00:24:59 Frithjof Wegener: So excited about the “ODF Comm conversation”! Hailing from Düsseldorf Germany 🙂 Currently finishing a PhD thesis on “dynamic” organizational designing drawing on insights from pragmatism and design theory (like product & service design) 00:25:12 Keith Warren: 👍 00:27:35 Paul Tolchinsky: If you have questions as we move through the session, feel free to put them here and Tanya and I will monitor and interject as we can 00:28:14 Jodie Goulden: Looking for the link to buy / pre-order the book ... anyone have it? 00:28:48 Jardena London: https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Organizations-Cambridge-Companions-Management/dp/1108486754 00:28:58 Jodie Goulden: Thanks J 00:29:40 Frithjof Wegener: What is “modern” organizing? Thought we are post-modern ;) 00:30:45 Frithjof Wegener: Interesting that “design” appears just once in the titles 00:31:06 Paul Tolchinsky: 👍 00:32:14 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: Is “actor-oriented” organizing equal to Promise Theory in this context then? 00:32:42 Paul Tolchinsky: I think the notion of paradigm shift in designing and design thinking is core 00:33:41 Frithjof Wegener: But there is no mention of designing in the titles 😄 00:34:06 Paul Tolchinsky: 👍 00:33:50 Paul Tolchinsky: Zach not familiar with Promise Theory...can come back to it 00:34:17 Jim Dowling: Shift from what paradigm to what paradigm & why? 00:34:57 JeDarius Isaac: Is this an academic textbook? Reading the table of content, I visualize a lot of theoretical content around new buzz words that's not necessarily practical. 00:35:37 Paul Tolchinsky: Jim, Just me talking, let's ask the two presenters 00:36:46 Bruce Mabee: It's a great list. I stuggle to simplify an entry point as "Which Three?" Do you have a version of an entry point? 00:39:18 Paul Tolchinsky: Jim, I think this slide is Chuck's notion of the shift, from organization to organizing (actors themselves coordinate their performace) 00:39:26 Frithjof Wegener: Is that goal pre-established or emergent? If the goal is emergent, how can it direct the design? 00:39:47 Jim Dowling: I guess I am on the future side of the shift. If you are not, join us. It is much more fun over here. 00:40:00 Jardena London: 😂 00:40:45 Paul Tolchinsky: 😂 00:42:44 JeDarius Isaac: 😂 00:40:10 Keith Warren: Chuck interested in when I should be approaching a problem with these different frameworks or ways of thinking. 00:40:47 Jodie Goulden: What is Stigmergy? 00:40:59 Paul Tolchinsky: Some of us love the future today 00:41:07 Bruce Mabee: "Goal-directed" What shifts do you see in who sets the goals -- and how to keep the goals adaptive? 00:41:13 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Funny, I was last week at Cambridge University Press for their Agile Org on IELTS 00:41:59 Molly Breazeale: Moving from information as power and structure to participation as power and structure? 00:42:11 Paul Tolchinsky: 👍 00:43:43 shubha Narayanan: what is the diff between Stigmergy and Digital twin? 00:45:24 Jim Dowling: What is seen as the source of cohesion and aligned action if not hierarchy? 00:50:21 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Just bought the book. Will read it, and complain ;0) 00:51:20 Jardena London: 😂 00:50:34 Molly Breazeale: Driving decision-making to the level of execution 00:50:36 Paul Tolchinsky: 😂 00:50:42 Audrey Stine: ❤️ 00:51:25 Audrey Stine: Scaled Agile. With proper implementation. 00:52:39 Molly Breazeale: ❤️ 00:51:26 Mike McGovern: Is it goal alignment or alignment to Outcomes? 00:51:31 Frithjof Wegener: Design theory would highlight that design is NOT goal driven 🙂 00:51:32 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Principles of emergence is the base of complex systems theory 00:52:04 Molly Breazeale: Purpose driven or goal driven? 00:52:23 Jardena London: Are these mutually exclusive? 00:52:27 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Design should explain the emergence of systems continously 00:52:38 Frithjof Wegener: What is the relationship with the environment in an adaptive org design approach? 00:52:50 Audrey Stine: 👍 00:53:40 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Environment does not matter much, a responsive system should be allowed to adapt to any context 00:54:13 Frithjof Wegener: Hmm, if org design has any strategic value, the environment should also adapt to the organization 🙂 00:54:25 Jodie Goulden: 👍 00:54:52 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Only a simple tiny core of the organisation is stable with very simple rules 00:53:49 Mark Robinson: I’ve heard of a Task Uncertainty continuum….this sounds like an Organization Uncertainty Continuum😀 00:53:58 Jodie Goulden: 👍 00:55:11 Frithjof Wegener: Dont forget ambiguity 🙂 00:55:24 Audrey Stine: Can attest from career experience. Airline = high uncertainty; Government = non-zero, but much lower 00:55:25 Jodie Goulden: Deciding where to be innovative seems important 00:55:56 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: When you decide to be innovative it is often too late 00:56:31 Paul Tolchinsky: 👍 00:55:35 Bruce Mabee: In simple terms, do the tops dogs still define the mission, in this interconnected, writhing world? Or must mission evolve and innovate? 