There is a strange feeling looking back.
Since early 1980´s, the stone age of ICT, unchanged: ⚖ 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.
The trigger and reason for structuring information knowledge was the idea of Jabes.
It is about improvement of the processes around the portfolio in information processing.
The reason in lost knowledge of:
the business rules for the information process
How the business applications has to be configured and operated
How the technology has to be configured and operated
Trying to explain it to others got me mostly a lost look while some were stating it as a big opportunity.
Not giving up the question why it is that hard for something tat could help that much more research was done.
Functionality:
C-Serve (Technology): could do the delivery but has itself many blocking issues.
C-Steer (Organisation): has the most of the ultimate benefits, but is not lead for change.
C-Shape (Change support): has the best fit to be lead for change, but hits their own culture.
That is vicious situation hard to break. Switching to another perspective to see whether there are possible doors to open.
Searching breaking out the vicious situation evaluating the options.
Functioning:
r-steer (Organisation): the mandatory safety cybersecurity guidelines aside others.
r-shape (Change support): with a floor-plan approach they have a future in their culture.
r-serve (Technology): got lost in the fog of fast tech changes and what is really needed.
At least the idea that lean, systems thinking, for organising the service as part of the whole is an option.
Still got knowledge notes without a good location. The missing ones were functionality&functioning for Command&Control.
I-C6isr (Structure): Triggered by a safety cybersecurity context task and roles more defined to locations.
The floorplans extended to a complete 3d model. Found a fit with systems thinking, seeing the purpose different for the system as a whole.
r-c6isr (Structure): Details for task/roles in the 3d model with a focus on technical and logical safety cybersecurity.
Transposing the vertical build floorplans (layers) to external side views for aligning more rigorous to what is used in systems thinking.
Having a model of the system where Jabes is a component there is much more possible and more getting clear.
The chapter "Jabes Simf processes" touches that.
Who I am: periods in my working lifetime
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.
knowledge not conforming to usual commercial interests
proposals solving some generic gap alteranives for commercial interest
Curriculum Vitae: Experiences, see:
👓 details including cases.
Jabes: SAM, lean, agile, toc, systems
The content and mindset is about: how systems should work.
Work process is improving (PDCA Kanban) learning from what was expected by requests.
That got aware t are almost the same steps as was done in my early years when SDM (System Development Methodology, Cap Gemini).
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 is an example for maturity (0,1-5).
Completeness Not all information recently learned is on this site.
I am focussing on the execution & operations of viable systems.
The antipode area of how ideas, visons are developed got in 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.
Who I am: 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.
2025 week 01
Starting an overhauled for all added information analyzing the Jabes opportunity.
2025 week 05
The conten is for three types of content information:
How the analysis grew from a only technical question into systems thinking.
The origunal Jabes proposal connected to the created system model.
What more is possible using the created system model.
Getting the new content to a new level to stabilize.
2025 week 07
Finsihing the overhauled index entry page with the Jabes opportunity.
Planning to do & changes:
Technical detail pages
These are of a previous made web content structure, should 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, Input, Activity, Result
Doing an abstraction of how processes should work is based on the idea of the full pull-push cycle of a value stream.
The operations are along the borders and the strategy in the centre.
There are perspective for 2*2 and 3*3 areas, horizontal and vertical axis with a context meaning on the diagonals.
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).
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.
Another visualisation for the same idea of SIAR, the difference is naming the processes.
The customer with a request at the right bottom corner.
The delivery is not verified in this model for conformance.
Activities for correcting and preventing defects are not shown.
JABES, Holistic simplistic alignment
Using the SIAR infographic is a mindset that is applicable in many situations.
The diagonal lines are process representations:
Ideate Assess (bottom right) is where it starts and ends for customers "over the shelf"
Enable Plan (bottom left) the finishing of the pull request. The product(s) ordered to get build.
Demand Backend (top left) starts the push. Constructing products according instruction in an assembly line.
Delivery Frontend (top right) Verifying the products by order and quality before delivery.
In a detailed process the SIAR model is adding measurements and controls to processing.
In data-mesh the same is done.
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 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.
Using the infographic SIAR into processes is changing it to an orientation tool in an environment useable as a floorplan.
The "JABES" proposal uses several related subsystems that have an orientation to form a new system.
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, Devops -FolioPlan
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 and 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 in time windows is sensible.
The DevOps double cycle model "DevOps" only covers two interest areas.
This a very limited alignment of all possible relevant interaction.
When the Operational value stream is on one plane the enginering buidling of products flows is on another plane.
A vertical double cycle is better than the usual horizontal.
The "DevOps" model:
Development is not about coding but: architecting engineering creating products, flows.
Operations is executing the flow mainly autonoom and initiates proactive improvements.
Another double cycle model "PortfolioPlan" are the dichotomous counterparts for "DevOps".
The "DevOps transitions are needing alignment wit the counterpart vice versa.
The "PortfolioPlan" gaps:
🕳 Product management the accountability for decisions what to engineer and build.
🕳 Financial budgets the financial enablement to do work for prodcucts flows.
F-1.3 Gathering information for understanding
F-1.3.1 ⚖ Guided web search information Agil
AGIL, 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. ...
Starting a conversation for an action.
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. ...
❗ The order is reversed, bottom up rtl starting for a goal to establish.
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.
❗ There are no dogma's axioma's other than those 4. Assumed is an autonomic behaviour.
These four functions aim to be intuitive.
For example a tribal system of hunter-gatherers needs to gather food from the external world by hunting animals and gathering other goods.
They need to have a set of goals and a system to make decisions about such things as when to migrate to better hunting grounds.
The tribe also needs to have a common belief system that enforces actions and decisions as the community sees fit.
Finally there needs to be some kind of educational system to pass on hunting and gathering skills and the common belief system.
If these prerequisites are met, the tribe can sustain its existence.
Lean is another word with the same kind of intentions by another origin.
The word agile originates from Latin agilis, from agere "to drive, be in motion, do, perform".
It lost the original meaning and intention in software development.
F-1.3.2 ⚒ Relevant information by algorithms
Media usage - big data - web search
Algorithms in social media are an opportunity when the interest is kept clean for the intentions.
Following persons, connecting many did gave me al lot of nice results.
Instead of having hardly any relevant information it kept going on and ... some proposals initially not understood but being better and more relevant while not recognized at first review.
External references
The collection of information started for understanding the confusion in Machine Learning AI Artificial Intelligence.
A lot of buzz many opinions but too little consistence in what the role of it is in information processing.
Some links:
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 with a strategy goal.
That is something to get more insight for 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 anything mentioning the viable systems model (VSM).
VSM is a fractal approach of systems with many double-loops.
F-1.3.4 ⚒ Universal systems releationships
Systems in systems network
The word that triggered attention is the attraction: Idef0. The source is a site for systems thinking,
sysbok (SCIO).
Idef0 is the first standard to create Business Process Models.
There are many more tools create for BPM.
Holistic they are using many to many flows, in details the attempt is to split the flow into functional activities, swimming lanes.
Rather than attempting to define rigidly the key concepts in Systems Thinking, SysBoK is designed to explore relationships between these concepts, in particular which are Precedents to a Systems Thinking concept, and which are Dependent Derivatives.
What 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.
ANT 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 is a title of a book, it gives a different approach than the usual management strategy advisories.
What did I learn:
A match in the way the organisation should work and the SIAR model.
A recursive approach, "running a business within the business".
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 advisory position than in one interrupting the operational processes.
Explicitly mentioned ise the security department (compliancy).
Controlling managing information flows
The flow of the information has four stages.
Managing those four stages requires four dependent lines in deployements of changing the related processes.
The dichotomy in focus for "information flow" vs transformations (processes, code).
In a figure,
See right side.
F-1.4 Curiosity for understanding, 🎭 systems
F-1.4.1 ⚖ Systems thinking processes
What is systems thinking?
The basics of systems thinking (Youtube 2023 Systems thinking Basics by "My fliiped Learning" ) ❶ The holistic system:
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.
❷
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.
❸
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.
❹
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. ❺
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
The original Zachman idea is too far abstracted for the double meaning of logic and avoiding the ordering on both axis.
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.
❻ Six philosophical questions: What, Where, When, Who, How, Why
Getting "Wich" content for cells in one of the two 3*6 matrices (W,W,W W,H,W):
Q
Context topic
-
Q
Context topic
What
Inventory
-
Who
Responsibility
Where
Distribution
-
How
Process
When
Timing / Vision
-
Why
Motivation
❓ At first glance, not relevant.
❗ Please review how these pages are setup (contents), how the floorplans were initiated, etc..
Why and Which are exchangeable.
There are several options for an ordinal with the 6W1h questions, the choice for that is context dependent.
