To  a point. Only after a lot of detailed examination of the organisation, the staff involved, and the knowledge and processes contained therein can any diagramming or measuring begin. Even after this point, there will still be a lot that cannot be diagrammed, or measured. This point works off the assumption that there are no unknowns and that all items can be analysed in such a manner. The information given in the previous section belies this, and as such the statement should be taken with a grain of salt.

2. These models are necessarily partial, and should not and cannot be taken to fully represent what happens in the organisation

Excellent, my work is done for me. This point is much better, and gives a better understanding of the process and the organisation. There is too much tacit/implicit knowledge and process happening within the organisation to ever fully nail it down to be a definitive model of the organisation.

3. The work of the organisations can be modeled as business processes, a sequence of interacting individual activities

In the text, as in various other industry studies performed over the years, the concept of business processes emerged, a process whereby environment (environment here meaning any interaction with external or internal demands or pressures) trigger a set of actions from the organisation and staff to perform some set list of tasks. Taken from a programming point of view this could almost be called the organisation’s business algorithm. Seems simple but it is an important concept to understand when dealing with such entities, and hasn’t been around all that long.

4. The activities in these processes can be modeled and can be made highly specialised to enhance efficiency by scientific management methods

Simple extension of previous comments. Defined as Taylorism or Fordism, these reworked processes can be applied to the organisation to provide major increases in productivity, while also bringing costs down if applied correctly. An application of modern thought to the industrial age production method of thinking, there are, however, major drawbacks to the way these methods were actually implemented.

5. These tayloristic processes lack flexibility and humanity

I’d argue with this one and say the examples given lack flexibility and humanity. A separation between the theory and the implementations are essential here, in that anything could have been produced as a new more efficient process and had the ‘taylorism’ tag applied, without being in line with the ideals of the theory. A more holistic approach would have stuck to the theory and produced better results, particularly from a worker point of view

6. An organisation contains computing systems and software embedded within it and they are inseparable from each other

Probably wouldn’t quite agree with this. Its true to a point, but it has to be remembered that while people are absolutely essential to an organisation, software is not as much of an essential item. The org can get by quite well using other software, or depending on the size, needs, etc, possibly without any at all. There will always be cases where they are inseparable, but it is important to note that it is a commodity, an asset, instead of the end of the world.

7. The software and the business processes that use software must necessarily be developed together, and though the software can be defined by a requirements document, the software cannot be understood in isolation

This is correct. Any organisation using software for a specific purpose, no matter how banal it may seem, needs to take into account the attributes and growth of the software, just as it must do for itself. Integration into business processes and practices must be fully understood before embarking on any sort of buy-in/development/etc.. of new software to facilitate some critical need.

8. Yet in order to acquire software and later evolve it we must be able to treat the software separately from other resources used in the business process

I don’t necessarily see these two points as mutually exclusive. Going back to my comment on point 6, the software is a separate yet integrated piece of infrastructure. Think of it as something modular. You fit lots of modules together to form a cohesive whole, but once thats done you can still take them back apart to form something else, leaving out entirely one of the ‘critical’ pieces.

9. The software systems embody some of the knowledge of the organisation, but cannot embody all of the the knowledge, some must remain tacit within the people involved

Absolutely true. A very large chunk of the knowledge of all groups, large or small, exists entirely in the heads of those who work there. Various methods and strategies have sprung up for the purpose of extracting and codifying this information. Situations like staff turnover, etc.., mean a lot of this knowledge is easily lost. One of the more effective methods for extraction and retention is the concept of the feedback loop, single and double. It enables an organisation to identify its tacit knowledge, and convert it into workable, teachable practices.

10. New systems are introduced either because of internal problems, or because of external business opportunities, or because of external demands

That list is not complete. It doesn’t take into account the internal opportunities and the external problems. Regardless, it is a reasonable list for detailing how changes would originate. An organisation will need to ingest a new system, revise processes, develop new practices, etc.. in response to any of these items. They cover both reactive and proactive solutions, things like introducing new features to become a market leader, or revisiting failing processes in the face of falling revenue. Any opportunity for positive change is always a good thing.