00:57:11 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: @Paul Tolchinsky if we get a chance, I’d love to know if the “actor-oriented” organizing is equal to Promise Theory as I mentioned earlier - as I hear it being discussed for Org Design often lately and it seems… like a very bad idea to me 🙂 00:57:23 Erika Jacobi: Could we see the last slide again? It disappeared so quickly that it wasn't even picked up by the AI tool. :-) 00:57:38 Paul Tolchinsky: Zach, thank you for the reminder...yes 00:57:45 JeDarius Isaac: Understanding the Organizational Network and how information moves through the organization 00:57:56 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Cohesion is term coming from Flocking behaviour By Boyd 00:58:12 Jodie Goulden: @Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA could you give us a short description of Promise Theory? 00:59:11 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: Yes sorry - it’s a bottom-up view of systems, rather than a “whole-first” view. In other words, Promise Theory says that a more efficient, effective system starts by giving parts autonomy, their own agenda, and then relying on promise/commitments to determine interactions 00:59:36 Jodie Goulden: 👍 00:59:40 Jardena London: How do you avoid local optimization in that model? 00:59:44 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: Is an organizing model which works in technology, and I hear it being advocated for in business / organizations — especially by “agile people” — and it seems like a very bad idea 00:59:47 Jodie Goulden: Thanks Zach 01:00:01 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: So I’m curious if “actor-driven” is the same concept considered next-gen as an organizing model... 01:00:21 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: I have my reservations, so just very curious 🙂 01:00:57 Jodie Goulden: Zach, sounds like some similar principles. Curious about your reservations? 01:02:12 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: My first reaction is the idea that purpose of a system can be set via the individual agendas — and agreements to give up their agendas — of the parts. In other words, if we’re talking about a business… should the parts and their various promises to each other be the basis for determining the purpose of the whole? 01:05:32 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: If you are not sharing the same purpose, you are in a different system. 01:06:38 Paul Tolchinsky: Reacted to "If you are not shari..." with 👍 01:07:39 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: Agree! It’s an interesting idea that perhaps such an organizing principle could be used if the “purpose of the whole” remains intact, but I just don’t see how that’s possible. Promise Theorists in OD, from what I can, are entirely in the “agile” community and use it as a means to advocate for self-organizing teams throughout an org. But… it just seems like a really irresponsible approach to systems design (at least with respect to a business or similar organization) So I can’t help but wonder if “actor-oriented” is advocating for something similar 01:10:03 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Please do, I wrote a book on that 3 years ago while working on Enterprise with Mike Beedle. 01:13:29 Jodie Goulden: Interesting. The way you describe it sounds like a mis application of linking work in an organization. Indeed, if the promises are independent of the organization's purpose & strategy. In my mental model, there are some concepts that link this together, like value stream, aligned principles, desired capabilities, and even role descriptions. 01:01:09 Bruce Mabee: Who sets the anchors as they shift? 01:02:17 Jodie Goulden: Thanks Chuck. 01:03:04 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: For the Army, they are two different designs. The most we are referring to is the supply chain which very much hierarchical like Requisite Organisation models 01:04:44 Audrey Stine: I think the anchors are still necessary and still come from leaders (ref: above/below water line concept for safe-to-dry decision making from The Ready), but it’s a very different leadership style — leaders create true feedback loops and open flow of information to involve employees in strategy formation, but ultimately provide guardrails within which employees are safe to operate autonomously. And intentional lateral connection design across functions is still critical to avoid the local optimization. 01:06:49 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Read Peter Kruse https://www.amazon.de/next-practice-Erfolgreiches-Instabilit%C3%A4t-Ver%C3%A4nderung/dp/3869369620/ref=asc_df_3869369620/?tag=googshopde-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=407490450428&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=33059017883420318&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1003288&hvtargid=pla-869318381683&psc=1&th=1&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=86815917013&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=407490450428&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=33059017883420318&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1003288&hvtargid=pla-869318381683 01:13:24 Audrey Stine: This sadly doesn’t appear to be available in English, but thank you. 01:05:23 Frithjof Wegener: Is all organizing also organization designing? 