The context is setting a focus for what to adapt to, a subsystem has his own context.
A false dichotomy:
Product focus: Who is about operating instructions for internal staff creating the product
Service) focus: Who is about the customer that should get satisfied by fulfilment.
F-1.4.3 🎯 Information - data a central asset
I have made this infographic beginning 2018. The goal was understanding to new ML (AI) approach.
It is a combination of Crisp-dm and many more well known frameworks.
A hidden dichotomy, although this seems logical it is mixing up two different planes.
There are two evaluations moments for safety security, compliancy.
Before something is engineered build. An important question is of source information is suitable and allowed (compliancy) for the intended goal for a new to engineer product.
During operations using the flow for the creating products inteded for external customers.
Becoming "data driven"
The process design in the dta driven 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. ❼ 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.
❽ 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.
The four stages during engineering a new product:
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.
The cycle ordering in the data-driven video:
IV Ideate Assess, top Left
III Enable Plan, top right
I Demand Backend, bottom right
II Delivery Frontend, bottom left
F-1.4.4 🤔 Management structure & hierarchy
The inverted hierarchical pyramid
The dichotomy of horizontal autonomy vs vertical lmiting the freedom.
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.
.... ❿ Not "all wrong" showing authority system-3, but fails for not enough system-1 autonomy.
In a figure,
See right side.
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?
....
In a figure,
See right side.
❿ A flipped pyramid solves the autonomy but is failing for the authority for system-1.
F-1.5 The journey in understanding
F-1.5.1 ⚖ Analysing understanding a system: motivation
A motive: experiencing the portfolio gap
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:
Not really knowing how the system for products (goods, services) is working.
Not knowing how artifacts at the the system for products (goods, services) should treated safely.
Not really knowing how to improve the system or to innovate for new products (goods, services) as purpose of the system.
The journey in understanding the gap in managing portfolios is complex topic.
A motive: Not wanting frictions, dichotomies
There is that classic diamond model:
Harold Leavitt's diamond model (1965) repeated with MIT90 M.S.S Morton (1991) have named the well-known interconnected antipodes:
Tasks-roles vs Technology
synonym: Processes vs Machines
People vs Structure
synonym: Actors, individuals vs Collaboration
There is that desire of everything we are confronted with in our environment would become easily predictable obvious not more than complicated (cynefin).
The variety with all the unpredictability and uncertainties in reality makes something like this hopelessly (VUCA workd).
👉🏾 The world we are in is a chaotic complex of complex systems.
The challenge is reducing the complexity that is becomes manageable at some level.
Understandable manageable that is accepted by the results with their limitations.
Designing complex systems requires and demands that for the decisions there is acceptance for what type of system decisions are made.
In complex systems first probe than respond, in chaotic ones act. Have a review later on the impact on what the result was.
It implies accepting a diversity with the frictions dichotomies and uncertainties.
Frictions are the reason of constant tensions but at the same time helping for decreasing what the real cause of those are.
A conclusion is that we have not made any progress in the past 40 years.
F-1.5.2 ⚖ System value stream for products, information
data lineage following the service cycle
Knowing what information from what source is processed into new information at a new location is lineage (derivation),
"data lineage" .
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).
👉🏾 What is information about?
When the product (good, service) is contained by information the flow of information is the flow of the product.
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.
A motivated switch: use the similarities of information as a product to what we are used to of products (goods, service).
There are more mature approaches for systems like the physical construction of building or some if the industrials.
The complete values stream cycle
There a many figures for a value stream.
The limited focus goes often only to the assembly step of the product.
Form inforamtion processes that is similar to only looking at the "business application" that is creating from information input sources the inormation product.
However, what it should cover is:
Customer demand from a portfolio for offerings with the evaluation of wanting to deliver
Evaluation of the supported portfolio and the orders in flow of products
Gathering the complete set on information input, planning for what is when created and the creation of the product.
Verfication of the product quality and finishing the product for a delivery
Customer delivery conform the demand in the organisation perspective and
verficiation the delivery is confrom demand in the customers perspective
All of these supported by related administrative tasks.
For easy understanding of the flow, a left to right direction of the product is preferred.
For a common cycle direction clockwise is preferred.
In a figure,
See right side.
SIMF the foundation floor 0-1, a system in a nutshell:
(5) Vision, missions: the intended purposes.
(1) Technology operations: tools needed for creation of the products
(3) Support organisation: enabling capabilities for tasks in the creation and support.
(4) Supporting operations: executing capabilities for well defined tasks all actvities.
In a two dimensional nine plane with the several types of external influence at the edges (4) and the mentioned 5 activity types in the SIAR orientation there is a square.
For a small organisation that simple two dimensional model is sufficient.
👉🏾 There are two axes:
The flow of the product (horizontal):
Pull: from customer demand to start fulfilment.
Push: from backend to front-end
Control of the performance in the flow (vertical):
Autonomy: The details of activities for work and durations.
Control: from organisation to technology. Overview of resource usage and achieved results.
Quick grow to fractals at viable systems
When the organisations grows the unmanageable complexity for human interactions will result in a split-off at functional specialisations.
This the standard solution for decreasing complexity, the classic hierarchical approach for command & control as a result.
💡❗ In this growth the entropy should not get increased. More entropy will result in additional problems.
Organisational entropy is increased by ignoring clear tasks/roles. The obvious ordering by only the human skills is increasing entropy.
👉🏾 The third axe for :
tasks & roles for specialisations
At that third axis:
0-1 Support internal organisation
Enablement, Way of Working for the product (goods services)
Basic technology, Vision - Identity - Culture for control & command
1-2 Products value streams (goods, services)
Quantity of work to plan - available resources & staff, Quality of products (goods services)
Correct & avoid defects, budgets profits resources - education staff
2-3 Engineering product(s) & flows
Selection of work - verification to policies, products specifications verified to policies
Engineering & build products, portfoliomanagent & prioritisation
3-4 External obligations & future
Alignment way of working to policies, enablement for changin policies changetn. Quantity of work to plan - available resources & staff, Quality of products (goods services)
Safety cyber security technical & logical, Financial & legal stability & product innovations
Each area is possible a subsystem to be split for the same reason of growth.
Aside the described functioning fractals there must be functionality fractals.
💡 It's a 3D structure with h a grey middle column as nervous system.
Repeating systems from the seedbed, fractals
The floorplans in a vertical perspective, in a video:
F-1.5.4 ⚖ Side views of a 3D system model
Sideviews extended from floorplan 0-1
From that 3D structure there is also a perspective from the sides.
The strict used orientation on the four planes gives new insights in interactions.
The extended structure (fractals) are 3*4 side views :
Organisation where portfoliomanagement and resource planning are in the centre.
Frontend an important question: level of compliance of delivery implementations for policies.
Technology the operational fulfillment and building of software are in the centre.
Backend an important question: level of compliance of internal implementations for policies.
The interactions with all coordination are expand but remain clear due to the reduction on in every possible detailed interaction.
Autonomy and delegation are essential, also the required management to limit scope in autonomy.
Four floorplans, central paht interactions: connecting VSM
The three dimensional perspectives with a product oriented mindset (green) and a service oriented one (magenta).
The system-4 and system-5 on top that is repeated at the bottom.
❗ Notable: there are three different system-1 constructs from this perspective.
3 synergy of the whole interactions between the parts in collaboration
1d design & change the products (good, service)
1r operations & run the products (good, service)
1i maintain the internal cohesion guided by vision
SIMF ViSM: the VSM connection
Some new perspectives:
A well functioning portfolio management is in the cycle for service to customers.
The focus on planning for budgets is acting on the product for the good, bad and ugly.
Auditing evaluating frontend activities for compliancy has three subjects.
It is a cooperation between three areas in the secondary functionality.
A well functioning system engineering (dev) is in the cycle for service to customers.
The focus on operations, flow is acting on the product for the good, bad and ugly.
Auditing evaluating frontend activities for compliancy has three subjects.
It is a cooperation between three areas in the secondary functionality.
These perspectives are hinting to understandable processes by processes and roles.
😉 For functioning by funtionlity there is the well known "DevOps".
Added to that is "folioPlan".
There are more to define in the structure.
😉 For audits evaluations there are 6 shown in the video.
The on/off boarding of resources, staff is part of floor 0-1.
There are more to define in the structure.
Functioning perspectives from the sides in a video:
F-1.6 Applying system thinking the obvious
F-1.6.1 ⚖ The meaning of data in viable systems
business rules, the data challenge
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.
The central flaw in the long-running discussion over data quality is literally its focus on ‘data’. Stored data is merely the system or database residue of things that have already happened in the business, a memory of past events.
To truly fix ‘data quality’ problems requires a business perspective, a shift in the focus from data design or data cleansing, to the activity and knowledge of the business itself. Our sights should be set squarely on the context that produces the data.
