There is a strange feeling looking back.
Since early 1980´s, the stone age of ICT, not changed: ⚖ Security:
The environment must be safe.
Safety is more appropriate than the buzzword "cybersecurity". ⚖ Algorithms:
What is done must be understood.
The buzzword "algorithms" is poisoned by false framings of not being understandable, interpretable.
The old word is: business rules. ⚖ Risk management:
What is processed should be evaluated beforehand in all possible scenarios. ⚖ Privacy, impact of outcomes should be evaluated beforehand.
A stable safe situation should be included for the cases that are not handled as what is normal.
Applying pareto is not acceptable.
Repeating: continously changing technical details in functioning, changing attention to functional issues.
There is a gap between the passion and what was possible to achieve.
Not anymore being dependent for payments gives the freedom for sharing:
knowledge not conforming to usual commercial interests
proposals solving some generic gap alteranives for commercial interest
Curriculum Vitae: Experiences, see:
👓 details including cases.
SAM, lean, agile, toc, systems
The content and mindset is about: Strategic alignment management overhauled (SAMo), how systems should work.
Lean is not well understood and seen as the future.
Work process is improving (PDCA Kanban) learning from what was expected by requests.
Thinking, reviewing, that got aware that it are almost the same steps as was done in my early years when SDM (System Development Methodology, Cap Gemini), was promoted.
Maturity of processes is a qualification that should be an objective measure.
A standardized accepted framework for objective measurements is missing.
I neglected this when thinking on a framework for processes.
Data, Information quality level 0 is an example for maturity (1-5).
Completeness Not all information recently learned is on this site.
I need time to change and aligning it to what I did before into something new.
I am focussing on the execution & operations of viable systems.
The antipode area of how ideas, visons are developed is out of scope.
Transparency What I am sharing as personal knowledge may be shared, not freely copied without reference.
References are part of the well ordered subjects but the references I made here looks to originate from a neverland location.
Interested how to contact me?
Described approaches, basic process cycle SIAR and Jabes, Jabsa, Simf have very good opportunities to be solutions that are wanted but being missed in the daily way of doing ICT stuff.
I am reachable at:
Redesing of this index page. Converted into something that is similar to a Foreword.
Added generic process framework.
Added pitch of Jabes. Running and changing a portfolio conforming standards.
2024 week 35
Minor updates.
2025 week 01
Starting an overhauled for all added information analyzing the Jabes opportunity.
Planning to do & changes:
Technical detail pages
These are of a previous made web content structure, shoudl be reviewed.
Many interesting technical details are archived but not added yet.
F-1.2 Motivation ikigai
F-1.2.1 👁 Passion in the work setting
The personal mind in nine areas
A philosophical approach for finding a balance in doing work and how to live is this Venn diagram.
Similar kinds of hierarchy relationships are extended in my personality and profession seeking a mission.
The four circles are having always a missing junction.
There is no single junction to "what you are good at" with "what the world needs".
I found my profession in:
Information Communication Technology (ICT).
For communication, human ineraction, I have not a strong language story telling mindset.
Analysing for a strategy and possible solutions is strongly associated with images with a logical base.
Using my personal mindset
Love to do Working on simplifying work, optimizing processes, a framework as mindset has grown.
This framework mindset resulted in an option to create a tool that is not existing in the market covering that running and changing of ICT processes for business solutions.
Getting Paid During all the years with the experiences for the actions at jobs doing work being paid for the ideas "how to solve issues".
This was not easy because expectations "how to solve" were not always conforming ideas in hierarchical lines.
Good at What I always liked to do was simplifying the work, optimizing processes, with already available tools.
No matter what I had my hands on at that moment.
Removing bottlenecks was the key factor in automating to run and evaluate business jobs, business processes.
F-1.2.2 ⚒ Experiences learned by working
Technical - Mathematics
My education is electro-technical engineering, added with mathematics including statistics. Not quite a logical fit for information technology nowadays.
At that moment courses for ICT didn´t exist as it was building from scratch being a spin-off with those mentioned technology backgrounds.
The microprocessor being used during one of the course lines was the 6502 (Motorola).
My father had his connections with computing educating and mathematics. As the interest rates went up high for some years there was a problem with the used calculation tables that were commonly in use those days.
He did some circumventions using an Olivetti P101 for that at our home. It was one of the first programmable calculators.
Statistical support
My first job was as "technical statistical support" role, helping researchers under supervision of statisticians.
The area was preventive healthcare it was a not well known governmental small department.
I switched within a couple of years into technology in the financial area.
System programmers are needed to install and maintain the middleware on the mainframe, such as database management systems, online transaction processing systems and Web servers.
Middleware is a software "layer" between the operating system and the end user or end user application.
It supplies major functions that are not provided by the operating system. Major middleware products such as DB2, CICS, and IMS can be as complex as the operating system itself, if not more so.
That good IBM description mentions of course IBM products.
Instead of those I was exposed to Cullinet (CA now Broadcom) IDMS DB/DC with an IDD (Integrated Data Dictionary) and in house made solutions.
The IDD was a centralised metadata approach using a network DBMS (NoSQL) and ER schema design.
SAS - software product usage
My experience with SAS is going back as far as the early years 1980.
This has become my major working area since 2004 and up to 2023.
The focus has been the way of implementing that and supporting SAS users (analysts, marketing, actuaries, data science) running operational and changing environments (devops).
The role of the system programmer has the same key attention points of that of the SAS platform administrator.
Someone has to understand the way to integrate those two worlds to get it all function effectively and well working for business usage.
Many positions are found while using middleware, as it is technical, and needing for your business.
The most interesting one is doing the support or Business Information supporting decisions and helping with data analytics.
The positions being involved in this technical area is remarkable. 👉🏾 What is going on in an organization at many places and levels is seen.
F-1.2.3 ⚙ Mindset orientation optimizations
SIAR - Situation (control), Input, Activity, Result
Doing an abstraction of how a process should work:
Properties:
PDCA (Plan Do Check Act) is embedded. Follow: III, I, II, IV
DMAIC (Define Measure Analyze Improve Control) is embedded. Follow: II, I, III, IV
Real lean, Pull (IV to III ) and Push (I to II) actions are embedded. Notice the customer request is comes in at IV (right side bottom).
The adjusted AIM model: The Control (strategy) is in the middle with four extensions.
Two twin components: Information (data) & transformations (processes) represented by the compass using black/white area´s at the four stages.
The backend, Input, plan, manufacture, purchase, assembly is at the left side.
The frontend, sales, product validatation, packaging deleivery is at the right side.
A logical flow line for realiation is numbered from 0, 1 .. to 8, 9 is defined.
The value stream is Left to right (big blue arrows).
Negotations with customers (IV) and negotations purchasing components (I) don´t have a simple logic clockwise order.
JABES, a real holistic simplistic Business ICT alignment
Reverting the infographic SIAR back into processes (focus ICT) the result: "JABES".
Using the SIAR infographic is a mindset that is workable in many situations.
The value stream for a product is from input by assembly activity into delivering results.
The vertical and horizontal lines are representations for information (data):
Situation (control) - It contains collected requests that are or are not to be fullfilled.
Input(s) - Compononents materials building blocks that are needed for the construction.
Activity - the constructed assembled products.
Result(s) - The delivered products can be physical or virtual (cyber).
The diagonal lines are process representations:
IV Ideate Assess (bottom right) is where it starts and ends for customers "over the shelf"
III Enable Plan (bottom left) the finishing of the pull request. The product(s) ordered to get build.
I Demand Backend (top left) starts the pull. Constructing products according instrcution in an assmebly line.
II Delivery Frontend (top right) Verifying the products on order request and quality before delivery.
The SIAR model is a generalization of many well-known process frameworks.
With the mindset to do this recursive and apply this to information processing results in a new vision.
It is not focussing on technology but sets the focus on the goals and vision of organizations.
The push: having a clear defined business goal, customers are serviced while monitoring what is going on.
I Demand , Request for what is to be delivered needing input materials and/or components.
I Backend , The shop-floor that is constsructing the product for delivery.
II Frontend , validations and packaging make it ready for delivery.
II Delivery , handing over the product with after-sales support.
The pull: Not having a clear defined business goal, alignment with customers is done for defining and evaluating to enable & plan.
IV Ideate, An aligned vision on what is needed by customers and what is possible to deliver.
IV Assess, From proposed ideas, analyze options for feasible steps for realizations.
III Enable, Orchestrate budgets wiht time for needed materials and components, persons.
III Plan, Orchestrate actions with detailed time dependencies for building and validating.
F-1.2.4 ⚖ Scope for systems optimization
Misunderstanding: ICT - Business
A three dimensional relationship model.
The gap with all misunderstanding between ICT (Information Communication Technology) has been there since I started to work at the ICT.
This is strange because attempts to solve this are failing. An attempt to understand this is using the Amsterdam Information model (AIM) with adjustments.
Adjustments are in using words and in adding the shop-floor. The strategical level consultancy is often lacking the mission target realization by the "shop-floor".
Old word(s)
New word
Reason for changing words
Business
Functional
Working, implementing business goals. The mission is adding value. Avoiding the frame of only a cost-center. The value can be financial and non financial.
Information Communication
Compliancy
The business organization needs a lot of communication in expectations and instructions to get things done. This kind of communication is not the technical communication using technology.
Using the word compliancy to align with the organization is more appropiate.
Technology
Technical
The word Technology is associated that buying it would solve all problems.
Collected and gathered information (data) within the business is at best technical represented as "data".
Business
ICT
alignment & similarities.
People
Confidentiality
Going for a modern robust lean working environment there are a lot of attention points.
Process
Integrity
What is manufactured, assembled should have a level of quality.
Machines
Availablity
Tools should support People and processes in the best holistic fit.
Business
ICT
Shared negative experiences
Control
Strategy
There is a big gap to the "shopfloor".
Orchestration
Tactical
Personal goals are hidden placed above organizational ones.
Realization
Opertional
Suffering by micromanagement or misalignment with organisational goals set by the hierachical opinions.
Innovate - Operate
All organisations wants to be:
a game changer - transition
👉🏾 creating new products, dropping old ones
💰 investments, cost are needed while unpredictable in profits
⏳ Innovating in the wrong way easily results in an obsolete product never getting profits.
being predictable & reliable.
👉🏾 same trustworthy product
💰 the well knowing situatuion is predictable in profits
⌛ Become outdated means getting obsolete. Being obsolete there will be no profits.
The organisation usually wants it all at the same moment with no cost investments only wanting to see profits.
A conflict of interests that will last forever. The choice:
conservative running as-is (vertical) 👉🏾 stable operations 👎🏾 no process changes, no innovation, legacy
Doing two major changes at the same time often results in unwanted surprises. Scheduling actions for time is sensible.
The physical industrial environment has a high maturity level.
Information communcation processing (ICT) for administrative tasks, all the technology enabling automation recently became available.
The technology did show an incredible growth in capacity.
When the generic complaint is that productivity growth is lagging with information processing, obviously something fundamental is still missing.