01:09:31 Jim Dowling: Recognized stewards from various disciplines extend and adapt anchors in response to to leaders who "poke the boundaries" whenever anchors them. E.g. add an industrial customer cohort to the current retail cohorts; or add a digital distribution channel with new products. Such changes have impacts on teams whose capabilities must change to serve those customers and products. 01:10:48 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Having stewards already reduces the ideas of self organisation 01:17:42 Jim Dowling: Stewards only get in the way if they impede time to action. Teams in adaptive organizations do not stop when they interact with stewards. 01:18:10 Audrey Stine: 👍 01:11:36 Paul Tolchinsky: Exactly. Seems the focus on "actor-driven" design raises lots of questions and some angst...curious 01:11:44 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Design should represent the sociology of the organization 01:12:10 Frithjof Wegener: Hmm, but a key idea from design research is that problems are situated, they are unique. 01:13:34 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: You will discover emerging patterns. These are the important part to be researched 01:12:50 Paul Tolchinsky: So every design and every moment is an opportunity to re-configure and adapt....who better than the actors in the play 01:13:09 Ken's OtterPilot: 3 takeaways from the meeting 👉💬 Based on the transcript provided, there are no explicit action items assigned to individuals. The transcript appears to be a discussion between several people about organizational design and the potential for using AI to enable more adaptive and decentralized design approaches. Some key points discussed include: - Chuck Snow provided an overview of his upcoming book on designing adaptive organizations and discussed concepts like actor-oriented organizing, digital twins, and a potential paradigm shift in how organizations are designed. - Phanish Puranam then discussed his approach of analyzing organizations as collections of microstructures and how AI could help decentralize design to allow different parts of an organization to design their local units with autonomy while still coordinating globally. See full summary - https://otter.ai/u/hcase0IQg2i6TruVHoPsXK2pWSg?utm_source=va_chat&utm_content=wrapup_v2&tab=chat&message=5072caea-625d-4968-95b1-e71f629e5b47 01:13:37 Haris Ahmed: Funny but unfortunately great truisms from Pres Obama! 01:13:56 Paul Tolchinsky: 😂 01:15:36 Xenia Kolesnikov-Martin: you have more information on your toolkit tools / resources 01:15:49 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: Changes: it becomes more humble and more simple 01:15:59 Molly Smith-Olsson: Complexity is seen and appreciated. You can't just move boxes around. 01:16:00 Sue Larson: Learning from experiences... 01:16:13 Mike McGovern: More effective in discerning patterns. 01:18:00 Keith Warren: 👍 01:16:17 Anton Shufutinsky: Often, when someone becomes an expert, they become more complicit, and end up learning less, and they are more confident, but then less inquisitive 01:19:38 Jodie Goulden: That's why approaching things with 'beginners mind' is such an important skill. And gets harder the more expertise you have :-) 01:19:53 Molly Breazeale: 👍🏻 01:19:57 Paul Tolchinsky: 👍🏻 01:20:06 Audrey Stine: 👍 01:16:26 Haris Ahmed: Less reliance on models 01:16:52 Keith Warren: Know who to engage when. 01:17:38 Bruce Mabee: 👍 01:17:06 Bruce Mabee: The expert these days knows she/he is not the only wisdom. 01:20:42 Audrey Stine: 👍 01:18:32 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich:AI is valuable if you are able to ask to right questions without biases 01:19:44 Frithjof Wegener: Is there good research on “expert” organisation designers? Or is this drawn from research on expert designers? 01:20:14 Molly Breazeale: Reacted to "AI is valuable if yo..." with 👍🏻 01:20:28 Jardena London: “AI is a team member who is not subject to social pressures” - love this! 01:20:49 Pierre Neis - 6:00 PM in Zurich: But an org is all about people 01:24:24 Audrey Stine: Interesting complexity to integrate here. In a workplace context, being people-oriented often requires significant bravery, confidence, and inner calm (in addition to empathy). Pressures often breed levels of man’s inhumanity to man. ChatGPT is often more compassionate due to not feeling the pressure to be silent or pretend to agree. 01:24:42 Molly Breazeale: ❤️ https://www.hp.com/us-en/work-relationship-index.html 01:28:03 Molly Smith-Olsson: Small dispersed teams aligned with business needs who are all connected to share, compete and challenge ideas 01:20:55 Jodie Goulden: What are the inputs that the AI requires in order to provide good outcomes? 01:21:01 Paul Tolchinsky: Frithjof, Nicolay Worren has published with the EODF several pieces of research on Org design experts 01:21:25 Frithjof Wegener: 👍 01:22:36 Jim Dowling: Do you see a way of having a cohesion and aligned action agent one teams. 