...
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.
(Extracted from Business Knowledge Blueprints: Enabling Your Data to Speak the Language of the Business, 2nd ed., by Ronald G. Ross, 2020, 288 pp,)
business rules, understanding pupose
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.
F-1.6.2 Evolution: The way of making decisions
Solving problems questions for improving life
The real problem there are more questions without clear answers.
It is intentionally to have 7w1h questions.
whose task is defining the organizational goals 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?
why ...
what will be constructed and what is the required quality?
how will the construction setup, how will it be engineered?
who will be responsible accountable to fulfil the product requests?
when it is the correct time to jump into the prodcut deliveries?
Support for decisions has changed with technology.
One upon a time a human was doing all the calculations evaluations with information he could process.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is changing that, but not reflections on impact, outcomes.
Using techology support for decisions
How to teach AI to a ten year old (LI: Ajit Jaokar, 2025):
(Part I) We can think of broadly four types of data driven decisions:
Statistical Decisions: These are simple decisions based on averages and sampling to find characteristics of a larger population.
Machine Learning Decisions: Here, the computer learns from examples. If it sees examples of spam or non spam emails, it can learn from examples to classify a new email as spam or non spam.
Deep Learning Decisions: These are much more complex decisions often based on unstructured data. For example, a computer may be shown pictures of cats and determine the features of cat. It may then use those features to classify pictures of cats.
Autonomous Decisions - AI: Finally, the computer becomes so smart that it can make decisions on its own. For example, you want to book a holiday to Greece, the system can autonomously break down the task of a holiday booking and implement the sub tasks ex booking a flight, booking a hotel etc
(Part II) Considering “Data driven Decisions” for stochastic processes where we aim to capture salient features through feature engineering and use optimization to improve a model evaluation metric.
To achieve this goal, we implement a series of steps through a machine learning pipeline in an iterative manner.
Define the Problem
Data Collection and Data Preprocessing
Feature Selection
Model Selection and Model Training
Model Evaluation and Model Optimization
Monitoring, Feedback and Continuous Improvement
F-1.6.3 ⚙ The pipeline of information processing: ALC-V3
The information life cycle
Information processing follows the same patter whether it is:
The primary value stream delivering to an external customer
An internal monitor management facility for improving at the autonomy
Loop back management information system informing performance of autonomy
It can be very confusing when all of this get mixed up.
The most important requirement: goal and expectations should be clear.
The information life cycle has four basic manifestation stages with processing connections:
Landing: Location(s) for dropping something unverified that could be information.
Staging: After being verified stored for able to be used in flows.
Semantic: An intermediate result that is better suited for the real transformation.
Databank: The ultimate product result of the transformation.
Verification that is conform demand and expectations is the delivery.
The processing can be any combination of AI "data driven rules" of classic code created by "human driven rules".
In the flow of processing there is no real difference.
Aside these four there are additionals for verification and delivery.
In the push:
After what is additional needed, the Landing, a first verification results in Staging.
The Semantic retrieves information from one or more Staging artifacts and is verified.
Processing from one or more Semantic artifacts into a product: Databank
The product is verified for acceptable quality
The product is finished for delivery and placed at a location for controlled transport.
Safety for transformations and materialisations
There is a dichotomy of materialised information and the transformations.
Materialised information (data) properties:
Technical as data materialised on a storage system.
Logical access to the data is controlled by technically access rules.
Logical access is based on task/roles evaluated by possible risks and their impact.
Transformation (processing) properties:
Technical realised by activities enabled by a platform.
Logical access to processing is controlled by technically access rules.
Logical access is based on task/roles evaluated by possible risks and their impact.
❗ The safety for both is not about the same type of artifacts.
In the on / off boarding processes the defined agreed setting are applied. There are multiple processes for the different type of resource - staff that is processed.
In computer security, a DMZ or demilitarized zone (sometimes referred to as a perimeter network or screened subnet) is a physical or logical subnetwork that contains and exposes an organization's external-facing services to an untrusted, usually larger, network such as the Internet.
❗ The DMZ The safety for both is not about the same type of artifacts.
The operational information flow
The operational value stream in a Pull and Push in all steps looks complex but is simple when understood.
The dichotomy of materialised information that is technical data and the transformations by processing is a continuously change in perspective.
Both are equal important in the flow.
Architecting cybersecurity safety:
Information safety is tailored to tasks/roles for a person.
Transformation safety is tailored to the skills of a person.
They have a different floorplan layout that should be combined to each other
There are four knowledge area's each of them dedicated for the process stage in the value stream.
The anatomy and physiology details are a next chapter. In a video:
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 a more understandable approach is.
Data, information, being processed while evaluated for important controls of the system.
This is the moment of the truth when value of a system is generated.
Too often this is seen as boring ICT by the organization, classified by them as just keeping the lights on.
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.
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?
Requests & Results, from personal wishes
For all kind of wishes a financial budget is very often needed.
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.
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.
This has become an anecdotal story with old friends.
A place where I can be is like this one:
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.
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-2 What is Jabes, Why Jabes, Pitches Jabes Jabsa SIMF
F-2.1 Control in organisations at fractals
F-2.1.1 ⚖ A sketch for a map what is in scope
Control & Command in autonomy
The challenge is understanding and knowing what to improve in the system.
It is not always clear what the options are neither what the problems to solve are.
Listening to reactions when the Viable System ViSM is introduced to people working for aligning processes changes is an eye opener.
VSM has two relevant meanings, Viable Systems (ViSM) and value stream (VaSM). When both are in scope confusion is to avoid.
Some of the questions were:
Solves ViSM the quest in portfolio for steering?
How to act to compliancy, regulators?
What is the difference in culture and identity in ViSM?
Are there maturity levels?
The way it is always has been done is: the classical hierarchy of the manager dictates it all without much autonomy.
An additional challenge is that the financial salary is associated with the classical hierarchy.
What is in this game:
Letting that idea go of an hierachicala manager to dictate anything and seeing only tasks/roles is hard.
Unlearning what got into a fixed mindset is hard to fix, hard to accept for required change.
Not breaking the personal interests in the personal rewards.
Thinking in how things are working is very different to "who should do what part of what part of work".
The dichotomy organisation vs technology
The question in this is where to start for better understanding, better improvements.
Both organisation and technology have their own kind of world by natural differences. Both have their own system bur are dependent of each other for a purpose of the whole.
Switching into a another approach: not focussing on what could be in the dependencies but on options in the system to change some thing for the better.
The question of what and how to start for understanding and changes:
Organisation system:
Geo-mapped roles: Knowing what should be done.
(coordination - alignment - mediation)
Persons methodologies: Knowing who should do it.
Flows, value streams: knowng who is accountable for what is done.
Optimizing for constraints limited to local interests
Technology system:
Functionality, technology: optimizing for the system as a whole
(coordination - alignment - mediation)
Safety, technology: having the system as a whole safe for all.
Working standard, practice: Product knowledge by defined specfications
Standard work, vision: Product knowledge by specified objectives
The visualisation is a circle by logical dependencies.
The are two other ways in grouping actvities for coordinaton as viable systems.
Combining quadrant III,IV and at the other side I,II
Combining quadrant I,III and at the other side II,IV
in a figure:
See left side.
Context of the audience: Structuring the organisation.
Choices in viable system relationships
Choosing the combination of areas for system functionality also change the perspective in relationships for tasks/roles responsibilities.
Internal focus (products), customers to expect follow offerings.
Combining quadrant III,IV and at the other side I,II:
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 safe 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
External focus (service), offerings to follow customer demands.
Combining quadrant I,III and at the other side II,IV:
Cid
Organisation
Technology
Cid
description
VSM
VSM
description
2
Scaled:Portfolio planning
system-5
system-1
Scaled:Enabling safe system Products
7
Start-up: Bootstrap growth
Start-up: Limited systems safety
0
Coordination
system-2
system-2
Coordination
5
3
Local: people execution
system-4
system-3
Local: synergy technology
8
Global: synergy people
system-3
system-1
Global: system realisations
4
Operations & Planning
system-3
system-4
Vision & Execute
9
6
Planning & processing
system-1
system-5
Enabling system actvities
1
Continuously philosophy changing: classic hierarchical, product - service focus is not easy.
F-2.1.2 ⚖ A sketch of components in scope
The most simplified visualisation of external influences and 5 areas for a viable system is not a classic figure.
In a nine-plane the external influence topics are areas in the four corners.
The ViSM covering the VaSM and more:
system-1 technology operations at the top
system-2 (coordination) in the centre
system-5 vision mission at the bottom
system-3 and system-4 for supporting the VaSM in the now and future, in the middle
F-2.1.3 ⚖ Data driven: customer service
The operational cycle by portfolio specifications
The operational process (goods, services) is by following portfolio specifications.