F-1.3 Gathering information for understanding
F-1.3.1 ⚖ Relevant information by Guided web search
Agile, systems thinking
The meaning of agile, the AGIL paradigm is a sociological scheme created by American sociologist Talcott Parsons in the 1950s.
It is a systematic depiction of certain societal functions, which every society must meet to be able to maintain stable social life. ...
The AGIL paradigm is part of Parsons's larger action theory, outlined in his notable book The Structure of Social Action, in "The Social System" and in later works, which aims to construct a unified map of all action systems, and ultimately "living systems".
Indeed, the actual AGIL system only appeared in its first elaborate form in 1956, and Parsons extended the system in various layers of complexity during the rest of his intellectual life.
...
The social system represent the integral part of the action system and is in this way only a subsystem within the greater whole of systems.
For example the order of the cultural system vis-a-vis the AGIL functional scheme is:
Cognitive symbolization
Expressive symbolization.
Moral-evaluative symbolization.
Constitutive symbolization.
AGIL is an acronym from the initials of each of the four systemic necessities.
The AGIL system is considered a cybernetic hierarchy and has generally the following order L-I-G-A, when the order is viewed from an "informational" point of view; this implies that the L function could "control" or define the I function (and the I the G and so on) approximately in the way in which a computer-game-program "defines" the game. ...
Also it is important to highlight that the AGIL system does not "guarantee" any historical system survival; they rather specify the minimum conditions for whether societies or action systems in principle can survive.
Whether a concrete action system survive or not is a sheer historical question.
Adaptation, or the capacity of society to interact with the environment. This includes, among other things, gathering resources and producing commodities to social redistribution.
Goal Attainment, or the capability to set goals for the future and make decisions accordingly.
Political resolutions and societal objectives are part of this necessity.
Integration, or the harmonization of the entire society is a demand that the values and norms of society are solid and sufficiently convergent.
This requires, for example, the religious system to be fairly consistent, and even in a more basic level, a common language.
Latency, or latent pattern maintenance, challenges society to maintain the integrative elements of the integration requirement above.
This means institutions like family and school, which mediate belief systems and values between an older generation and its successor.
Lean is another word with the same intention by another origin.
Following the mindset in thinking by yhe viable system model, a model used in cybernetics, entered the impact of buzzwords and more.
Downsides of buzz hypes:
Dilution of Meaning: When buzzwords are used excessively, they can lose their original meaning and become vague or meaningless. This can lead to confusion and miscommunication.
Superficial Understanding: Relying on buzzwords can create a superficial understanding of complex concepts. People might use these terms without fully grasping their implications, leading to poor decision-making.
Hype Over Substance: Buzzwords can create a lot of hype around certain technologies or trends, sometimes overshadowing more practical or effective solutions. This can result in misplaced priorities and wasted resources.
Exclusionary Language: The use of buzzwords can create barriers for those who are not familiar with the latest jargon. This can make communication less inclusive and hinder collaboration.
Short-Term Focus: Buzzwords often emphasize the latest trends, which can lead to a short-term focus. This might cause organizations to chase after the newest buzzword rather than developing a long-term, sustainable strategy.
buzzword-cycle, a lock-in: following hypes by buzzwords.
Strategy distraction by Buzz hypes
Updates of an earlier article published in Business History Review: the Evolving Ideas about Business Strategy (Cambride.org Pankaj Gemawhat)
An attempt to provide an overview of the evolution of practical—rather than academic—ideas about business strategy. ...
While there are no ideal indicators of rates of innovation in strategy—let alone performance measures—there are multiple indications that the rate has dropped off sharply since the levels reached in the 1990s.
The figure:
Ebbs, flows, and residual impact of business fads, 1950–2000. (Source: Richard Pascale, updated figure, “Ebbs, Flows, and Residual Impact of Business Fads, 1950–1995,” published in his book Managing on the Edge: How Successful Companies Use Conflict to Stay Ahead [New York, 1990], 18–20.)
Not information that is well understandable for static and dynamic models for strategy.
That is something to get more what it is about.
Strategy static and dynamic
Strategy dynamics
The 'industry forces' paradigm was established most firmly by Michael Porter, (1980) in his seminal book 'Competitive Strategy', the ideas of which still form the basis of strategy analysis in many consulting firms and investment companies.
The essential problem is that tools explaining why firm A performs better than firm B at a point in time are unlikely to explain why firm B is growing its performance more rapidly than firm A.
What is needed, is a set of tools that explain how performance changes over time, and how to improve its future trajectory – i.e. a dynamic model of strategy and performance.
A dichotomy:
The dynamics of strategy and performance concerns the ‘content’ of strategy – initiatives, choices, policies and decisions adopted in an attempt to improve performance, and the results that arise from these managerial behaviors.
The dynamic model of the strategy process is a way of understanding how strategic actions occur.
It recognizes that strategic planning is dynamic, that is, strategy-making involves a complex pattern of actions and reactions. It is partially planned and partially unplanned.
The static model of the Strategy Process:
Doing a situation analysis: both internal and external; both micro-environmental and macro-environmental.
Concurrent with this assessment, objectives are set. This involves crafting vision statements (long term), mission statements (medium term), overall corporate objectives (both financial and strategic), strategic business unit objectives (both financial and strategic), and tactical objectives.
These objectives should, in the light of the situation analysis, suggest a strategic plan. The plan provides the details of how to obtain these goals.
This three-step strategy formation process is sometimes referred to as determining where you are now, determining where you want to go, and then determining how to get there.
The next phase, according to this linear model is the implementation of the strategy.
The next phase of a static strategy model is a dynamic model.
The strategy process dynamics model:
The unplanned element comes from two sources : "emergent strategies" result from the emergence of opportunities and threats in the environment and "Strategies in action" are ad hoc actions by many people from all parts of the organization.
These multitudes of small actions are typically not intentional, not teleological, not formal, and not even recognized as strategic.
They are emergent from within the organization, in much the same way as "emergent strategies" are emergent from the environment.
In this model, strategy is both planned and emergent, dynamic, and interactive. Five general processes interact. They are:
strategic intention,
the organization's response to emergent environmental issues,
the dynamics of the actions of individuals within the organization,
the alignment of action with strategic intent,
and strategic learning.
...
But work in cybernetics by Ross Ashby and others suggests that instead of simple rules, adaptive self-stabilization in an ever-changing environment requires a double-loop system rather than a single loop.
There is not any mentioning of the viable systems model. VSM is a fractal approach of systems with many double-loops.
F-1.3.4 ⚒ Universal systems releationships
Systems in systems network
sysbok (source: SCIO).
The word that were attention attraction: Idef0.
Waht are the actors in the network?
Actor–network theory ( ANT ) is a theoretical and methodological approach to social theory where everything in the social and natural worlds exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships.
It posits that nothing exists outside those relationships.
All the factors involved in a social situation are on the same level, and thus there are no external social forces beyond what and how the network participants interact at present.
Thus, objects, ideas, processes, and any other relevant factors are seen as just as important in creating social situations as humans.
ANT holds that social forces do not exist in themselves, and therefore cannot be used to explain social phenomena.
Instead, strictly empirical analysis should be undertaken to "describe" rather than "explain" social activity.
Only after this can one introduce the concept of social forces, and only as an abstract theoretical concept, not something which genuinely exists in the world.
It can more technically be described as a "material-semiotic" method.
This means that it maps relations that are simultaneously material (between things) and semiotic (between concepts).
It assumes that many relations are both material and semiotic.
The theory demonstrates that everything in the social and natural worlds, human and nonhuman, interacts in shifting networks of relationships without any other elements out of the networks.
NT challenges many traditional approaches by defining nonhumans as actors equal to humans.
This claim provides a new perspective when applying the theory in practice.
How organisations should work
This title is the title of a book. This book is indicating a complete different approach than is set by the usual management strategy consultancies.
What did I learn:
There is a match in the way the organisation should work and the SIAR infographic.
A recursive approach, "running a business within the business" is a valid mindset.
There is a discrepancy in personal interests and organisational interests that should be taken into account. Don't expect those personal interests be banned.
Some functions like the security department (compliancy) are better in an advisory position than in one interrupting the operational processes.
The same approach is found in the infographics I am proposing.
I am not a person wanting to be a boss controlling other persons.
The consequence is not being attracted to information how to do the work in this area.
This was an exception to do and gave some hints for more in this line in what is not the conventual approach.
F-1.4 Curiosity for understanding, 🎭 systems
F-1.4.1 ⚖ Systems thinking processes
What is systems thinking?
The basics of systems thinking (2023
Holistic refers to the idea of considering something as a whole rather than just looking at its individual parts.
In the context of systems thinking this means considering the entire system and all of its parts rather than just focusing on one specific part or aspect.
The holistic approach recognizes that everything is interconnected and that the various parts of a system cannot be fully understood in isolation from one another.
Instead it looks at the relationships between the parts and how they interact with each other to create the overall system.
One key aspect of systems thinking is the recognition that small changes in one part of a system can have cascading effects on other parts of the system.
Another important aspect of systems thinking is the recognition that systems often exhibit imagined behaviour that is behaviour that arises from the interactions and relationships between the parts of a system rather than from the individual Parts themselves.
Systems thinking is a valuable tool for understanding and addressing complex problems as it helps us to identify the underlying causes of problems and to device strategies for addressing them.
Complexity refers to the degree to which a system is made up of many interconnected parts that interact in a non-linear fashion.
In other words a complex system is one that is composed of many parts that are interconnected and influence each other in intricate and often unpredictable ways.
Situations may be complex with many interconnected factors and variables at play and may involve multiple stakeholders with different perspectives and goals.
Situations of interest:
Social or economic issues such as poverty or inequality
Organizational problems such as inefficiency or conflict
Once you have determined your situation of Interest the next step is typically to gather more information about the situation.
It can also be helpful to identify the goals or objectives that you hope to achieve in addressing the situation of Interest.
Boundaries in systems thinking refer to the limits or edges of a system beyond which the system does not extend.
In other words boundaries define what is included within the system and what is excluded.
It is important to carefully consider the boundaries of a system as they can have a significant impact on the system's behavior and performance.
It is important to be mindful of these subjectivities and to consider the potential biases or assumptions that may be influencing boundary judgments.
The viable systems model, VSM, is based on the idea that all complex systems whether they are organizations Societies or ecosystems are made up of interconnected parts that work together to achieve a common goal or purpose.
The first step in creating a VSM is to identify the boundaries of the system being analyzed and to Define its purpose or goal.
This might involve:
Identifying the key components or elements of the system and how they interact with each other.
Identify the subsystems within the system which are smaller specialized units that perform specific functions within the overall.
Identify the relationships and interactions between the subsystems within the system.
This might involve mapping out the flow of resources or information between the subsystems as well as any feedback loops or other dynamic relationships.
Analyze it using the VSM framework. This might involve evaluating the system's ability to adapt and change in response to its environment or identifying areas where the system is not functioning effectively.
Key steps in design thinking typically include empathizing with the needs of stakeholders by understanding their goals motivations and challenges defining the problem or opportunity in a clear and actionable way.
