MANY CHEAT SHEET FOR SO MANY IDEAS I HAD TO WAVE EXPLANATION FOR.
I will made a card game of it and call it the deck of thousands answers and distribute it around
@fanf42 in just the last couple of workshops, we tried this… I’m not confident about it yet… but folk have created some really great cards. Speaking of user/ops/dev, one group created an observability card, with practices for those 3 areas :)
(thank you!)
@RuthMalan it's nice, the sum up format allows me to draw links more easily. For ex I never saw Keidel triads and Wardley ones similarities, but I'm wondering what pairs explorer/villager/town planners are at ease with, and I think that town planner optimize for control (obviously) and autonomy (which is not obvious) - but collaboration is too much disruptive whdn you push for optimisation, while autonomie can be... Measured.
And so the switch from custom made to product must let go autonomy for more control, keeping collaboration high. Yes, likely you're switching from a pizza team like org to something, with more organs of few people, one of the organ being "strategy and resource alloc", with high collab needed... But less autonomy. The moment the old time members of the initial pizza team have a very hard time to let go their old autonomy for more structured collaboration
And so the switch from custom made to product must let go autonomy for more control, keeping collaboration high. Yes, likely you're switching from a pizza team like org to something, with more organs of few people, one of the organ being "strategy and resource alloc", with high collab needed... But less autonomy. The moment the old time members of the initial pizza team have a very hard time to let go their old autonomy for more structured collaboration
@fanf42 this is pretty much an exercise/discussion we did in the last Organizational Dynamics workshop (i used Kent Beck’s S curve/3X model instead of Wardley — but still, the discussion about forces/pressures/demands at different evolutionary points is useful; lovely connecting it to Keidel there)
The bigger lesson is about contexts or situations, and exploring and understanding that together, before looking at (what others have found to be) various “solution” approaches and how they meet the needs of *this situation*… (but then also thinking across the “solutions” and how we’re understanding the situation, because they inform each other, etc… Our thinking isn’t neatly linearizable… It interacts.)
And we do this for design patterns — design of the org and design of the system (code). Too
By “solution approaches” … i mean, looking at what we might do … (including do nothing (different)) to address the challenges we’ve explored (situation, forces, outcomes we seek,..)