After the demand (pull) a push (delivery) is done with two possible outcomes: successful fulfilment that is accepted or not.
That outcome evolution is set by the customer, not by the supplier.
The operational process is monitored audited to get knowledge for what to improve what to change.
Operational instructions guidelines are to be found parts of a portfolio system.
Issue: there is no framework nor technical solution for this.
Jabes is a proposal for and a framework and technical solutions supporting the framework.
Monitor, support "applications" using Jabes in a graphic.
in a figure:
See right side.
Triggers for operational processing adjustments
There is a resistance for change when there is an assumption that an optimum in all conditions is achieved.
To avoid the trap of becoming outdated irrelevant there must be some measurements whether those assumptions are correct.
Operational processing has the attribute that the product result is known by a product specification.
A list of operational processing measurements:
Is the work being done by people the work that should be done?
Is the work organised in a comprehensible way that is measurable?
Are the delivered results with avoidable defects, that is customers are satisfied with the promises and what they got?
Is time spent to do work, adding value, by people within limits without overburdening or underworked, unchallenged?
Where burnout is overwhelm, overstimulation, and overload, burnout is underwhelm, under stimulation, and complete lack of motivation.
Are there constraints in the flow of work that are holding off more efficient throughput?
There is a good predictability, certainty in what is possible by measurements.
It was done before there are experiences.
F-2.1.4 ⚖ Data driven: Change - Innovation
The engineering cycle changing portfolio specifications
When there is no monitoring and no change for improvements the likely result will be an unusable product (good, service).
Improvements need to have a control mechanism for what to do and when to do engineer the changes and whether an how to deploy those.
This is what portfolio management is about. There are only some generic hints on this how to do it.
Issue: there is no real standard framework nor technical solution for this.
Jabes is a proposal for and a framework and technical solutions supporting the framework.
Engineer, support "applications" & "platforms" using Jabes in a graphic.
in a figure:
See right side.
Triggers for operational improvements, innovation
There is a resistance for change when there is an assumption that an optimum in all conditions is achieved.
To avoid the trap of becoming outdated irrelevant there must be some measurements whether those assumptions are correct.
Activities creating change services has the attribute that the result is not known by some specification it can change.
A list of operational processing measurements:
Is the work being done by people the work that should be done?
Is the work organised in a comprehensible way that is measurable?
Are the delivered results with avoidable defects, that is customers are satisfied with the promises and what they got?
Is time spent to do work, adding value, by people within limits without overburdening or underworked, unchallenged?
Where burnout is overwhelm, overstimulation, and overload, burnout is underwhelm, under stimulation, and complete lack of motivation.
Are there constraints in the flow of work that are holding off more efficient throughput?
There is a low predictability, certainty in what is possible by measurements.
It was not done before there are no experiences.
F-2.2 Focus on operating existing products
F-2.2.1 🚧 Using the operational working environment
Doing what has always been done
Homeostasis is the state of steady internal physical and chemical conditions maintained by living systems.
This is the condition of optimal functioning for the organism and includes many variables. ...
Homeostasis is brought about by a natural resistance to change when already in optimal conditions, and equilibrium is maintained by many regulatory mechanisms; it is thought to be the central motivation for all organic action.
All homeostatic control mechanisms have at least three interdependent components for the variable being regulated:
a receptor,
a control center,
and an effector.
The receptor is the sensing component that monitors and responds to changes in the environment, either external or internal.
A social system is behaving similar.
The use of sovereign power, codes of conduct, religious and cultural practices and other dynamic processes in a society can be described as a part of an evolved homeostatic system of regularizing life and maintaining an overall equilibrium that protects the security of the whole from internal and external imbalances or dangers.
Healthy civic cultures can be said to have achieved an optimal homeostatic balance between multiple contradictory concerns such as in the tension between respect for individual rights and concern for the public good, or that between governmental effectiveness and responsiveness to the interests of citizens.
Using data for information
Data preparation follows the classic Extract Load Transform (ELT) steps for defined receptors.
A control centre follows a model of the system.
The question is what is an appropriate model of the system?
For any operational system, there are three aspects for 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.
There will be surprises in what is planned and how it is going.
Solving them wihtout any escalations are the operational quality challenges.
There are three areas intensive activities (circles):
Consumer, Customer oriented for the products: goods, services. Fulfilling wishes by products, services. (horizontal orange areas)
Operations processes oriented creating the products, executing the services. Coordination of product deliveries conform specifications. (horizontal blue areas)
products goods, services oriented oriented for the purposes values. Delivery cycle of products, completing and validating by specifications. (horizontal green areas)
F-2.2.2 🚧 SIAR model applied to the operational cycle
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:
The three aspects for planning activities
Two area's with coordination, assuring the completeness of planning:
Supplier oriented at the backend (prepare picking).
Consumer oriented at the frontend (collecting packaging).
Enabling the now and the future (3# planning).
Operating, using, has a big similarity with development.
In a figure:
F-2.2.3 ⚙ Jabes context: the operational value stream
The purpose of the Jabes Framework
The first proposal for Jabes is the framework.
The goal is understanding and knowledge assurance by well documenting of all relevant information in the cycle of information processing.
There are these simple questions. What is the information, products for:
I input(s) being the source relevant to the customer?
R result(s) being the goal according to the customer?
There is no certaintity in quality and quantity for the results. The complex possible chaotic challenges are: "how to do it".
A How is the transformation from input(s) to results(s) using platforms achieved?
S What are addtional requirements during transformations and what for the result(s)?
Although this idea seems very logical to do, competitive advantage is not obvious.
in a figure:
See left side.
Context of the audience:
Organisational structural knowledge assurance.
The purpose of the Jabes Product
Documenting knowledge, archiving information, accessing specifications should not be a time consuming nor complicated additional task.
That implies requirements:
Ease in finding, ease in usage, ease in authorised access, simple archiving and transport.
Support for several layers for interactions and relationships in the disassembling of complexity. ➡ Transformations in deliveries to customers.
These administrative processes should follow the model of involved systems.
With a very generic model of information systems there is a possible generic technology approach as product, tool for this.
The more detailed tools for more detailed situations are possible fits better in details but a generic level adds value.
in a figure:
See left side.
Technology driven structural knowledge assurance.
Information Accountability
The ⚖ topics part of specficiations and requirements in corporate context are:
in a figure:
See left side.
Context of the audience:
risk compliance structure in the organisation.
F-2.2.4 ⚙ Operational objects in the Jabes context
Information transformations, processing input
Designing architecting engineering the transformation at the VaSM, input.
in a figure:
See left side.
Context of the audience:
value stream customer service.
Information transformation, processing result
Designing architecting engineering the transformation at the VaSM, result.
in a figure:
See right side.
Context of the audience:
value stream customer service.
Recursivity( at information systems
There is not a single system, single application, single platform.
The reality is that there is recursive usage of applications and platforms with inter relationships.
However the application at the value stream intended for customers is in the end always serviced by the usage of some platform, tooling.
F-2.3 Focus on changing & innovating products
F-2.3.1 🚧 Changing the operational working environment
Adjusting Risk as what always has been
An actuary may refer to risk homeostasis, where (for example) people who have anti-lock brakes have no better safety record than those without anti-lock brakes, because the former unconsciously compensate for the safer vehicle via less-safe driving habits. ...
It has also been suggested that ecological crises are an instance of risk homeostasis in which a particular behavior continues until proven dangerous or dramatic consequences actually occur.
Cybersecurity at information technology should be risk driven. Risk compensation
is related to the broader term behavioral adaptation which includes all behavior changes in response to safety measures, whether compensatory or not.
However, since researchers are primarily interested in the compensatory or negative adaptive behavior the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. ...
Risk homeostasis is a controversial hypothesis, initially proposed in 1982 by Gerald J. S. Wilde, a professor at Queen's University in Canada, which suggests that people maximise their benefit by comparing the expected costs and benefits of safer and riskier behaviour and which introduced the idea of the target level of risk.
He proposed four constituents to a person's calculations relating to risk:
Expected benefits of risky behavior
Expected costs of risky behavior
Expected benefits of safe behavior
Expected costs of safe behavior
There is no mentioning related to safe information processing: cybersecurity is problematic.
Using data for information
Data preparation follows the classic Extract Load Transform (ELT) steps for defined receptors.
A control centre follows a model of the system.
The question is what is an appropriate model of the system?
For any change in a portfolio, there are three aspects:
Requirements:
What products: goods, services are in scope in quality quantity (processes) for change or innovation?