Learning in a flipped setting
flipped-learning-guide
Flipped learning is a pedagogical model where traditional instructional goals for what happens inside and outside of class are reversed and student learning becomes increasingly active.
When flipped, students acquire knowledge, develop comprehension, and have opportunities to assess their understanding outside of, and typically prior to, in-class meetings.
This acquisition occurs through carefully designed, typically independent, and self-directed activities.
During in-class meetings, instructors facilitate active learning, engage students, guide learning, and provide feedback as students work together to apply their new knowledge.
The flipped learning model can be used for a single session or an entire course. Flipped learning wheel (FLW) (2023 researchgate, Zhanni Luo*, Billy O’Steen and Cheryl Brown).
A framework named the Flipped Learning Wheel (FLW) which contains the components and principles involved in an effective flipped learning class.
The Flipped Learning Wheel was developed based on various theories, including instructional design theories, the use of technology for pedagogical uses and the Community of Inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999).
F-1.4.2 💡 Systems thinking practices
Six philosophical questions: What, Where, When, Who, How, Why
Wiki Zachman
The Zachman Framework is not a methodology in that it does not imply any specific method or process for collecting, managing, or using the information that it describes.
Challenging is: ontology all levels in one pass.
Split up:
🤔 High level architectural functional design: (1) Logical, Conceptual Contextual.
🤔 Solution engineering, technical architecture: (2) Logical, Physical Detailed.
Getting "Wich" content for cells in one of the two 3*6 matrices (W,W,W W,H,W):
Q
Which Context topic
What
Inventory
Where
Distribution
When
Timing / Vision
Q
Which Context topic
Who
Responsibility
How
Process
Why
Motivation
❓ At first glance, not relevant.
❗ Please review how this page is setup (contents).
F-1.4.3 🎯 Information - data a central asset
Becoming "data driven"
Adjustment adding the "shopfloor".
The process design in the following infographic is a result of involvement at several Machine Learning (ML) projects. ML is a part of AI (Artificial Intelligence).
I created this infographic in 2018 before the SIAR infographic. The goal was changing and adjusting the widely used crisp-dm infographic in a full closed circle.
The chosen orientation is:
The business, organization goals are leading, placed in the center at the top.
At the floor (left), operations running processes creating products conform specifications.
At the floor (right), changing existing processes or creating new ones from requirements.
Reviewing this infographic with the very old classic developing and running programs (Cobol era). The principles are the same, only technical details are a little bit different.
Data provision - authorizing enabling information (data) access
Data preparation - Selecting, sub setting sorting adjusting
Modelling - defining, building business logic into code
Model evaluation - Verifying, testing the crated code for functionality
Information driven Life Cycle - SIAR
Reviewing this infographic with "SIAR". The principles are the same although locations and technical details have changed.
The SIAR infographic moved to hierarchical top into the center, the eye.
The data driven process infographic is missing the control with ideate, asses enable plan.
I have made this infographic beginning 2018. The goal was understanding to new ML approach. It is a combination of Crisp-dm and many more well known frameworks.
A closer look and changing words it, could be my first job (health research). It could also cover the involvement of the first projects at an Insurance company using assembler & Cobol.
Not all information recently learned is on this site. I need time to change and aligning what I did before into something new. Missing are:
Maturity of data governance, starting with BIDM.
Data mesh, changing into the data-product with an analytical en operational plane.
The recusrsive application of running the SIAR model in several conditions and contexts. Running a business within a business.
Extending better the time factor into information chains. Operational databases were designed in an era technical resources were scanty. The question of previous information versions left out of scope.
F-1.4.4 🤔 Management structure & hierarchy
The inverted hierarchical pyramid
Servant Leadership: Breakthrough Ideas on Customer Service (James MacLennan 2020 )
The traditional org chart is all wrong. It puts the people that work directly with your customer at the lowest position on the pyramid.
This makes the customer the least important person in the picture. Servant Leadership will flip that pyramid.
What if your leaders saw their primary mission as support for those closest to the customer?
What kind of difference would that have on customer loyalty and satisfaction?
...
There is another important idea that we all grew up with – something that dominates how we see the world and our place in it. Organizations are strict hierarchies; CEO at the top, supported by a team of Execs, and a progression of managers below.
This structure is always drawn as shown – CEO at the top, with the organization cascading down the page.
....
Here is the secret … this entire structure is upside down! Why?
Because it puts the people on the front lines – the folks that work directly with your customers – at the lowest position in this pyramid.
This point of view makes the customer the least important person in this entire picture.
But what if we flipped the pyramid? What if the folks [formerly] at the top considered “service and support for those closest to our customer” to be their primary mission?
....
F-1.5 The journey in understanding
F-1.5.1 ⚖ The motive in Analysing learning a system
The motive: gap in managing portfolios
The situations of interest is the lack in a well defined managed portfolio for information systems supporting the current state and the change.
Symptoms and issues are:
The journey in understanding the gap in managing portfolios
The classic diamond model
A conclusion is that we have not made any progress in the past 40 years.
Harold Leavitt's diamond model (1965) repeat with MIT90 M.S.S Morton (1991) have named the well-known interconnected antipodes:
Tasks (strategy) vs Technology (machines vs processes)
People (actors, individuals roles) vs Structure
There has been a desperate attempt to ignore these contradictions and manage them away as unwanted complexity so that everything would become easily predictable (cynefin).
The variety with all the unpredictability and uncertainties in reality makes something like this a hopelessly hopeless thing.
Designing complex systems requires and demands that you accept these characteristics and then act. That means accepting a diversity with the frictions and uncertainties.
This is the background of the constant tensions.
F-1.5.2 ⚖ --
data lineage following the cycle
Knowing what information from what source is processed into new information at a new location is lineage (derivation),
"data lineage" . ❼
Understanding changes in data requires understanding the data chain, the rules that have been applied to data as it moves along the data chain, and what effects the rules have had on the data.
Data lineage includes the concept of an origin for the data—its original source or provenance—and the movement and change of the data as it passes through systems and is adopted for different uses (the sequence of steps within the data chain through which data has passed).
Pushing the metaphor, we can imagine that any data that changes as it moves through the data chain includes some but not all characteristics of its previous states and that it will pick up other characteristics through its evolution.
Data lineage is important to data quality measurement because lineage influences expectations.
In a figure,
See right side.
Vision, missions: are what executives build and maintain as foundation for the whole.
In a very small enterprise just having this floor it is still indispensable.
Technology operations: representation does not not have a logical leader at floor 0-1.
In a very small enterprise this will not be an issue.
When there is growth into an organised values stream flow the questions arise what to do.
🤔 Being an indispensable part of the value stream floor 1-2, it is combined to the operations area in the value stream.
Support organisation: enabling capabilities, will become a question when the organisation becomes that big, it has become important dedicate tasks.
🤔 Combining it with the long term time planning at floor 1-2 is the most logical choice.
Supporting operations: executing capabilities, will become a question when the variety and complexity for products, services becomes that big, it has become important dedicate roles with tasks.
🤔 Combining it with the long term time planning at floor 1-2 is the most logical choice.
In a figure:
Quick arrival at the dichotomies in viable systems
Assumptions, knowlegdable for:
9 planes classic AIM with the SAM strategy alignment model
LEAN with for example PDCA DMAIC OODA 3m 5s or agile. but not the mainstream agile project approach (Safe).
With some structuring of these many sources and the previously mentioned diamond and someone with the same question, a simpler 9 planes has emerged.
External drivers in multiple categories on the corners
Each plane has 9 parts as a repeating factor. (Vism)
Frictions with the paradoxes arise on the edges of the planes.
If small, feedback loops interactions are solved autonomously by the people.
The next step is not to zoom in on the details but to indicate specializations with the goal of zooming out to a larger whole.
Consider the picture with that gray plane as floor 0-1 which is quite similar to the definition of a startup.
You want above that:
1-2 the operation in a value stream for defined products (goods services)
2-3 be able to improve products (goods services) and be able to innovate yourself
3-4 the secondary but indispensable tasks and roles for the whole such as finance risk communication, customer intelligence the daily management.
They are three other floor plates for tasks with roles that can be displayed in a 9 plane with a gray middle plane in the same structure.
In this way you get a 3D structure with the expansion of what was previously vertical horizontal with a gray middle column.
From that 3D structure you can view the sides.
They provide the same structure with 4 basic characteristics for the expansion above technology and organization.
The interactions with all coordination expand but remain clear due to the reduction in every possible detail that should be coordinated. Autonomy and delegation are essential, also require management.
F-1.5.4 ⚖ --
SIMF ViSM: the VSM connection
The three dimensional perspectives wiht a prodcut oriented mindset (green) and a service oriented one (magenta).
The system-4 and system-5 on top that is repeated at the bottom. Three system-1 constructs form the highest perspective.
1d design & change the products (good, service)
1r operations & run the products (good, service)
1i maintain the internal cohesion guided by vision
Functional perspective in a figure:
Technical perspective in a figure:
F-1.6 Applying system thinking the obvious
F-1.6.1 ⚖ SIAR applied to Personal live
Agile and buzzword hype
Lean and agile are buzzwords with the hope of increasing productivity, lowering costs.
If your organization emphasizes doing agile rather than being agile, you’re on the wrong foot right from the start.
Agile is a paradigm, a mental shift in how you approach running and doing development of processes.
The specific techniques and ceremonies come later, and they’re the least important part even can left out at all.
The focus should not be on building software but running an organization with products (information data) and processes.
Starting with understanding lean and agile is what brought me to JABES beginning with SIAR.
Personal interest off work
It is a persons choices and preferences outside of work that define personal life, including ones choice of hobbies, cultural interests, manner of dress, mate, friends, and so on.
Becoming wealthy, powerful, admired, are not a my goals.
Be careful what you wish for, life is about seeking a balance.
Question: What would SIAR be in a personal private environment?
Question: Does personal interest harm organizations vice versa?
IV - Requests & Results, from personal wishes
For all kind of wishes a financial budget is very often needed.
Not everything is for sale but it will help when there is some available to offer.
Going to work for a company is the most common approach for getting an income solving the budget questions.
The immediate question: there is no natural involvement for working at an organisation. How to solve that?
The amount of payment could be a way for getting involvement.
Abuse of high payments will harm the organisation and other workers.
Engagement using public admiration is an alternative with no direct financial impact.
Abuse will create long lasting distrust harm the organisation and other workers.
III - Planning enabling
The simple private planning is not working, enjoying life.
When I am off and it is for a longer period that could be a holiday.
On my holidays, I´m charging the batteries.
I can get a telephone call, asking for help, from someone at the office.
After the support question handling off, the statement of my holiday at a nice location.
With the modern smartphone tooling you will get a picture.
It has become an anecdotal story with old friends.
A place where I can be is like this one:
Planning work for an organization easily conflicts with planning personal interests.
Needed: Agreement within teams having the work to do. National directives are helping.
I - Running: personal private environment
This is running, organizing all what is needed for the private environment.
Taking care of the persons around, handling illness, getting the food, managing the house.
Once upon a time this was a full time job.