11. Rational decision making processes and return on investment calculations can only partially help justify the acquisition

This statement is something I’m not entirely comfortable with. I personally like to be able to quantify whatever comes my way, and stating that the benefits of acquiring a system can’t be fully expressed in ROI terms is something I don’t really like. However I can’t really argue with it either. The statement, according to current processes, metrics, etc.. is correct, because there are intangibles associated with such systems, and likely will be for some time. Until Skynet takes over anyway.

12. The process of introducing new systems can be viewed as a process of adaptation or learning, and the organisation does this as a learning organisation

I’m a little uneasy at the need to make a distinction here between the concept of a learning and a non learning organisation. A non learning organisation dies, simple as that. If it is not prepared to accept feedback and learn from its environment, then it is a net detractor from the business environment as a whole, and nature will take its course. The point above should be taken as the ground state for an organisation, not as something it should aspire to.

13. Organisational learning takes place in cycles as business processes are changed, knowledge is externalised, examined, restructured, consolidated and then re-internalised

This is true, but it would be nice if it wasn’t the whole story. If instead a constant cycle of information gathered, assimilated and integrated into practice then it would show that an organisation is proving its capacity to grow and outperform its competitors. For instance, in terms of a software house, developers and management need to be constantly on the lookout for new and expanded technologies and methodologies to keep them abreast of industry changes and up to speed with the latest state of the art. Cyclical BPR should be just the beginning.

14. The people in the organisation are critical in this process, and should be viewed as part of the assets of the organisation, the human capital

Dead right. People are massively important to any group, to the (obvious) point where it can’t work without them. No people, dissatisfied people, people who feel they are not being adequately rewarded by their job (rewards in terms of ‘hygienic’ needs, or Maslow’s hierarchy), make people happier and therefore more productive in their work. Treating them like machines on a factory belt will get you nowhere and is a quick and easy way to stall productivity and lose revenue. If people are viewed as assets, or better yet as stakeholders, then they are treated as people rather than cogs in the machine.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Don’t Use Smart Technologies to Do Dumb Things (blogs.harvardbusiness.org)
• Taylor’s scientific management doesn’t apply to knowledge work (billbennettnz.wordpress.com)
• Tinkering with real world BRPs (Barely Repeatable Processes) (thingamy.typepad.com)
• Business Intelligence Dies, Business Analytics Lives (arnoldit.com)

Thinking about it, it seems to me that there could be a couple of possible reasons for this.

1. Laziness – When the situation calls for it I will go and search the BeJaysus out of something until I’m satisifed with the answers, so that doesn’t seem to be it..
2. Ease of access – there’s normally a better chance of getting information quickly from someone close by, particularly in a work context, but I will happily take my time and get specific items from specific people, and sometimes that can take a little time, so thats not it…
3. Contextual/Added information – whereby the information gleaned from a particular person will have added relevance due to situational experience, etc.. Closer to a winner here…
4. The personal touch – here we seem to have a winner. I like interacting with people. I’m a social beast, like most of the human race. I occasionally work from home and find the boredom to be stunning in the extreme, so I only do it when absolutely have to.

So it would seem that I like people. Todays instantly accessible information has given me direct access such as this, because in the past there wasn’t anywhere near as much generalised knowledge swirling around in both the aether and people’s head, so carefully lookup was needed to find information, meaning not as many did it.

The synopsis I draw from this (something other, much more clever people have figured out already ) is that the modern age with fingertip availability, social knowledge transfer, and the great swarm of data living in us all, is in fact yet another social enabler. People can interact even more now than ever before, and in new and interesting ways due to the magic of the tech and the evolution of society and societal memes.

Makes you happy to be knowledge foraging…

Interesting reading