What can be created to achieve new products (expectations) or changing them: goods, services (machines)
What is the needed staff for all activities (people) for engineering and for operations
Validations: A description of what level of the requirements are achieved at what conditions.
Specifications: The description of what the product expectation is for operations and customers.
There are related 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)
F-2.3.2 🚧 SIAR model applied to the change cycle
SIMF changing the vale stream
A full complete approach for creating & changing value streams in managed suggestions.
Some peculiar interesting attention points:
The three aspects and activities
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.
Development, engineering, has a big similarity with operating.
In a figure:
The purpose of the Jabes Framework
The first proposal for Jabes is the framework.
The goal is understanding and knowledge assurance by well documenting of all relevant information in the cycle of information processing.
There are these simple questions. For the platfroms in use:
I what is used for transformations from input(s) to result(s) to the customer?
R what is to be improved in platforms to improve those transformations?
The knowledge for "how to do it" are complex questions.
The platform usage for transformations is dependent on fast changing technology.
A How should platforms be safe operated for the best results?
S What are addtional requirements for the platforms during opertional usage?
Although this idea seems very logical to do, competitive advantage is not obvious.
in a figure:
See left side.
Context of the audience:
Technology driven structural knowledge assurance.
The purpose of the Jabes Product
Documenting knowledge, archiving information, accessing specifications should not be a time consuming nor complicated additional task.
That implies requirements:
Ease in finding, ease in usage, ease in authorised access, simple archiving and transport.
Support for several layers for interactions and relationships in the disassembling of complexity. ➡ Platforms, technology, tools availablities.
These administrative processes should follow the model of involved systems.
With a very generic model of information systems there is a possible generic technology approach as product, tool for this.
The more detailed tools for more detailed situations are possible fits better in details but a generic level adds value.
in a figure:
See left side.
Context of the audience:
Technology driven structural knowledge assurance.
Information Accountability
The ⚖ topics part of specficiations and requirements in corporate context are:
in a figure:
See left side.
Context of the audience:
risk compliance structure in the organisation.
F-2.3.4 ⚙ Changing tools in the Jabes context
Platforms Accountability
Designing architecting engineering a platform has the purpose of it future usage.
in a figure:
See left side.
Context of the audience: Structuring technology platforms.
Platforms for Information transformations
The operational usage of platforms is the connection to transformations for customers.
in a figure:
See right side.
Context of the audience: operational usage technology platforms.
Recursivity( at information systems
There is not a single system, single application, single platform.
The reality is that there is recursive usage of applications and platforms with inter relationships.
However the application at the value stream intended for customers is in the end always serviced by the usage of some platform, tooling.
F-2.4 Managing organisational systems
F-2.4.1 🚧 Organisations in continuous construction
The now and the future, certaintity of change
Only focussing on the now will be a fail in continuity in the future.
At that third axis Floorplan :
PT0-1 Now: Support internal organisation
PT1-2 Now: Products value streams (goods, services)
PT2-3 Future Engineering product(s) & flows
PT3-4 Future External obligations, Goals, stability in continuity, regulations policies
There is a projection for the organisation and technology to a product and there is a projections from suppliers to service the customer.
We are not used to how a complicated structure of maybe six dimension is possible projected in three.
Both projection perspectives in three dimensions at different locations is possible the same object.
SR0-1 Now: Products value streams (goods, services)
SR1-2 Now: Support operative services to external customers (external obligations)
SR2-3 Future Adapting to change services to external customers (external obligations)
SR3-4 Future Engineering product(s) & flows
These are the backend and frontend services.
Effects of change on entropy
The functional specialisation when splitting up for size in growth has effects depending on what is split off.
When it is a secondary process the tasks / roles are at a distance. More distance is needing additional aligned communication.
When the split is made in the primary process the effect is a possible increase in entropy disorder.
The wrong assumption is creating silos of activities by functionalities would increase efficiency.
data stories, information, insight
The image compared raw data to LEGO bricks and a fully assembled LEGO house to a data story.
I was able to isolate the origin of the first four steps to a visual created by Hot Butter Studio co-founders, Brandon Rossen and Karyn Lurie. Their image focused on infographics and was meant to be read as “an infographic is data sorted, arranged, and presented visually.”
While I like the overall concept, there are a couple of minor flaws and a major omission that must be addressed to better represent the process of moving from raw data to a data story.
➡ Data collection: You gather data on something to measure and understand its performance or behaviors.
➡ Data preparation: You cleanse, organize, and combine the data so it’s ready to be analyzed.
➡ Data visualization: You visualize the data so people can more easily monitor and understand what’s happening.
➡ Data analysis: You examine the data for insights that matter to a specific audience.
➡ Data storytelling: You explain your insights with narrative and visuals so they resonate and inspire change.
My greatest issue with the original image is it is missing a crucial step: analysis.
Just because you've visualized data, it doesn't mean you have found an insight.
If you only have interesting observations but no insights, you aren't ready to tell a data story yet.
You need to progress from 'what' to 'why,' which is only possible with analysis.
F-2.4.2 ⚙ Top-down fractals, C&C into the future
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) for the future.
What gets little attention and what gets ignored is the identity, ethos, ground rules.
These should be an indispensable part of the vision.
Form a top-down perspective in systems thingking 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 internal organisation, innovate align the portfolio.
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.
In a figure:
The fractal propagation of Why How What
The "Why" or purpose, identity is associated with a "How" and "What" in activities.
The next level in a logical is using that, but the context is changed.
"How" ➡ becomes the new "why"
"What" ➡ becomes the new "how"
"What" needs to be investigate at the new level for the activities.
This can only work when at a level the activities are only detailed to what is needed at that level.
This kind of micromanagement is not mentioned as a problematic pattern in VSM but it surely is.
Micromanagement is excessive and unhealthy need of control, where a manager closely observes and monitors the work of their subordinates, often with a lack of delegation.
It involves constant surveillance and making decisions without consultation, leading to a direct impact on the autonomy and creativity of the team.
F-2.4.3 ⚙ Bottom-up fractals, C&C into the future
Bottom-up generating three system-1 types
The dichotomy Technical autonomy vs organisational control is not a common historical topic.
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.
❗ Interesting are the three system-1 types and a revered order in two lines:
The hidden area of changing products, goods, services.
It is hidden between the views of technology vs organisation.
In a figure:
F-2.4.4 ⚙ Changing technology, organisation using 5w1h
Improving the organisation
Both tools that is technology and organisation are to change when the purpose and/or environment is changing.
There are dependencies in their interactions resulting in that any change is a risk and requirement.
in a figure:
The fractal propagation of Why How What
CATWOE: Clients, Actors, (Transformations), World view, Owners, and Environment.
TASCOI: Transformation, Actors, Suppliers, Customers, Owners, Interveners.
The VIPLAN Methodology draws from the Soft Systems Methodology conceptually grounded in second order cybernetics (Von Foester 1979).
First order cybernetics is concerned with that which is the object of our attention, giving rise to the view of cybernetics as being positivistic and conducive to the approaches of science.
... This draws attention to the cybernetics of the situation in terms of how conversations are managed.
It is: asking the right questions.
Capabilities at the third level a switching point thinking to action.
Similar to the original Zachman with logic a switching point.
F-2.5.1 💡 Jabes, portfolio management, position in ViSM
The scope, purpose of Jabes in a nutshell
The situation is that we are feeling lost.
There is a promise someone could help us, but there is long path to go.
We don't understand the system at we are just a tiny part of, one of the many components.
There is no description of what components there are in the system and what hey are doing.
We have no direction for a purpose, goal of the system neither of their components.
There is no description of how the components in the system are interacting.
The real question in this: Why don't we have a system where all this kind of information can be found?
A name for that system is Jabes.
The DevSecOps and PortfolioPLan cycles in Jabes
Modelling at a very generic abstracted level there are those four floors and another four in another projection perspective.
There are two floors where one is representing the operational value stream and another the change of the product (good, service).
The connection between those is solving the interactions four area's in the neighbourhood in that projection.
When the Operational value stream is on one plane the engineering building of products flows is on another plane.
A vertical double cycle is better than the usual horizontal.
The DevOps double cycle model "DevOps" only covers two interest areas.
This a very limited alignment of all possible relevant interaction.
❗ Another double cycle model "PortfolioPlan" are the actvities in the dichotomous counterparts for "DevOps".
The "PortfolioPlan" gaps:
🕳 Product management the accountability for decisions what to engineer and build.
🕳 Financial budgets the financial enablement to do work for prodcucts flows.
The Backend and Frontend service cycles in Jabes
🤔 For simplifying an unit the offloading of the operational construction into a value stream was chosen.
When the product (service, good) is changing fast and the interaction to the customer is relative stable, this focus makes sense.
The result is a structure in four floors with support at the bottom for the now and the future in a floor approach at the top.