Private obligations easily conflicts with organizational procedures and / or interests.
Agreement from both sidesis needed to solve this as much as possible.
II - Delivery
Private goals usually are not for the public.
There are exceptions when these are also social goals doing social discussions or for sharing knowledge.
In the case the there is a private company that is using the private area more is shared than when it is just a commercial enterprise.
Sharing knowledge, seeing an opportunity to improve something everybody would like to get improved.
Don't assume it is free to copy.
F-1.6.2 Planning vs Doing, Strategy vs Execution
business rules
A Business View of Data and Data Quality The Four BRS Dimensions of Semantic Quality
Business has a fundamental problem with data quality. In some places it’s merely painful; in others it’s near catastrophic. Why is the problem so pervasive? Why does it never seem to get fixed? Perhaps we’ve been thinking about the problem wrong.
(Extracted from Business Knowledge Blueprints: Enabling Your Data to Speak the Language of the Business, 2nd ed., by Ronald G. Ross, 2020, 288 pp,)
Terms (including synonyms) should always refer to only a single concept in a given context.
For that you need a solid business vocabulary, which in turn requires a robust concept model (business ontology).
Data is a message, a communication, to people in the future. A reliable message is one that complies with all relevant business rules.
Business rules are about business knowledge and business activity, not data – at least not directly.
A shortlist:
Purpose of Business Rules:
To allow a group or community of people to function in a rules-based manner, understanding and communicating obligations, prohibitions, rights, and necessities (think 'policies').
Business rules are not a ‘system’ – and in and of themselves, don’t enable you to ‘build’ one. (But they’re extremely useful in developing requirements for a system.)
Assumption of Business Rules:
A rule must be based on a factual expression, and be purely declarative.
Otherwise, it's not a business rule.
A procedure, a step in a procedure, or an action is not a business rule (especially at the automation level of a system).
Reality of Business Rules:
The majority follow no set pattern (e.g., can't be organized in decision tables), don't use math (for which formulas are often fine), and can only be communicated effectively in structured natural language using a controlled vocabulary.
Business rules are what make your data about the business ‘right’ – no matter what 'system' produces it.
The four dimensions of BRS Semantic Quality get to root causes of ‘data quality’ problems, as well as of miscommunication in written or other business communications.
Communicating about difficult subject matter is hard to begin with. Blind communication to people you can’t converse or interact with directly is the hardest of all.
It requires order-of-magnitude sophistication in the techniques used to form the messages.
business rules
All private high set goals with planning is hardly ever met, the rate of success is low.
The most simple goals however are satisfying in enjoying live.
There is a legacy from experiences and what was hoped for and what is achieved.
Al lot is documented and archived for what has happened.
This history of experiences the source of learning for similar new ones.
F-1.6.3 ⚙ Looking back - evaluating for the future
A career could define what you do for a living and range from those that require extensive training and education to those you can perform with only a high school diploma and a willingness to learn.
Becoming wealthy, powerful, admired, is not a goal on his own. Be careful what you wish for, life is about seeking a balance.
Question: What would the SIAR model be in an organizational environment?
IV - Request & Result delivery valuable artifacts
The goal is simple stated for going for products that will deliver value and are in demand.
The real problem is: there are more questions without clear answers:
whose task is defining the organizational goals,the why , and what are these?
which internal requirements and public regulations are in scope?
where will the activities being processed, what to do and what not to do?
what will be constructed and what is the required quality?
how will the construction setup, will it be engineered?
who will be responsible accountable to fulfill the product requests?
when it is the correct time to jump into the market?
To solve partially all those questions human communication with interactions is the key factor.
It is intentioally to have 7wh questions.
Partially solving is avoiding needing all the details getting to be known before something is started.
Doing the details when necessary reduces time to go to market / delivery.
Supoort for decisions has changed wiht technology. One upon a time a human was doing all the calculations with information he could process.
Aritifical Intelligence, AI, is replacing that using predefined recipes.
There are several areas to cover that have different scopes. These three levels in a triangle are behaving devilish: 📚 Information -- Product Ideas, associated information, Project scopes 🎭 Communication -- Architecting, Research options, alignment with stakeholders ⚙ Technology -- Realization technology, Operations stability, Monitoring results
III - Planning enabling
For enabling plans there must be
financial budgets for technical resources. --financial budgets for human capabilities.
Negotations with internal suppliers -- Negotations with external suppliers
All is including schems for moments of request and deliveries for the necessary forecasting.
A suggestion box did not work. The ideas of all staff is indespenible.
A backlog organized for product is an option helpfull for defining requirements when a project is run.
Without any requirement there is np plan no goal.
Simple Example information processing
A simple approach using the SIAR model would be review the accounting and book-keeping system used for temporary staff.
The person for the accounting can be external working for the companies delivering temporary staff. In this simple case a lot of information processing going on.
Regular salary pay outs for the temporary staff based on declarations by agreed work and other costs. The cost of the book keeping service is added.
Annual reporting for the involved companies and for the involved book-keeping company. This activity is fullfilling other regulations.
Regulations for what is allowed and what to hand over with taxes and more are in place. Hopefully used tools are supporting all these requirements.
There obvious at least three cycles where the SIAR model is applicable.
I - Running
When the product is operational:
Data, information, is being processed while evaluated for important controls.
This is the moment of the truth when value is generated.
It is too often seen as boring ICT by the organization. Classified as just keeping the lights on.
Many improvements might be possible in PDCA iterations. These kind of improvements is the fundament of lean - agile.
II - Delivering
What is delivered is validated for correctness of the associating request and on the required quality.
Any issue seen is solved in coordination with involved parties.
Salary cycle IV - Request & Result: pay out salaries
Have defined intervals with goals for aligned contracts with aligned involved persons.
III - Planning enabling
Collect information on delivered working activities with their agreed costs.
Have a validate plan for composing annual reports. When using a service for this do an alignment on goals and expectations.
III - Planning enabling
Collect information on consolidated salaries and all additional costs for the involved company.
I - Running
Consolidate the payments declarations with additional company cost. Align the outcome with accountable persons.
II - Delivering
Verify the annual reports are conform to regulations and delivered to the regulators.
Optimize knowledge and tools IV - Request & Result: technical environment(s) with alignment to regulations
Review changed regulations, visit meetings for verifying available knowledge.
Get to know what is going in in the nice market of accounting book-keeping for tooling.
III - Planning enabling
Collect information on tools that are possible to be used and evaluate on possible improvements.
I - Running
Implement new chosen tools.
II - Delivering
Verify new chosen tools.
F-1.6.4 ⚙ Looking back - evaluating for the future
reconnect into diverging by dichotomies
Seeing the marketing activities got that autonomous it has worn organisations into disfucntional parts it is strange seeing it has the same origin as many of the other changes.
The conclusion for this only can be that management has failed into better converging actvities.
Root-cause most likely are:
being overwhelmed in the fast on-going changes.
being overwhelmed in conficts in many dichotomies.
The question:
Are dichotomies representable in a visual?
Could it be something like a plant?
A simple manual attempt with all imperfections.
in a figure, see right side.
reconnect into diverging by dichotomies
The world of ICT is full of technical buzz words. These buzz words do not help in a clear understanding.
Closing the gap with more understandable approach is what the new buzz architecture is.
The cloud buzz is hiding the needed technical machines as needed infrastructure.
Infrastructure like fiber data communication is a fundament. When found it is in a well-protected areas in the bottom of a structure.
F-2 What is Jabes, Why Jabes, Pitches Jabes Jabsa SIMF
F-2.1 Creation of organisational specialisations
F-2.1.1 ⚖ Innovate - Operate
Every building block has logical viewpoints by a crossing of two planes wiht three layers.
The data preparation and data delivery are having:
ICT
--
Data Preparation Data delivery
--
Process
--
Compliancy
Functional
--
Business value
--
Administration
--
Administration
Compliancy
--
Processes
--
Authorization
--
Responsible Accountable
Technical
--
Data as Product
--
Networking
--
Consulted Informed
Data preparation follows the classic Extract Load Transform (ELT) steps for defined input(s).
F-2.1.2 ⚖ Innovate - Operate
SIMF The organisation as a whole: ambiguity at the same horizontal plane.
⌛ ⏳ When C&C gets more mature there are options in proactive starting activities by risk evaluated changes (system-4).
What gets attention and what gets ignored is the identity, ethos, ground rules.
These should be an indispensable part of the vision.
The technical peculiar interesting attention points:
The central nerve system, grey area.
A plane with coordination, assuring knowledge related to the product (good, service) in the external environment want the internal relationships in the horizontal blue areas.
Another coordination plane in the vertical blue areas:
The organisation with an executive decisive point
The areas supporting the additional (secondary) tasks, processes.
The technology with supporting SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Dies)
autonomous parts that can interact by alerts and others signals.
There are four areas with sensors to the external environment and much autonomy in activities:
Consumer oriented: innovate, align the internal organisation, innovate and align the portfolio, products.
Internal organisation oriented: safety impact vs stability and stability of the organisational by e.g. good financial stability and legal compliancy.
Internal technology services oriented: technology stability and continuity.
Product (good, service) quality quantity an given service. More specific: information quality, explainability, accountability.
In a figure:
Why there is that much ambiguity at this level?
dimension-1:Acting as a system-3 connected to a higher system system-4.
The planes:
People: Organisation (orange) System-3 the counterpart
Processes: Communication (blue / grey ) System-2
Machines: Technology (green) System-1
dimension-2: Each floor level has two viable systems that should cooperate well.
The difference between those is: functionality and functioning. Both sides restart with their own scoped system-5. Both sides are helped wiht a system-1 and system-4.
dimension-3: Each plane by itself is a viable system, the systems-5 of a floor in the middle.
The organisations start as a system-1, the technology with a system-5.
F-2.1.3 ⚖ Innovate - Operate
Information transformations (processing)
The process can use a classic humand defined algorithm but also AI, ML (machine learning) learning the algorithm from labeled data.
Data quality is a important issue for several compliancy aspects.
Information Accountability
The control & steering from a situation is not related to any technology.
It is an organisational driven context that is far too often neglected.
The ⚖ topics part of specficiations and requirements in corporate context are:
Security, The environment must be safe.
Algorithms , What is done must be understood.
Operational Risk , What is processed should be evaluated beforehand.
Privacy impact, The impact of outcomes should be evaluated beforehand.
F-2.1.4 ⚖ Going for a full process cycle
F-2.2 Focus on managing existing products
F-2.2.1 ⚙
Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity
Use the VUCA method to go through what is known and not known about a situation or plan.
This helps create better understanding of the situation and what the vulnerabilities and risks are.
Volatility - Don´t expect standard values being applicable for all situations.
Uncertainty - Don´t expect situations to be stable and immutable.
Complexity - Expect dependencies to external parties impacting internals.
Ambiguity - It depends: Never simply black or white, anything can be viewed and interpreted in myriad ways.
To manage this the people responsible and accountable should be part of knowing what is happening and how issues are getting solved.
The deviations in the automated processing are to expected and budgetted with plannings.
