{"id":2884,"date":"2016-03-16T10:00:39","date_gmt":"2016-03-16T17:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lookforwardconsulting.com\/?p=2884"},"modified":"2024-06-19T15:36:24","modified_gmt":"2024-06-19T14:36:24","slug":"organize-for-complexity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thescrumacademy.com\/es\/2016\/03\/16\/organize-for-complexity\/","title":{"rendered":"Organize For Complexity"},"content":{"rendered":"

“The only ‘thing’ capable of dealing with complexity is human beings.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"OragnizeForComplexity\"This is the central thesis of Niels Pflaeging’s<\/a> book, Organize For Complexity: How to Get Life Back into Work to Build the High-Performance Organization, and speaks to the importance of engaging people to assist\u00a0the next evolution of business. \u00a0As our work becomes increasingly\u00a0complex, the importance\u00a0of engaging the human mind\u00a0goes up because the classic reductionist point-of-view<\/a>, i.e. a problem is merely the sum of its constituent parts,\u00a0falls apart when confronted with the levels of complexity in the market today.<\/p>\n

When I first heard Niels Pflaeging speak at the Scrum Gathering Prague in 2015, I immediately could see how his message was consistent with the Agile mindset and the Spirit of Scrum; that in order to get to higher levels of performance, quality and engagement we must capture and sustain the focus of the\u00a0people doing the work. \u00a0In order to truly successful with Scrum and Agile, we need to take a holistic view of the entire system. \u00a0But what does those concepts\u00a0look like in a generic business or enterprise? \u00a0This slender,\u00a0easy-to-read and well-illustrated book, gives you some clues on what the future might\u00a0look like and is the reason why it leads my series of book reviews documenting how we might organize ourselves in the future.<\/p>\n

The organization of the book is pretty straight-forward. \u00a0It has seven parts (or chapters) and an excellent bonus chapter, which is an extended interview of Niels called “Management is Quackery”. \u00a0I highly recommend reading the interview. \u00a0One of the first thing you will see when reading this book is how important the illustrations are in telling the story (see the sample diagram below). \u00a0When reading it, it\u00a0\u00a0feels like Niels is standing at a whiteboard explaining his ideas.<\/p>\n

Niels defines complexity as any system that has the presence and participation of humans. \u00a0As living systems with the potential to change at any time, complex systems often\u00a0produce surprises. \u00a0It is certainly possible to have part of a complex system act in\u00a0standardized way, but\u00a0interactions between the part of a complex\u00a0systems always remain unpredictable. \u00a0As a result, complex systems cannot be controlled, but merely observed.<\/p>\n

Throughout\u00a0the Industrial Age, systems were not complex. \u00a0They were merely complicated and \u00a0scientific management (Taylorism<\/a>)\u00a0was introduced\u00a0as a\u00a0brilliant social technology. \u00a0For all the bad press it receives in the Agile community, Taylorism was a\u00a0breakthrough in human organization and become the foundation for how work was organized for the entire 20th Century. \u00a0During the Industrial Age, \u00a0it was possible to manage value generation\u00a0by creating a hierarchy of thinkers over the doers. \u00a0People higher up could make all the decisions and\u00a0devise strategies, policies and procedures that later get\u00a0delivered to the doers. \u00a0All the workers\u00a0(or machines) have to do was execute\u00a0the steps and follow the commands from the higher ups. \u00a0Viola! \u00a0Value is generated!<\/em><\/p>\n

\"organize-for-complexity-impulse-session-for-agile-nyc-new-yorkusa-11-638\"But this only worked because markets in the 20th Century\u00a0were slow and sluggish. \u00a0Competition was negligible or non-existent. \u00a0Workers that were poorly educated and unfamiliar with industrialization, could be replaced by machines and\\or were compliant. \u00a0But during the\u00a01970’s to\u00a0early 1980’s, markets changed to something more dynamic and more complex. Markets became global and competition increased dramatically. \u00a0Now it was no longer\u00a0possible to separate\u00a0the complexity from the value creation. \u00a0As result of this market shift, Taylorism and scientific management became a zombie technology. \u00a0Killed by the economic disruptions of the 70’s and 80’s. \u00a0 Management just did not know it, yet. \u00a0It was dead.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Niels’s book has SCORES<\/strong>\u00a0of great insights and ideas to consider as we move deeper into the 21st Century. \u00a0Since the book is mostly visual, the most compelling ideas\u00a0are easy to find. \u00a0I will highlight the ones that I found most useful:<\/p>\n