🤔 Another option is to start to offload the administrative support for the now and the future.
When the product (service, good) is not changing fast but the interaction to the customer is, this focus makes sense.
The result will be structure in four floors with operational execution at the bottom and the technology change at the top.
➡ Both approaches are valid and should be modelled in equality.
When both are changing fast both are needing good management.
❗ Two addtional double cycles should be there using backend, frontend projections.
Auditing & monitoring services
These are activities that are a source for internal adjustments using control feedback loops.
They are systems on their own in the system as a whole.
When there are four positions with all system fucntions (1,3,4,5) are defined for role/tasks these can function as viable components.
For feedback a 3+ indication is used in VSM.
I only use a system-2: the regulator.
Analysing systems starting at micro-level
Analysing systems is usually done by looking at a complex macro-level situation and trying to understand that by simplifying.
There is that continuous duality change for information vs process.
Starting at a micro level, anatomical:
segmented areas, materialised information.
Processing units to do logical transformations.
Primary and secundory areas - processes.
The two components in the processing units have each a full classification in six attributes for safe usage.
F-2.5.2 💡 The Jabes blue ocean for modelling ViSM
The Jabes idea proposal
Jabes is:
A generic framework, supported by usable tools for all the administrative knowledge.
Administrative knowledge labelled in a unique way that make it useable for trade.
Auditing for level of maturity of the product knowledge and the organisation.
Building up Jabes
🤔 The building of Jabes will be a lot of pioneering.
A bootstrap approach while developing the product is possible.
There are 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.
AI defining, using information that is generated for predictive prescriptive goals.
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 formatted content could be a pdf or jpg file.
The used metadata model for possible elements should become standardized one.
Exporting and importing to other databases based on a product identification..
The product identification is to be retrieved from a registrar, range for local usage.
There are artifacts mentioned that should not part of the venture building the product.
These two artifacts with the jabes framework should be isolated into foundations.
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.
There is a blue ocean, many opportunities.
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 mind shift for focus on ICT administrative processes.
A mind shift for not only analysing what is going on (descriptive hindsight) but also for predictive and prescriptive.
F-2.5.3 🎭 Defining, maintaing the model and the ViSM
Exporting, importing Jabes content for a ViSM
🤔 All content of product should be abel to get exported and imported in a trade assumption.
The ownership or approved usage are attributes in that possibility in trade assumption.
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
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
F-2.5.4 🎭 The good regulators, ViSM closed loops
How to visualize CMM?
A radar diagram using four quadrants having each of the three that attributes as proposal:
bottom: the muda mura muri levels. The Technology set low because of generic conceptual issues.
right side: basic capabilities. Technology and enablement are feeling just sufficient but information processing suffers from misalignments.
left side: standard capabilities. Enablement just sufficient but information processing and technology are suffering from misalignments.
top: advanced capabilities. 🤔 There is room for improvement.
The goal of this to determine the suitability of an organisation to do information processing.
Using technology requires a fit for the operating by the user.
A figure:
See right side
A classic dashboard visualisation
The following aspects to evaluate during a period -journey: ❶ value stream capacity usage (left)
The bottleneck that is the most limited constraint is the one where delays at 80% usage will occur.
80% is a mathematical rusticated from throughput, Litte´s law (MIT 1961). ❷ Performance value stream information throughput. (right) ❸ What resources are left or is there a shortage? ❹ What is to be processed / delivered? ❺ Alerts, e.g. overload and underload in the organisation
The result will be simple approach known from many technical solutions.
For that similarity the visualisation is a classic one.
💰 It is a complete different approach of usual EIS, DSS because it is presenting what is happening.
There is not an attempt to:
doing an analysis what could be improved,
insight on financial results of processes that are in execution,
give an immediate answer for what to do.
Understanding what is going on, is required before going into proposals.
A simple dashboard would look like:
A figure:
See right side
Not another dashboard presentation
These are challenging ones:
Is the technology getting outdated?
Not being in support by the supplier anymore
Vulnerable software possible being brought out of service or more likely getting confronted with data breaches.
Are there more cheaper options for used technology at equal quality level, equal service level?
Is the mission better solved in quality better serviced in a re-engineered solution?
Is the mission still valid or is expected to get obsolete?
Are there new missions in the pipeline to get covered by solutions with technology?
Trendanalsyes is the first step for predictions.
A figure:
See right side
Different Aspects of Seeing a Shop Floor—Gemba vs. Data
Another big advantage is that data often includes historical data. This makes it a lot easier to see trends, which in turn makes it a lot easier to counteract a worrisome trend before it becomes a problem.
Charts and diagrams can really help here!
F-2.6 Applying system thinking at complexity
F-2.6.1 ⚖ Proposals, pitches 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.
F-2.6.2 📚 A basic start, starting collecting categorize
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
ASL Application Services Library, technical going agile
There is a very limited in the original source for ALS-3.
The categorisation of topics is well done although t usage of the word application is with confusion.
Similarities in the set up are:
Application strategy is the changing portfoliomanagement, whereas the orgnsiation strategy defintions are the operational planning and funding. "Portfolio-plan".
Application support is operations and maintenance an renewal devlopement. "DevSecOps"
Differences are:
The management process is not split in what is for the now and what for the future.
The orientation is only presented in two dimensions, not three.
The technical report ISO/IEC TR 16351:2019 'Application management guidance on the relationship between ISO/IEC 16350:2015 and Application Service Library®' has now been published.
ASL syllabus
in a figure:
See left side.
Context of the audience: Structuring the organisation.
Services maturity model,technical going lean
Services Maturity (Axelos)
The quest for wanting to be in control, at least getting an indication wat is going well and what should be improved.
The ITIL maturity model is a tool that organizations can use to objectively and comprehensively assess their service management capabilities and the maturity of the organization's service value system (SVS).
The primary intended purpose of such assessments is to inform the organization's improvement planning by highlighting the areas that need improvement.
The CMM levels 1-5 are used wiht ITIL-4 services.
F-2.6.3 📚 The old strcuture reused for Jabsa (Zachman)
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-2.6.4 📚 Organizing an organisations in the SIMF model
Multiple aspects within the SIMF model
the attemp to model tasks/roles for the organsiation and using information technology resulted in three approaches:
Use a classical hierarchical approach ordered in silos by the type of workers
Use a hierarchical or network approach oriented on the product (industrial)
Use a hierarchical or network approach oriented on the service to the customer
What is not mentioned is using an approach that follows the four area's wiht the fifth one of the coordination of the model.
That is using the categories of the viable system model to model the organisation, model the interenal processes and internal services.
The SIMF model to model the organisation
For responsibilities accountabilities a cycle is not applicable.
Interactional in an approach to system-5 (down left) to system-1 (upper right) with support for the future system-4 (upper left) an the now system-3 (down right) is applicable.
The system-2 for defining scope authority and autonomy is what it makes a possible living system.
in a figure:
See right side.
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 focus on a hierarchical siloed organisation structure where the manager of the moment at some position should solve everything and anything.
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
The change in mindsets is focussing on tasks, roles in the system.
How they interact and how to control is a problem to solve not dictated by how it was always done.
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.
F-3.2.1 ⚖ The organisation types mess and mixed status
A complex in different models
There are several ways to organise the work to organise the hierarchy.
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," reducing overburden (Muri),
Andon cords, > 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".
Switching to dependencies in graph Models
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.
Assumptions a source of mistakes
An easy faulty assumption: don't expect it all at the same level same approach.
"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.
(end of tbm333)
F-3.2.2 ⚖ Manage decisions, logical segmentations
Cynefin abstracted four quadrant six ordered actions
The more we are convinced of our own right, the less we convince others.
Because architecture is not about being right – it's about creating a safe space for other perspectives.
The key is not in explaining, but in asking questions:
Not "This is the solution", but "What do you see as the core problem?"
Not "You have to do it this way", but "What makes this difficult for you?"
Not "Let me explain", but "Help me understand"
The paradox: to make your point, you first have to let go of your point. Because only when people feel understood, they are open to new perspectives.
Putting the cynfin into an abstracted quadrant and mentioning six actvities is a nice fit in my usual orientation.
The four distincive actions are:
categorize: for a new request wanting that to be obvious
act: not really knowing the impact but decisions must be made timely, chaotic
probe: the future outcome is unknown but working in a direction, complex
analyse: this was done before we can do it similar, complicated
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.
Although it seems logical there are several misconceptions, these are:
The assumption that code is developed in a very isolated way is wrong.
Developers are or should be the ones understanding the system, the production.
Operational production information is needed at developmnet to be able to improve production processes.
Being data driven, using AI, doing monitoring, doing auditing, is based on this.
Without this there is no control possible.