Ignoring the deviations looks an easy cost saving. The possible impact is why all knowledge with operational research, lean processing (agile) has been build up and getting much attention, gets lost.
F-2.2.2 ⚙ Align the SIAR model to "Agile"
SIMF the value stream in information processing
A full complete generic value stream flow in a cycle with a pull-push.
Some peculiar interesting attention points:
There are three area's with planning:
Long term:
What products: goods, services are in scope in quality quantity (processes)
Expectations what can be processed for products: goods, services (machines)
What is the needed staff for all activities (people)
Medium term: "prepare picking", what is getting processed.
Short term: "execute packaging", what is getting to delivered.
Two area's with coordination, assuring the completeness of planning:
Supplier oriented at the backend.
Consumer oriented at the frontend.
There is a V-shape for the planning and coordination task at a whole.
There are three areas intensive activities (circles):
Consumer, Customer oriented for the products: goods, services.
products goods, services oriented oriented for the purposes values.
Operations process oriented creating the products, executing the services.
In a figure:
F-2.2.3 ⚙ Align the SIAR model to "Agile"
Discretionary Adjustments
The uncertainties should be able to get bypassed by discretionary decisions.
Staff that is only able to follow the computerized outcomes is not adding value.
Customer Care is an important part for the quality of service, it aligns with adding value.
An ICT service management framework like ITIL is commonly used. This does not add value.
Add support conform Jabes:
Process Transition
When there too many discretionary decisions solving the lack of quality in deliveries it has become necessary to do maintenances or do a redesign.
If there is a big competition in the market or regulations are changing the product evaluation and redesign gets continuous.
Note there is no goal from a technology viewpoint of just delivering "applications".
Organize and maintain "applications" using Jabes:
F-2.2.4 ⚙ Align the SIAR model to "Agile"
F-2.3 Focus on managing existing products
F-2.3.1 🚧 Working environment
There is a difference between the primary operational process that is delivering the business product and supporting analytical process helping to understand that primary process.
Any administrative processes follows the same cycle, the cycle:
Request (R) passing by controls (S), controls are:
Algorithms used by processes
Security for used information and involved staff
Privacy on used information
Operational Risk for continuity
a step preparing information (I). Possible is a collection of information sources.
processing transformation (A).
delivery (R). to an agreed external location or ready for an autorized customer to retrieve.
F-2.3.2 ⚙ planning vs doing
SIMF changing the vale stream
A full complete approach for creating & changing value streams in managed suggestions, backlog for requirements in a cycle with a pull-push.
This is a segregated from system-4 and
Some peculiar interesting attention points:
There are three areas intensive activities:
portfolio management: Aligning the missions for realisations by suggestions, wishes and specifications for all products. (horizontal orange areas)
program management: coordination of the lifecycle of products adding and validating requirements. (horizontal blue areas)
project management: coordination of partial stages in the lifecycle of products, completing and validating requirements. (horizontal green areas)
There is a reversed (upside down) V-shape for the planning and coordination task at a whole.
There are three V-shapes for:
Engineering type: design, build validate the product.
Compliance design type: narrowing down to what is needed at what level in the product.
Compliance validation type: narrowing down the level specified into specifications.
In a figure:
F-2.3.3 ⚙ planning vs doing
Jabes Framework
The first proposal is the framework. Using this framework a clear structured definition of generic steps with a portfolio becomes possible.
Although this idea is very well, there is not obvious unique distinctive competitive advantage.
F-3.4.3 💡 Jabes Product
Extending the framework with a product supporting the portfolio operational and transformational is unique distinctive.
There is nothing like this in the market. There is a high demand to be more in control for information processing.
The shown data model is for a transformation building up a platform supporting business administrative processes.
Given a purposes working top-down to tools.
Both tools and purpose are left out in the generic approach, four of the six levels are left.
The reversed symmetry, upside down of the pillars, is more visible.
The challenge of the different worls of developement and operations is more visisble.
in a figure:
F-2.4.3 ⚙ planning vs doing
An understandable visual for what is going on, what will go on, is not easy.
Pitfalls: undercomplex, overengineered, too many not relevant details.
The logical steps for understanding and improvements looks to be dependent in a cycle.
The reality is:
in an existing situation there is always something there,
in a new situation only partials are done to achieve some result
The question in this is where to start for better understanding, better improvements.
in a figure:
See right side.
The context of the audience: organisation.
Switching into a another approach, not focussing on what could be dependencies but on options in the system to change some thing for the better.
The question of what and how to start for changes:
Organisation:
Standard work, vision: Product knowledge by specified objectives
(coordination - alignment - mediation)
Geo-mapped roles: Knowing what should be done.
Persons methodologies: Knowing who should do it.
Flows, value streams: knowng who is accountable for what is done.
Technology:
Optimizing for constraints limited to local interests
(coordination - alignment - mediation)
Functionality, technology: optimizing for the system as a whole
Safety, technology: having the system as a whole safe for all.
Working standard, practice: Product knowledge by defined specfications
In a different presentation acknowleding a level of autonomy in system components that are systems on their own:
Cid
Organisation
Technology
Cid
description
VSM
VSM
description
9
Start-up: Vision & Execute
system-5
system-1
Start-up: Operations & Planning
4
Scaled: only Vision
Scaled: only Operations
0
Coordination
system-2
system-2
Coordination
5
1
Enabling system actvities
system-4
system-3
Planning & processing
6
2
Portfolio planning
system-3
system-4
Enabling system Products
7
3
Local: people execution
system-1
system-5
Local: synergy technology
8
Global: synergy people
system-3
system-1
Global: system realisations
Surprising interactions by the transformations during scaling and way of growth in dichotomies.
F-2.4.4 ⚙ planning vs doing
F-2.5 Product journeys in systems
F-2.5.1 💡
The building of Jabes will be a lot of pioneering. A bootstrap approach while developing the product is possible.
I have several ideas worked out into more details.
The whole of Jabes is needing several persons to realize for the magnitude and scope.
Needed is a team with more competencies I have.
Idea for composing a team:
An enthusiastic performer understanding Jabes able to promote the product to prospects.
A data enthusiast helping in selecting and configuring the backend database.
An agile / lean person translating what is currently done into Jabes.
Data scientist defining and using the information that is generated into stories that are predictive prescriptive.
Designer front end user interface.
Legal support for running a business.
Financial administration also doing support in choices.
...(what we will hit during the adventure)...
Some properties to implement are:
The database should support blob artifacts aside the classic elements for free formatted content. Free fomratted content could be a pdf or jpg file.
The used metadatamodel for possible elements should become standardized one.
Exporting and importing to other databases based on a product identification should be easily possible.
The product identification is to be retrieved from a registrar or using a range for local usage.
There are artifacts mentioned that should not part of the venture building the product.
These two artifacts with the jabes framwork should be isolated into foundations.
F-2.5.2 ⚙ Simple Example information processing
SIMF Support in improving the product, service
The dichotomy Technical autonomy vs organisational control is not a common historical topic.
Diplomacy is not associated with wealth, honour and glory.
MEDIATION IN ARMED CONFLICT
The practice of mediation involves third-party intervention to facilitate conflict resolution between parties.
Mediators act as neutral facilitators, assisting in communication, negotiation, and finding common ground to reach a peaceful resolution.
It is a diplomatic tool used to de-escalate tensions, prevent conflicts, and promote cooperation.
Seeing the two different side that are a lot of frictions to manage:
The situation of the different sides are a consequence of growth.
With a lot of variety to confusion and ambiguity also grows.
Operational VSM-1r flow: 1-2 floor. Both sides are missing system-3, synergy.
Mediation:
Align: Choices for what is going into the process flow - Organisation.
Align: Choices for what has been processed in the flow - Technology.
Operational VSM-1d change : 2-3 floor. Both sides are missing system-3, synergy.
Mediation:
Align wishes with expectations time/cost for activities - Organisation.
Align the design build verify activities in qualities - Technology.
Mangement VSM-3 : 3-4 floor. Mediation Technology Autonomic functions and the important secundary functions in the organisation.
The complete area of changing products, goods, services at information processing in a figure:
F-2.5.3 💡 Products properties Jabes Jabsa SIMF
Defining Jabes Portfolio naming standards
Using an uniform product identification enables trade and exchange while exporting and importing the database containing an information product conforming the Jabes metadata model.
Following a naming convention schema an identification could be like:
PPIC:ITC-00-000-001:ACT:ScoreNewCust-03
Defining Jabes Metadata model
The framework and metadata model with ontology has the goal of maintaining it as open standard. A foundation is the best option for this.
The metamodel covers all elemements in three layers, servicing the life cycle stages.
Innovation or solving known issues needs a defined "backlog".
The "backlog" items should be made clear enough and well understood to define requirements.
When the transtion is finished, the product consolidates with specifications.
. . . Stages Layers . . .
Innovate - Issues ➡ Backlog
Backlog ⬇ Requirements
Requirements ⬇ Design Build
Requirements ⬇ Validation
Validaton ⬇ Specification
Strategical
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
Tactical
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
Operational
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
Market equivalents Jabes
There are companies that are doing something that seems similar at first sight but a closer look it is not anything like Jabes.
SAP
delivers fixed sets of standard process frameworks and software that fits within many industries. What is possible:
The portfolio software of SAP could get defined with Jabes.
Leanix (owned by SAP))
A collaborative and data-driven solution helping to lead transformation initiatives and strategic planning engagements that enable new sources of business value.
These are partial topics covered by Jabes. The knowledge is not open source.
The portfolio software of Leanix could get extended to a commercial Jabes products.
Celonis
offers process mining, what is happening. What is possible:
A mindshift for focus on ICT administrative processes.
A mindshift for not only analyzing what is going on (descriptive hindsight) but also for predictive and prescriptive.
F-2.5.4 📚 Opportunities for Jabes Jabsa SIMF
F-2.6 Applying system thinking at complexity
F-2.6.1 ⚖ Ideas from the SIMF anatomy
Awareness of positions
Leaving the industrial age and going into the information age is expecting more power at the edges, needing awareness of position and situation by stakeholders.
💡👁❗Geo-mapped roles idea: defining the organisation Goal: helping organisations in the mapping of what they are doing using the generic cubicle. Activity: the high level abstraction of the cubicle making more relevant in their business world. Customization for the position awareness is needed.
💡👁❗persons ⇄ geo-maps idea: organise who is who in geo-mapped roles. Goal: helping organisations in organising, clearing up accountabilities responsibilities for persons and roles using the customized cubicle. Activity: Using the customized cubicle with names helps in to see the need for understanding and recognizing the logical counterparts.
A person can be named at many roles. For very big organisations this will be hardly the case, at start-ups with a very few persons the same person, name, will popup everywhere.
These two ideas are understandable business cases, achievable opportunities.
Awareness of the orgnisation system and the components
Awareness of position and situation by stakeholders and having a power for decision at the edges opens new challenges for helping organisations.
In the information age there is a shift in powers.
The required communication for defining sharing the expectations and goals clear is not easy.