The awareness of this implies:
Developers know and manipulate the production code❗
There is a restricted controlled usage of production information in development❗
The ALC-V3 model covers all of the old and new development, engineering methodologies.
There is no zone separation for the critical primary processes and the supporting office taks.
When the primary task are physical (OT), this mix with office work is a no-go.
Not mentioned the most critical for segmentation: the identity service (LDAP AD).
For more robustness: network segmentation is an addtional logical access plan.
This becomes more clear when asking, who is accountable for what resources, which processes.
F-3.2.3 ⚖ Managing the complex of logical security
Avoiding confusing by using same letters
Using the four*six components in the system abbreviations an colours are used.
Some different letters from the word avoiding confusing:
System: Anatomy ➡ Location and Physiology - Function
Resources, staff: Accounts ➡ Users, Non personal➡W and Device ➡ Location
Processes, Organisations: Chain ➡ Boundary
Technology: Platforms ➡ Machines
Security by design - boarding
A logical security plan is a complex structure.
Simplifying by reusing patterns is necessary.
The first step are understandable reusable patterns.
Every business application (TC-A1 A2) uses one or more platforms (TC-M1 M2).
Each business application, platform secure their resources by well defined structures.
Approach: different types of accounts have their own limited set of least priveleges.
Realisation: account assignment is done by defined logical group memberships
When all is well structured and defined to the dedicated organisation the authorisations are clear and the on/off boarding is a process with clear steps, clear actions clear accountabilities.
❶ Two possible indentity domains. ❷ free floating activities for network segmentations ❸ Four doublets for the primary processes. ❹ Four doublets for the secondary (office) processes. ❺ Interactions for closed loop regulators.
In a figure,
see right side
F-3.2.4 ⚖ Managing the logical network segmentation
Netowrk segmentation following the system
After well structured logical safety the segmentation process becomes structural clear.
❶ Two possible identity & access control domains. ❷ Dedicated knowledge areas enabling activities ❸ Split of primary processes in backend frontend. ❹ Split of primary processes in Pull & Push. ❺ Interactions for closed loop regulators.
In a figure,
see right side
The identical twin of the operational system
A logical and technical security plan is a complex structure.
Simplifying by reusing patterns is necessary.
The first step are understandable reusable patterns.
DMZ segments are isolating activities as much as possible from external influence.
Bbackend and frontend are isolated from each other sos are the knowledge areas.
Development Design (DTAP) is done in a digital twin of the primary processes.
When all is well structured and defined to the dedicated organisation the segmentation is clear. Optimisation by sharing the same segment is possible but can be confusing.
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 specifications:
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 constructed but deliveries of the product 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 takes 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: processes
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 💡 The organisation system complexity
The origin for the word cybernetics
Norbert Wiener was an American mathematician who established the science of cybernetics.
He attained international renown by formulating some of the most important contributions to mathematics in the 20th century. ...
In 1948 his book Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine was published.
For a scientific book it was extremely popular, and Wiener became known in a much broader scientific community.
Cybernetics is interdisciplinary in nature; based on common relationships between humans and machines, it is used today in control theory, automation theory, and computer programs to reduce many time-consuming computations and decision-making processes formerly done by human beings.
He was not the only one.
The Cwarel Isaf Institute was founded to make the life's work of Stafford Beer available to society.
The word "cybernetics" comes from the Greek term "kybernetes", which means "helmsman".
Unpredictability and complexity
The human wish for absolute predictability:
Laplace's demon
Discoveries and theories after that, 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 is not easily accepted by humans.
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.
The double pendulum is a very simplistic relationship two objects three locations.
Who is in the lead?
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. ...
Change the game by moving teams from merely delivering features or projects to becoming stewards of investment and growth.
That 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-3.4.2 💡 The good regulator theorem, needing a model
Understanding of the word model
The meaning of "a model" in a good regulator (Conant-Ashby).
We can start with such an unexceptionable 'model' as a table-top replica of Chartres cathedral.
The transformation is of the type, in three dimensions. ...
A model of Switzerland. for instance, might well have the vertical heights exaggerated .
In two dimensions, a (proportional) photograph from the air may be followed by a Mercator’s projection with distortion, that no longer leaves the variables separable.
So we can go through a map of a subway system, with only the points of connection valid, to 'maps' of a type describable only mathematically.
Thus, in the working models, as in the static, we can readily obtain examples that deviate more and more from the obvious model to the most extreme types of transformation, without the appearance of any natural boundary dividing model from non-model.
What is described is what these days (2025) is indicated as: "digital twin".
The meaning of "a model" in the AI hype (2025).
If by “making a model” one means the sort of thing people usually do when model-making - i.e. reconstruct a system’s variables/parameters/structure from some information.
What is described is what was previous (in the 80's) indicated as "programming".
Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system
Fixing The Good Regulator Theorem (lesswrong John Wentworth) a review from the AI hype adapts perspective.
From Conant-Ashby (1970):
The design of a complex regulator often includes the making of a model of the system to be regulated.
The making of such a model has hitherto been regarded as optional, as merely one of many possible ways.
In this paper a theorem is presented which shows, under very broad conditions, that any regulator that is maximally both successful and simple must be isomorphic with the system being regulated.
Making a model "digital twin" is thus necessary. ...
It should be noticed that in this formulation there is no restriction to linearity, to continuity, or even to the existence of a metric for the sets, though these are in no way excluded.
Several types of measurements:
A third criterion for success is to consider whether the entropy H(Z) is sufficiently small.
The entropy measure of scatter has the advantage that it can be applied when:
the outcome can only be classified, not measured e.g. species of fish caught in trawling, amino-acid chain produced by a ribosome.
In this paper we shall use the last measure, H(Z), and we define ‘successful regulation’ as equivalent, to ‘H(Z) is minimal’.
The difference with well known simple regulators.
Error-controlled regulation is in fact a primitive and demonstrably inferior method of regulation.
The regulations used by the higher organisms evolve progressively to types more effective in using information about the causes (at D) as the source and determiner of their regulatory actions.
The lesserwrong review gets into the original intention.
When should a regulator use a model internally?
We have four key conditions:
The regulator needs to make optimal decisions (in an expected utility sense)
Information arrives in more than one timestep/chunk (X, then Y), and needs to be kept around until decision time.
Keeping/passing information is costly: the amount of information stored/passed needs to be minimized (while still achieving optimal control)
Later information can "choose many different games" - specifically, whenever the posterior distribution of system-state S given two possible X values is different, there must be at least one Y value under which optimal play differs for the two X values.
Conceptually, because we don't know what game we're going to play, we need to keep around all the information potentially relevant to any possible game.
The minimum information which can be kept, while still keeping all the information potentially relevant to any possible game, is the Bayesian posterior on system state S.
There's still a degree of freedom in how we encode the posterior on S (that's the "isomorphism" part), but the "model" M definitely has to store exactly the posterior.
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, considering security during CPS design just as functional aspects, “security by design”, is gaining the attention of policymakers around the globe.
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.
F-3.4.3 💡 Simple local regulators for components
The closed loop pid controller
When there is a measurement control adjustment becomes a known theory. However this theory is not simple at all.
PID control (wikipedia)
In theory, a controller can be used to control any process ...
Note limitations:
that has a measurable output (PV)
a known ideal value for that output (SP)
an input to the process (MV) that will affect the relevant PV
It becomes quick unpredictable when the limitations are not met.
Closed Loop management information systems
The feedback, verification of results with intentions, goals, is the beating hart of a system.
BIDM
BI analytics is integrated or not in the business process can strongly affect the decision making process.
Hence, we consider this category to be a very important one when delimiting a maturity stage
initiation user driven, process driven
process integration (data centric - BI analytics is usually supported by a data warehouse, process centric - BI analytics is integrated in the business processes)
processing model (store and analyze; analyze and store)
event stream processing
"closed-loop" environment
Although having the mindset set for BI (Business Intelligence) it is very generic.
For management information systems the highest maturity level is aligning the vision mission with what is happening.
F-3.4.4 💡 Complex holistic regulators for systems
The weather model 101
Numerical weather prediction
An atmospheric model is a computer program that produces meteorological information for future times at given locations and altitudes.
Within any modern model is a set of equations, known as the primitive equations, used to predict the future state of the atmosphere. ...
The equations used are nonlinear partial differential equations which are impossible to solve exactly through analytical methods, with the exception of a few idealized cases.
Therefore, numerical methods obtain approximate solutions.
...
In 1963, Edward Lorenz discovered the chaotic nature of the fluid dynamics equations involved in weather forecasting.
Extremely small errors in temperature, winds, or other initial inputs given to numerical models will amplify and double every five days, making it impossible for long-range forecasts—those made more than two weeks in advance.
Modelling an organisation similar to the weather model
Local optimizations are failing in optimizing the system as a whole.
Evaluating the organisations by how:
visions & missions are set and achieved (people)
the operations and changes in operations are managed (processes)
used technology for achieving the missions in lean processes (technology)
Will give the option for a holostic maturity level. For predicting the future of an organisation.
a three dimensional anatomy
physiology in a way of defined interactions
It is possible to create "digital twins" that are predicting the change for states of the organisation similar to the weather model.
It will cover not only the financial results for a moment in time but for all what is evaluated to be relevant.
A new challenge: the defined interactions in the antomy will be different at each organisation.
F-3.5 Innovating organisational systems
F-3.5.1 💡 Fundaments for a model of a system
Functional - non-functionals
❶ Non-functionals and functionals are better in the Zachman logical order.
An example of usuale six ordered categories:
What is it made of? ➡ Bills of Material,
How does it work? ➡ Functional Specs,
Where are the components positioned? ➡ Geometry
Who is responsible for what? ➡ Operating Instructions,
When do things happen? ➡ Timing Diagrams, and
Which choices to happen? ➡ Design Objectives.
Changing the context for six questions but have a ordering is set by the situation. ❷The ordering in the categorization has the following advantages:
creating an abstracted anatomy suited to be used as a model.
defining interactions for relationships in the anatomy model for functionalities and functioning.
From the model, relationships, interactions a way for holistic predicting possible future states.
Categories in: Functional - non-functionals
❸ Aspects for functionals and non-functionals are closely related but differ in the perspective from the organisation or technology.
functional vs non-functional requirements
A start for several aspects: a
Definition
Describes what the system should do, i.e., specific functionality or tasks.
Describes how the system should perform, i.e., system attributes or quality.
👁
Functional Requirements
Non-Functional Requirements
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-3.5.2 💡 Components for a model of a system
Anatomy Physiology Neurology
❹ An interesting presentation (german language) systems source:
"How to steer a company in a storm" (Youtube: 2024 M Pfiffner)
is about organisations and their structure.
Important to note:
Categorisation 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 about 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.
Structures of the organisation
The way an organisation is structured changes by its size.
In the biggest approaches of clusters also the others are there in the hierarchy of split into smaller component parts. ❺ missing neurlogoy: going from crisis to crisis.
Crisis:
Integral
⚠ complexity
Functional (silos)
⚠ accountability
Matrix (guilds)
⚠ coordination
Divisonal
⚠ control
Conglomerate
⚠ identity
In a figure,
see right side
Anatomy Physiology Neurology
The brole of VSM system-1:
Fulfill the purpose of the system
Generate customer value and ensure competitiveness
Manage independently on their own complexity and dynamics
need a high level of autonomy and own resources
Not in the video but from a related source, seeking a balance between now and the future. ❻ Changing organisational structure control is far behind the the technology change.
In a figure,
see right side
F-3.5.3 💡 The evolution of organisational systems
"Design for system innovations and transitions: a conceptualframework integrating insights from sustainablity science andtheories of system innovations and transitions" (researchgate: 2015 A.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.
Transitions and system innovations cover 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. ❼
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. ...
In a figure,
see right side
Complexity increases as the scale becomes larger. Conse-quently, as the scale gets larger, managing change becomes harderand the pace of change gets slower.
❽
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.
In a figure,
see right side
F-3.5.4 💡 The future of organisational systems
Leaving the traditional bureaucratic organisation whose efficiency is built on the principles of clear division of labour, well-defined structures.
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. ... ❾
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). ❿
The only case: all is completely localised and linked together in a mechanistic manner.
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-3.6 Applying system thinking fractals
F-3.6.1 📚 Building up processes alignment
The on/off boarding processes is an example. ❶ Confusion on/off boarding processes by taks/role.
Word associations at floor 0-1 the system are:
OST Operating Systems Technology
MSA Mediation System Arbitration
SOE Support Organisation Enablements
OSS Organisation System Standards
SVO System Vision Operations
❷ Confusion on/off boarding processes by processes
There are overhelming number in process flows for the boarding.
The challenge is:
There are six not one objects needing attention
Executing the boarding results in 6*4, resulting in 24 process flows
Changing content in the boarding: 6*4, another 24 process flows
There is no dichotomy in planes, only in areas of SOE and OSS for different actions different responsibilities.
Not all of these are sensible to be automated resulting in manual activities as standard work.
Limiting the view to only boarding staff, is for the expected quantity in processes most of the work but in quality very minimal (less than 20%).
The state: ❌ usually not systematic in place, delegated to mid managers.
👉🏾 Simplifying the processes by standardising is the way to go.
F-3.6.2 📚 Where to start for process alignments
The issue for start systematic change
Changing existing processes is hard because there are vicious cycles.
The question in this where to start?
Start with muri (LI: 2024 S_Angad)
Are your processes leaking money without you knowing it?
But... The real problem isn't identifying ONE issue.
It's understanding how they're all connected. ❸
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.
An approach starting systematic change
This is what I discovered after analyzing several manufacturing operations.
Everyone talks about Lean Manufacturing basics:
Reduce waste
Optimize flow
Improve efficiency
Here's the breakthrough insight:
Most operations tackle these in isolation. (Big mistake) ❹
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
F-3.6.3 📚 Systems thinking at informations services
Programming not only coding: Devops - MLops
The search of the location for AI in the value streams.
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 is governed by a set of concepts and methods referred to as Machine Learning Operations (MLOps).
Nevertheless, researchers, as well as professionals, often focus more on the automation aspect and neglect the continuous deployment and monitoring aspects of MLOps.
As a result, there is a lack of continuous learning through the flow of feedback from production to development, causing unexpected model deterioration over time due to concept drifts, particularly when dealing with scarce data.
This work explores the complete application of MLOps in the context of scarce data analysis. ... ❺
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 MLOps tools 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.
The idea is that ML, AI, is something new and differnt than devops, that is not correct.
In a figure,
see right side
❻ In the system model of the organisation Devops is the interaction between the operational plane 1-2 and engineering plane 2-3.
These planes are really different (technology) oand should not be mixed by confusion.
There must be another duet EnactPortfolio at the organisational side.
The enterprise technology management system
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. ❼
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.
In a figure, see right side
F-3.6.4 📚 Managing systems at informations services
Information security, Cybersecurity, Cybernetics
Wondered how “cyber” became the go-to prefix for anything technical? (LI 2025 K van Wersch) ❽
Despite its widespread adoption, cybersecurity is only one aspect of the broader field of information security. The latter focuses on protecting all forms of information—digital, physical, or otherwise—by addressing how people, processes, and technology interact.
This shift in terminology has created confusion:
Cybersecurity highlights the technical layer but can overshadow the human and process elements of security.
Information security, by contrast, emphasizes a holistic approach: people handling information, the value of that information, and the impact of incidents on business continuity.
🕳
However, it’s important to remember that technology is a supporting element.
It helps organizations and people process information more effectively and efficiently, but it’s not the sole focus of information security.
Using the term 'Cybersecurity' without a broader understanding can lead to the pitfall of thinking a secure environment is achieved solely through technology—or worse, making technology the end goal rather than a means to an end.
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.
❾
We need to overcome commonly held misconceptions we have about both about ourselves and about "the other team."
Required mindset change: simplicity
The Lean system is often promoted by tools and results, however the essence in a holostic system is a mindset.
Ordering the components in the organized cycle of 4 quadrants and 9 topics is the figure aside.
The two operational technical topics a vertical control, the horizontal for the purpose.
In the diagonals the related activities for an improvement.
✅ The essence of TPS:
The Toyota Production System has long been recognised as a way to eliminate waste and achieve high efficiency.
❿
However, its essence is to make work easier and less burdensome for workers, with a focus on creating meaningful work.
Jidoka, a Japanese term that can be translated as “automation with a human touch” or “intelligent automation”, is a method to quickly identify and correct any issues that could lead to faulty products.
Just-In-Time is about refining and co-ordinating each production process so that we only produce what is required by the next process in a timely manner.
SMED, or Single-Minute Exchange of Die, is a Lean manufacturing methodology aimed at reducing the time it takes to change over equipment from one production run to another.
The goal is to perform these changeovers in less than 10 minutes, hence the term "single-minute."
⚖ 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. 
data stories, information, insight 
in a figure: 
The difference between:
The doubt for the chaos theory bypasses the problem that an exact deterministic measurement is impossible, the Heissenberg question is not easily accepted by humans.
There are more things to see of chaotic behavior. 
Conceptually, because we don't know what game we're going to play, we need to keep around all the information potentially relevant to any possible game.
The minimum information which can be kept, while still keeping all the information potentially relevant to any possible game, is the Bayesian posterior on system state S. 