💡👁❗Communication flows idea: useful interactions, understanding. Goal: helping organisations defining master data, the mapping of a shared vocabulary, language in aspect of the customized cubicle. Activity: There are preferred ways in how to communicate with logical counterparts and what language and/or visuals are positive for achieving effective results.
💡👁❗Profitability flows idea insight for: value streams, theory of constraints. Goal: helping organisations in a mindset change to accept the new change approach. Activity: Constraints, waste, missing respect for people, insufficient information's by closed loops are improvement options are issues to discuss and solve.
These two ideas are understandable business cases but are with uncertainties by the impact for the required changes in mindsets. Unlearn learn is hard.
Changes at the floor level for processes
The 1/2 process floor is the operational value stream serviced by the foundation 0/1.
Doing a change at foundation for execution is requiring:
Coordination in why and what to change.
Coordination in how to change.
These are different steps in non-trivial systems where safety continuity is important.
💡👁❗Technology changes idea: improve functionality with profitability. Goal: help in understanding the assembly line and how to optimize this. Activity: Focussing on the operational assembly machines the technology that is used.
That technology can be improved by the way they are used or being replaced for other options.
💡👁❗Safety changes idea: improve safety not hurting functionality. Goal: good practice safety, cyber security, in a risk based value setting acknowledging mandatory legal obligations for the whole local organisational system. Activity: When focussing on the assembly part of operations machines technology is used. Cyber security, the safety of using technology can be improved.
The assembly part is not the only that needed to be safe but the risk are very likely different.
Segmentation in the important lines in the customized cubicle should give help in strategic decisions.
These ideas are business understandable but when going for realisations will get into manage challenges at more complex situations to get solved.
Opportunities for the methodology of doing changes, how managing products
Leaving the industrial age and going into the information age is a direction with a overwhelming number of products and each of those products can be overwhelming in the number of components with specifications.
A system that is capable of managing that all is a missing link. A start is describing what it should do.
💡👁❗Portfolio registration idea: Have a portfolio with product specifications. Goal: Help organisations in documenting understanding the the products in their portfolio by the specifications of the products. Activity: Getting an inventory of the value streams and reverse engineer the product for understanding what the intentions and specifications are.
💡👁❗Managed Portfolios idea: use a tool, product that manages the complete product lifecycle. Goal: Help organisations managing the changing portfolio from suggestions, backlog, to requirements, to validations to specifications. Activity: There is no product in the market for this.
There should be created a standard for the product structure in the complete lifecycle so all activities are easy understandable created while the needed documentation is created with minimal effort.
These ideas are goals organisations are searching for, have a desire for, but by not being available in an easy understandable way.
Everbody is getting lost in isolated partial siloed approaches.
Administration often is still far behind manufacturing in terms of quality, efficiency, and standard. To me it feels like manufacturing before Henry Ford and his assembly line (i.e., very chaotic).
Architecturally, to support data as a product that domains can autonomously serve or consume, data mesh introduces the concept of data product as its architectural quantum.
Told as a story, this book is detailed and comprehensive, and yet it´s an easy read.
It can help you clarify and communicate your vision, and engage your leadership team in building a high-performing organization.
qualities that make a situation or condition difficult to analyze, respond to or plan for.
Understanding how to mitigate these qualities can greatly improve the strategic abilities of a leader and lead to better outcomes.
The BANI model goes a step further and helps companies consider the chaotic and completely unpredictable impacts that can have a major impact on their operations.
Command... Control... in the Information Age. A result of technological advances that will, in the coming decade, eliminate the constraint of bandwidth,
free us from the need to know a lot in order to share a lot, unfetter us from the requirement to be synchronous in time and space, and remove the last remaining technical barriers to information sharing and collaboration.
David S. Alberts, Richard E. Hayes
200306
F-2.6.3 📚 Ideas from the Jabes anatomy
F-2.6.4 📚
The technology driven approach
In the old previous naming approach a 6*6 matrix naturally developed.
It is reused with adjusted content.
The navigation in the upper right corner is a follow up of this.
👓 Click on images (icons) hover over it or use table of contents:
F-3.1 Authorisations for: People processes machines
F-3.1.1 🎭 State of cyber security processes
Issue: on-boarding off-boarding
From a advisory board in information processing topic safety, security for governmental organisations describing processes.
The scope what it is about.
Logical access security includes the set of guidelines, procedures, control processes and facilities that are necessary for providing access to information systems, operating systems, networks, mobile devices and teleworking of an organisation.
Physical access security includes the set of guidelines, procedures, control processes and systems that are necessary for providing physical access to sites, buildings and spaces.
So far so good, than:
The HR department ensures that employees are included in the personnel registration system.
The Technology department provides facilities and authorised access to the required applications and authentication means.
Facility management provides physical access to sites, buildings and spaces with an access device.
For example, employees receive an access pass (is an identification device).
The control domain contains evaluation, measurement and management aspects with which access security is managed and adjusted.
It thus fulfils a control function that can be short or long cyclical in nature.
This domain contains management processes, such as the ITIL processes, that are necessary for the management of the configurations of IT components and the maintenance of the security level.
Issue: Role Based Access Control RBAC
Authorization models usually manage user access and are based on departmental structures, hierarchies, and employee work roles.
In the absence of an authorization model, administrators struggle with defining permissions.
Role-based access control (RBAC) defines access in the form of roles and their associated tasks.
A role is a set of entitlements and capabilities that define what an account can do.
Although it seems logical there are many misconceptions, these are:
Seeing it as a HR process for the HR department. HR would be in the lead for safety including cyber security.
HR being accountable responsible for all kind of stuff in facilities and technology is nonsense.
The not logical split in: Logical stuff and Physical stuff in the boarding processes.
It should be one process in the system functioning as a system with a single accountability point.
The handover for what really matters in safety security to technology and facilities without notion of being involved.
This is throwing over a wall responsibilities ad challenges to solve to others that are not accountable.
The contradiction becomes more clear when asking, who is controlling:
the authorisations of administrators?
reliability availability devices, technology?
the quality of the product, core business?
F-3.1.2 🎭 State of cyber security components
Functional, Service, Machine different type of Accounts
From a advisory board in safety, security guide to cyber security measures (ncsc nl 2007-2024)
Control who has access to your data and services.
Give employees access only to the data and systems they need to perform their job.
This applies to both accounts and physical access.
This limits the actions attackers can take if they gain access.
It also limits the impact of any mistakes made by users.
Also limit access of:
service accounts,
machine accounts and
functional accounts
to what is necessary.
Role-based access control can make rights management easier.
Minimize rights in safety security risk evaluations for what is needed.
The allocation of minimal rights is also called the principle of least privilege.
This includes limiting the use of management privileges as well.
Detailed actions for employees.
In addition, make sure that access to data and services is personal, with each employee having their own user account.
Change default passwords of equipment and systems upon installation or commissioning.
Make sure you have processes in place for the entry, exit and internal movement of employees.
Give new employees access only to the resources they need.
Immediately remove access to data and systems from accounts of exiting employees.
Delete unused accounts.
Detailed actions for special situations.
Deactivate service accounts, and activate them only when maintenance is performed. ...
Implement multi-factor authentication for accounts that are:
accessible from the internet
accounts that have administrative rights
and accounts on critical systems.
The use of multi-factor authentication prevents attackers from gaining access to an account by guessing or figuring out the password.
Attackers can for example obtain these passwords by carrying out a phishing attack.
Non-organizational users vs organizational users
The NIST SP.800-53r5 pdf
uses different words, is not explicit in all kind of account types. There are a lot of other detailed controls describing practices. Non-organizational users include information system users other than organizational users explicitly covered by IA-2.
In accordance with the E-Authentication E-Government initiative, authentication of non-organizational users accessing federal information systems may be required to protect federal, proprietary, or privacy-related information (with exceptions noted for national security systems). ...
Organizations use risk assessments to determine authentication needs and consider scalability, practicality, and security in balancing the need to ensure ease of use for access to federal information and information systems with the need to protect and adequately mitigate risk. ...
Issues following detailes practices
Not understanding the safety process and only following some selected detailed actions results in an uncontrolled confused situation.
Cynefin: The dark confusion domain in the centre represents situations where there is no clarity about which of the other apply.
F-3.1.3 🎭 Structuring components as anatomy in a system
The usual classification is: "people", "processes", "machines".
To those three the type "structure" is added as was there in original philosophies.
Another classification in viable systems is: Anatomy, physiology, Neurology.
These are duplicated for two different type of considerations of each om them.
Interactions between all of these artifacts is not well possible in this figure.
The abbreviations indicators have the goal to be used for that.
Components in a information system.
In a figure,
see right side
F-3.1.4 🎭 Structured use system physiology components
The fractal system-3 capabilities boarding processes
To avoid an the old mindset lockin new words are used.
Instead of the word:
Define Capabilities ➡ part of engineering. Support for: detailed analysis & programming.
Enable Capabilities ➡ organisation support. Practice: executed by a lot of various roles.
The system 1,3,4,5 are found at the shared floor 0-1.
There are no floor dichotomies, the dichotomies are between the areas of organisation and technology.
The neurology (2) is by "functional system support".
The ordering of the areas at floor 0-1 is changed to linear.
At the front-end and back-end view of the cube model are the systems that are connected.
In a figure,
see right side
The fractal system-3 capabilities boarding processes
In the autonomy of "enabling capabilities" (3):
In the functioning of support of the organisation:
Enable capabilities for any of "Resources / staff" conform specs.
Accepted by accountable requestors having no defects, conform promises.
Adjusting capabilities delivered when there a disputes.
The requestor is claiming there is a mismatch or what has been delivered is not conform promises.
These disputes are no incidents but only service requests.
In the functionality of the enabling capabilities:
Improving the capabilities settings conform existing specs.
This is done by decreasing the experienced number in mismatches or by adjusting working standards.
The known mismatch cases are analysed for root-causes.
Changing the way of changing capabilities but conform existing specs.
The reason for this can be a change in external conditions e.g. in available technology.
These changes are requests for engineering.
The fractal system-4 defining capabilities processes
In the autonomy of "defining capabilities" (4):
In the functionality of the primary value stream of the product:
Improving capabilities structure conform existing specs.
The opportunities are by a decrease in mismatches that are happening or optimizing the flow throughput.
Seeing and understanding the floor (Gemba) is the analysis stage.
Changing the capabilities structure but conform existing specs.
The reason for this can be a seen opportunity for improvements in existing working standards or available technology.
These improvements are a continuous task in alignment with engineering.
Changing functionality (create/update/delete) for products at a primary value stream:
There is an idea coming in from an involved source, e.g. an employee.
There is an idea a result form internal organisation research.
All changes are requests for engineering.
There should be a budget (overall planning) and aligned priority set in "suggestion box" / "knowledge area" / backlog.
tbm 333 lean graph theory
If you've followed my work over the years, you know that I frequently mention ideas from Lean, such as limiting work in progress, continuous improvement, "respect for people," Andon cords, reducing overburden (Muri), systems thinking, etc.
I frequently recommend Mary and Tom Poppendieck's book The Lean Mindset: Ask the Right Questions.
But something has been nagging at me.
First, rapid scale-up tech companies often seem to ignore Lean's lessons
Assuming that teams are "independent" (even when they aren't) and that Lean only applies to manufacturing.
Second, big companies seem overly indexed on some aspects of Lean.
In doing so, end up chasing a local maximum.
It is all about delivering big projects across a rather incoherent org chart.
This has become especially relevant at my day-job where we work to model company operating systems for our design partners.
We have to decide when to be opinionated, and when to let customers “model anything.”
Key Lesson: Everyone can learn from Lean, but they need to consider context carefully.
Path Graph / Linear Graph
Used For Modeling/Understanding: Linear, sequential processes. Workflows with a clear start and end point. Task pipelines. Critical path analysis. Assembly lines. Production schedules. Ticket resolution. Customer journeys with fixed stages.
Directed Acyclic Graph
Used For Modeling/Understanding: Approval workflows. Change propagation. Goal cascades. Branching a single strategic goal into multiple supporting initiatives. Hoshin Kanri. Dependency management. Workforce planning. Spans of control. Multi-phase projects. Scheduling with constraints.
Network Graph
Used For Modeling/Understanding: Supply chains. Knowledge graphs. Collaboration dynamics. Between-team interactions and information propagation. Innovation networks. Environmental scanning. Feedback loops. Emergent behavior. Relationships. Ecosystem mapping. Redundancy and resilience. Cyclical dependencies. Flywheels.
Of course, humans, organizations, and product development are messy endeavors.
You often combine models to make sense of things and get things done.
You have all three models in play simultaneously—interacting with each other at different resolutions, across different timeframes, and with varying degrees of overlap.
It can be dangerous to imagine systems as "nested" (vs. woven together, etc.), but for explanatory purposes, consider that different models are at play as you zoom in from the organization to the team.
"So What?"
All companies operate using overlaps of the three models: path, DAG, and network.
People are often biased to one view of the world. Some think in terms of crazy networks, some in terms of sequences, and some in terms of hierarchical trees.
Depending on a company's context, different models will emerge as stop-gap mechanisms to stabilize the situation and adapt to it.
Lean principles apply in different ways depending on where the "weight" of the problem is at the moment. Lean has helpful ideas at any level, but you must use them wisely.
I think a functioning product organization with platform and enablement support trends more in Network and DAG.
F-3.2.2 ⚖ Manage Uncertaintities
Consideration model segmentation
The Zoning consideration model is an abstraction of an IT landscape, in which standard zones are recognized.
A zone is a demarcated network of IT facilities, in which data can be freely exchanged. Data exchange with other zones occurs via defined interfaces. ...
If one layer is breached, the next security layer in this structure prevents business processes and data from being directly accessed from the untrusted zone.
The layering is also based on the step-by-step communication from untrusted to trusted and vice versa.
Experimental environment: This zone is a laboratory environment that is physically separated from the other environments.
Due to the experimental nature of the IT resources and work processes within this environment (also called laboratory), this is an untrusted domain.
Development environment: In this zone, new products are developed and tested, or systems are shielded pending approval for use in an organization's production environment.
The development domain is classified as semi-trusted, because utilities and tools must be used that may not or may only be used to a very limited extent in production environments.
Test environment: In this zone, systems are functionally and technically tested to see whether they meet the requirements.
The level of trust of this domain is determined by the necessary isolated setup and because no production data may be edited or stored in this zone.
Acceptance environment: This domain is the 'anteroom' of the production environment.
Here, systems are certified for meeting the requirements of the production environment.
The level of trust is also semi-trusted here, because no production data may be stored here either.
The acceptance environment is comparable to the production environment in terms of measures to simulate a realistic business situation.
There are those misconceptions on "production information" and the mess of "accounts".
F-3.2.3 ⚖ Manage Uncertaintities
A list of letters used avoiding confusing:
System:
Anatomy - Location
Physiology - Function
Resources, staff:
Accounts - Users , Way of Working
Device - Location (Work non personal)
Processes, Organisations:
Lines - Values
Boundary - chain
Technology:
Machines Platforms
-
F-3.2.4 ⚖ Manage Uncertaintities
F-3.3 Closed Loops, controls for the purpose
F-3.3.1 ⚙ Horizontal & Vertical closed Loops in VSM
The closed loop controls in VSM (M Pfiffner)
An interesting presentation (german language) systems source:
"How to steer a company in a storm" (Youtube: 2024 M Pfiffner)
The system-3 controls one or multiple system-1 units by:
Anatomy Coordination (yellow):
Generic supporting departments: planning, finance, communications, etc.
Self-coordination: meetings, boards - guild lead, standards, processes, etc.
Guidelines and rules for collaboration
Common culture, implicit rules of the game, ethos, traditions
Set priorities and allocate resources in the sense of overall optimum
Realizes synergies and ensures the use of experience
Limits the autonomy of the operational units only where it is necessary to optimize the whole
Enacts regulations and ensures their compliance
Decides in conflicts from a higher perspective
Neurology, Command & Control (red):
Provides information for better decisions. "What is really happening"
is an unfiltered informal information channel
direct customer / employee contact, ad-hoc inspections
Checks whether agreements are adhered to, processes are effective and the purpose is fulfilled.
Audits, surveys, mystery shopping, go-to-gemba
Finds potential for improving collaboration (internal studies)
Components considerations in a system
There are three considering types for components in structure of a system:
Anatomy: concerned with the study of the position arrangement and shapes of the system and their parts for theier function (dissection).
⚖ What roles/tasks in the system are there.
Physiology: concerned with the study of the normal fucntionality and functioning of the system and their parts.
⚙ The how by tasks in the system.
Neurology: concerned with the study of how parts ia a system are interacting, communicating, with each other.
⚒ The why between tasks in the system.
F-3.3.2 ⚙ Closed loops: universal service processes
The scope of a process
Limiting the ambiguity and meaning of the word process: Process model
If we test the 'processes' from all current frameworks, standards, and reference architectures against these 10 requirements, it can be demonstrated that they all describe combinations of people, process and technology: the what, the who and the how.
Therefore, they all fail the very first of the 10 requirements.
They actually describe practices, and practices are not processes: practices are derived from processes by adding the who and the how to the what. ...
The difference between:
⚖ Processes for interactions in the system
⚙ Procedures, Practices for responsibilities
⚒ Work instructions for work standards
is an important aspect in undertanding the role of processes in a viabele system.
The detailed descriptions in different aspects for differences is more clear in a figure (see right side).
The commom confusion: Most "processes" are internal affairs for the service provider, and as such, they are only part of the customer-facing processes.
Components of a process
Routines and workflows
The triggers of the USM process model initiate a series of logical patterns that are determined by the logical relationships between the process blocks.
When it is clear by role/tasks who the accountable legal requestor is the service process can get clear in well defined steps.
Although many of those step will have a generic character the details for the who and how are different for each organisation.
Multiple types in change process lines
The construction of a system is based on:
Constructing and operating conform specficiations:
Operating a defined service process with an accepted result.
Operating a defined service process with a disapproved result, needing some correction.
These disputes are no incidents but only service requests.
The manufacturing is working as it should do by engineered design.
Improving the operations not changing the product specifications:
Improving the operating service process in autonomy by operations.
This is done by decreasing the experienced number in defects or by adjusting working standards.
The known defects cases are analysed for root-causes.
Improving the operating service process by a request to engineering.
A reason for this can be a change in technology.
Alignment with engineering and updating the related specifications "how to execute".
Improving the product without changing the product specifications:
Improving the product(s) conform existing specs.
The opportunities are by a decrease in defects that are happening or optimizing the flow throughput.
Seeing and understanding the floor (Gemba) is the analysis stage.
The reason for this can be a seen opportunity for improvements in existing working standards or available technology.
Changing the how the product is contructed but deliveries of the prodcut conform existing specs.
The reason for this can be a seen opportunity for improvements in existing working standards or available technology. creating new product(s) creating new specs.
Innovating, changing functionality (create/update/delete) product(s) the service is servicing:
There is an idea coming in from an external source. External related to the accountable taks area.
There is an idea a result form internal organisation research area.
To avoid a lockin mindset new words are used.
Instead of the descriptions
5 "the big boss" ➡ "Visions Missions". It is about: Leadership
4 "the business" ➡ "Overall Planning". It is about: Details for missions
3 "realisation goals" ➡ portfolio. It is executed by portfolio management"
The neurology (2) is by "functional support".
In a figure,
see right side
The organisational plane
In the autonomy of "realisation goals", portfolio (3):
In the functionality of the primary value stream of the product:
Improving the products conform existing specs.
Changing the products but conform existing specs.
These improvements are a continuous task in alignment with engineering.
Changing functionality (create/update/delete) for products at a primary value stream:
There is an idea coming in from an external source, e.g. a customer.
There is an idea a result form internal market research.
All changes are requests for engineering.
There should be a budget (overall planning) and aligned priority set in "suggestion box" / "knowledge area" / backlog.
F-3.4 Changing organisational systems
F-3.4.1 💡 Process framework - product
Functional - non-functionals
Non-functionals are better in the Zachman logical order:
What is it made of? ➡ Bills of Material,
How does it work? ➡ Functional Specs,
Where are the components relative to one another? ➡ Drawings (or Geometry),
Who is responsible for what? ➡ Operating Instructions,
Describes what the system should do, i.e., specific functionality or tasks.
Describes how the system should perform, i.e., system attributes or quality.
Purpose
Focuses on the behavior and features of the system.
Focuses on the performance, usability, and other quality attributes.
Scope
Defines the actions and operations of the system.
Defines constraints or conditions under which the system must operate.
Examples
User authentication, data input/output, transaction processing.
Scalability, security, response time, reliability, maintainability.
Measurement
Easy to measure in terms of outputs or results.
More difficult to measure, often assessed using benchmarks or SLAs.
Impact on Development
Drives the core design and functionality of the system.
Affects the architecture and overall performance of the system.
Focus on User Needs
Directly related to user and business requirements.
Describes how the system should perform, i.e., system attributes or quality.
Documentation
Typically documented in use cases, functional specifications, etc.
Documented through performance criteria, technical specifications, etc.
Evaluation
Can be tested through functional testing (e.g., unit or integration tests).
Evaluated through performance testing, security testing, and usability testing.
Dependency
Determines what the system must do to meet user needs.
Depends on how well the system performs the required tasks.
F-3.4.2 💡 Operational - Analytical
Structuring the cybersecruity
Cybersecurity decision diagrams (2024: Sarah Fluchs)
Cyber-physical systems (CPS) that integrate computation and physical components are part of the solutions for many problems of our time like the shift towards renewable en-ergies, an aging population, or mobility. However, they are fragile, especially if misused for purposes out of their specification – for example in a cyber-attack. Therefore, consid-ering security during CPS design just as functional aspects, “security by design”, is gain-ing the attention of policymakers around the globe. In regulations like the EU Cyber Re-silience Act (CRA), security by design is mandated.
This leaves CPS engineers with a new task.
Not only do they have to consider cyberse-curity, but they also need to communicate their cybersecurity decisions to auditors and authorities, users and operators, product owners and managers, and engineers from other domains or organizations that also contribute to CPS design. Hence the overarch-ing question driving this work: how can CPS cybersecurity effectively and efficiently be communicated? More specifically, the first research question asks what engineers need to document during CPS design for communicating cybersecurity, and the second asks how it can be ensured that engineers are aware of cybersecurity decisions during design.
The Cybersecurity Decision Diagrams concept was developed in this dissertation to make the increasing complexity of CPS cognitively manageable while designing them. It defines how to document cybersecurity decisions, their rationales, and the relevant in-formation for making them – regardless of the chosen decision-making path.
F-3.4.3 💡 Operational - Analytical
Systematic start for change
Start with muri (LI: 2024 S_Angad)
Are your processes leaking money without you knowing it?
This is what I discovered after analyzing several manufacturing operations.
Everyone talks about Lean Manufacturing basics:
Reduce waste
Optimize flow
Improve efficiency
But... The real problem isn't identifying ONE issue. It's understanding how they're all connected. Enter the 3M Framework:
MURI (Overburden)
When you push your people or machines beyond their limits.
Result? Burnout, breakdowns, and costly mistakes.
MURA (Unevenness)
Those chaotic ups and downs in your workflow.
One day overwhelmed, next day idle. Pure chaos.
MUDA (Waste)
The obvious money drain everyone sees but few fix properly.
It's not just about eliminating - it's about preventing.
Here's the breakthrough insight: Most operations tackle these in isolation. Big mistake.
Think of it like this:
Muri creates Mura
Mura generates Muda
Muda leads back to Muri
It's a cycle. Break one link, the whole chain weakens.
The right approach? Start with Muri. Always.
Because:
Overburdened systems create uneven flow
Uneven flow produces waste
Waste forces you to overburden resources
Simple? Yes. Easy? No. Worth it? Absolutely.
In a figure,
see right side
Changing organisational control is far behind the the technology change.
Classification of the Control & Command area.
An organisation has three dimensions:
I organizational structure
II process organization
III Control organization
Topic
Organizational units
business processes
Control and communication processes
Metaphor
Anatomy
Physiology
Neurology
Representation
organizational charts Function diagrams Job descriptions
Flow diagrams Value Streams BMPL Business Process
VSM (viable System Model)
Every system has a purpose. "The purpose of a system is what is does" (Stafford beer).
Issues caused by growing by size, lacking neurlology.
Crisis:
Integral
⚠ complexity
Functional (silos)
⚠ accountability
Matrix (guilds)
⚠ coordination
Divisonal
⚠ control
Conglomerate
⚠ identity
In a figure,
see right side
VSM system-1:
Fulfill the purpose of the system
Generate customer value and ensure competitiveness
Manage independently on their own complexity and dynamics /li>
need a high level of autonomy and own resources
Not in he video but from a related source, seeking a balance between current and future business.
In a figure,
see right side
Changing organisational control is far behind the the technology change.
Organisations growing in size
"Design for system innovations and transitions: a conceptualframework integrating insights from sustainablity science andtheories of system innovations and transitions" (researchgate: 2015 Design for system innovations and transitions: a conceptualframework integrating insights from sustainablity science andtheories of system innovations and transitionsA.Idil Gaziulusoya,*, Han Brezet)
It is increasingly acknowledged that, in order to achieve sustainability, there is an urgent need for radicaland transformative restructuring of socio-technical systems that meet our needs.
These transformationsare referred to as system innovations for sustainability or transitions.
Transitions and system innovationscover not only product and process innovations but also changes in user practices, markets, policy,regulations, culture, infrastructure, lifestyle and management of firms and have significant implicationsfor design and innovation activity aiming to contribute to the societal endeavour of achieving sustain-ability.
Even though theory on system innovations and transitions is now extensive, it provided explanations regarding how companies and design and innovation activities fit into the big and long-termpicture of system innovations and transitions only to a certain extent. ...
Complexity increases as the scale becomes larger. Conse-quently, as the scale gets larger, managing change becomes harderand the pace of change gets slower.
Also, smaller scales of one typeof socio-technical system component are hierarchically dependenton larger scales of the same type.
For example, products aredetermined by the relevant technological regimes and the tech-nological regimes are determined by the technology system.
Similarly, change in the large scale of a particular type of socio-technical system component is likely to require change in smallerscales of the same type.
Nevertheless, smaller scale socio-technicalsystem components may or may not be able to induce/influencechange in the larger scales of the system depending on theiragency; i.e. the ability to act and influence change over the courseof events (Giddens, 1984). ...
F-3.5.3 💡 Alternatives in C&C
The virtual organisation, searching for control
Thinking about virtual organizations and the future (1997 Lucas D. Introna and Bee Leng Tiow)
Never before in the history of business, have organisations been subjected to as much changes as they have today, or so some argue.
According to Stewart (1993), there are not one but four large, unruly forces of revolution:
the globalisation of market;
the spread of information technology;
the birth of information economy and
the dismantling of hierarchy
all happening at the same time. ...
It is well known in systems theory that the combination of a number of very efficient and effective parts into a whole does not necessarily produce an efficient and effective whole (Ackoff, 1971; Beer, 1966; Bertalanffy, 1968; Churchman, 1968).
The only time when this may be the case is when they all act as ‘black boxes’ (i.e. all behaviour is completely localised) and are linked together in a mechanistic manner in the pursuit of an explicit and unambiguous (uncontested) global goal.
This is the situation we have in the typical engineering design context.
In the case of the virtual organisation both these requirements are not obviously there.
F-3.5.4 💡 Building Jabes
F-3.6 Applying system thinking fractals
F-3.6.1 📚 Change in Command & Control Alignment
Not only coding: Devops - MLops
MLOps for Scarce Image Data A Use Case in Microscopic Image Analysis ( Researchgate: 2023 Angelo Yamachui Sitcheu, Nils Friederich, Simon Baeuerle,Oliver Neumann, Markus Reischl, Ralf Mikut)
The operationalization of ML models isgoverned by a set of concepts and methods referred to as Machine LearningOperations (MLOps).
Nevertheless, researchers, as well as professionals, oftenfocus more on the automation aspect and neglect the continuous deploymentand monitoring aspects of MLOps.
As a result, there is a lack of continuouslearning through the flow of feedback from production to development, causingunexpected model deterioration over time due to concept drifts, particularly when dealing with scarce data.
This work explores the complete applicationof MLOps in the context of scarce data analysis. ...
The majority of tools focus on model versioning and tracking and ignore dataset versioning.
This impedes the ability to reproduce results and renders it reliant on the coding practices of skilled experts.
In industry particularly, due to IT-Software’s large and complex nature, the MLOpstools are often diverse and must match a specific established strategy.
Despite advancements in the MLOps domain, there are very few published real-world use cases in which MLOps is clearly designed, explained and applied.
In a figure,
see right side
Unpredictability and complexity
Laplace's demon
Discoveries and theories in the decades following suggest that some elements of Laplace's original writing are wrong or incompatible with our universe.
For example, irreversible processes in thermodynamics suggest that Laplace's "demon" could not reconstruct past positions and moments from the current state.
Chaos theory is sometimes pointed out as a contradiction to Laplace's demon: it describes how a deterministic system can nonetheless exhibit behavior that is impossible to predict: as in the butterfly effect, minor variations between the starting conditions of two systems can result in major differences.
The doubt for the chaos theory bypasses the problem that an exact deterministic measurement is impossible, the Heissenberg question.
There are more things to see of chaotic behavior.
The double pendulum undergoes chaotic motion, and clearly shows a sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
The image to the right shows the amount of elapsed time before the pendulum flips over, as a function of initial position when released at rest.
Parametric plot for the time evolution of the angles of a double pendulum. Note that the graph resembles Brownian motion.
F-3.6.2 📚 Closed Loops for Technology in service provision
Prioritization Accountability Autonomy (Substack John Cutler)
If you don't provide your product's investment and governance framework, one will be provided to you.
And the person providing that framework (e.g., finance, sales, or marketing) will not create a framework that is friendly to making great products.
You must dictate the game, or the game will be dictated to you. ...
The result is a mess of poorly maintained features and products, a mountain of debt, a big team—hey, you needed all those people to build all that shiny new stuff—and a lot of people asking you about ROI, and how to keep costs down.
In this model, you're playing the internal software development contractor game. ...
Moves teams from merely delivering features or projects to becoming stewards of investment and growth.
The game makes sustainable, differentiated growth the goal. When you generate profits or achieve sustainability, you can fund your growth, just like a successful startup in its later stages.
You control the growth of your product, make strategic decisions, and guide its trajectory in line with your vision.
F-3.6.3 📚 Systems thinking for informations services
VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, change, and ambiguity) has been kicking our collective behinds for years now.
While it's easy to talk about PMs and agilists being two separate groups, the fact is that we've had people with feet in both communities for years.
The agile community has been brought low the past two years by its mostly self-inflicted problems.
These problems included but aren’t limited to a focus on meaningless certifications over education, on frameworks over improvement, on fluff over stuff, on purity over agility, and on fads over grounded practices.
Recently PMI has made progress in defining project management in terms of delivering value, reflecting a more agile and frankly more mature way of thinking.
Wwe need to overcome commonly held misconceptions we have about both about ourselves and about “the other team.”
F-3.6.4 📚 Alternatives in C&C
dddd
Research on the Practical Application of Visual Knowledge Graph in Technology Service Model and Intelligent Supervision ( Researchgate: 2021 Jun Yu, Yintie Zhang, Yu Wu and Linhui Mao)
An enterprise's technology management system is an integral part of the entire management system, including the organizational structure, methods, processes and resources for implementing technology management.
These management elements are controlled and effectively managed by the organization according to the law of technical activities, with the purpose of improving the technical performance and competitive advantage of the enterprise.
The technical management system is an organic whole based on technical resources, with a set of organizational structures, all employees have their own technical responsibilities, work and activities in accordance with prescribed procedures and methods, with the goal of improving the technical competitiveness of the enterprise.
The process framework of the role of the enterprise technology management system is shown in the figure.
Under this framework, build a technical management system based on the management content of each stage of the technical activity process.
⚖ Security:
The environment must be safe.
Safety is more appropriate than the buzzword "cybersecurity". 
My experience with SAS is going back as far as the early years 1980.
This has become my major working area since 2004 and up to 2023.
The focus has been the way of implementing that and supporting SAS users (analysts, marketing, actuaries, data science) running operational and changing environments (devops). 
conservative running as-is (vertical) 
Situations may be complex with many interconnected factors and variables at play and may involve multiple stakeholders with different perspectives and goals. 
Wiki Zachman
Private goals usually are not for the public.
There are exceptions when these are also social goals doing social discussions or for sharing knowledge.
In the case the there is a private company that is using the private area more is shared than when it is just a commercial enterprise. 
Data, information, is being processed while evaluated for important controls.
This is the moment of the truth when value is generated. 
The difference between:
The doubt for the chaos theory bypasses the problem that an exact deterministic measurement is impossible, the Heissenberg question. 