01:23:29 Phanish Puranam: Build a new “Generative AI Applications Development Unit” reporting directly to the top management of a multi-business corporation. This company has a large variety of units within it catering to different stakeholders and geographies, with the units acting fairly autonomously. The group will have about 50-60 employees and can hire from the market to build this organization. It must be up and running in 6 months. Success will be defined by the number of developed AI applications that various businesses find useful. The main constraint is to allow for flexible remote working for employees who could be located anywhere in the world. Outline an organization design for this new unit. 01:23:52 shubha Narayanan: I would see networks of talented people coming together 01:24:16 Xenia Kolesnikov-Martin: one thing to consider is how this new unit supports the overall strategy of the company and how it help advance it 01:24:17 Haris Ahmed: This department needs to have linkages to the BUs for there to be loops to ensure value to end users 01:24:19 Keith Warren: Sub-teams built around use cases. 01:24:35 Mike McGovern: Organize as a business within a business. 01:24:37 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: Well, the first question that comes to mind is what’s the operating model — core processes and such between units — that we might be able to assist with using AI 01:28:05 Jim Dowling: Identify required capabilities. Start with those required to create an initial set of applications and get them working with business partners. Next bring on people who know where the data is and what the quality of the data is. Next locate a source for AI Tech. 01:28:10 Xenia Kolesnikov-Martin: Replying to "I think an Open So..." that could help with quick wins and build momentum for the team 01:28:10 Haris Ahmed: Summary from my friend Chat GPT: Designing an AI department in a large corporation is a complex process, and it's essential to adapt your approach to the organization's unique needs and industry. Regularly review and update your AI strategy to remain agile and responsive to changing business conditions and technological advancements. 01:28:11 Bruce Mabee: We are like those stakeholders -- a herd of cats. Hopefully, conscious cats. 01:28:19 Sue Larson: Learn about how the other units are functioning, what's working, not working. Especially related to working across units. 01:28:34 Jardena London: Replying to "I think an Open Sour..." ..start experimenting in 6 days, instead of 6 months. 01:28:55 Frithjof Wegener: Replying to "I think an Open Sour..." Day 1 experiment 🙂 01:29:02 Jardena London: 👍 01:29:30 Mark Robinson: Could generally model grouping of work based on Creative Problem Solving process steps (ID needs, Ideate, Evaluate, Do). More controls and criteria for identifying needs and evaluating what projects to work on. Would be key to reward whole group, wnciourage one sourcing, sharing ideas and building g off each others. 01:30:41 Jodie Goulden: This is an interesting thought experiment. It feels uncomfortable to generate potential solutions before a diagnosis phase. I advise my clients to diagnose first. Curious what are the pros and cons of generating options without understanding of 'current state" 01:31:11 Audrey Stine: 👍 01:31:28 Frithjof Wegener: A key limitation of AI and algorithms is deteriorating performance as the situation/context changes. 01:31:33 Molly Smith-Olsson: 👍 01:31:56 Audrey Stine: My brain automatically started generating intake assessment questions. 01:31:36 Paul Tolchinsky: Jodie, I think there is diagnosis or some current state data entry...it is not without foundational data 01:31:59 Frithjof Wegener: Therefore options generated on past experience are not necessarily working for future problems. 01:32:25 JeDarius Isaac: Will we receive a copy of the recording? 01:32:51 Tanya - ODF Admin: I'll email everyone who registered to let you know when the recording/chat is posted. Those who attended today will receive a separate email with info to access Eunomicon for 7 days to play 01:32:55 Paul Tolchinsky: Jedarius, yes plus link to the tool 01:33:46 Alex Nikolic: 👍 01:34:21 Keith Warren: How does the AI learn which org designs work? 01:33:52 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: It’s super cool tech for sure… and it makes me so uncomfortable too 😄 01:34:21 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: I think I fear people using these tools as “solution generators”, rather than ideas/knowledge to think about 01:34:32 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: The desire for silver bullets out there is strong 😆 01:34:40 Jodie Goulden: Understand that the underlying theory is microstructure. Is it incompatible with a whole systems approach (Star)? I don't think so. Could fit within a Star based approach? 01:35:18 Paul Tolchinsky: Yes, Jodie. it can leverage 01:35:00 Xenia Kolesnikov-Martin: this would be great to look at extreme cases / design proposal 01:35:08 Jim Dowling: The model seems to be biased to apply traditional structures to this adaptive challenge. I note that ignored the well-known fact that most data in corporations is not suitable to AI learning without significant data management cleansing and interrelationship work. 01:35:20 Xenia Kolesnikov-Martin: yes please!! 01:35:50 Bruce Mabee: This connecting tool is useful. We still have to pull in many other kinds of system dynamics. 01:38:11 Bruce Mabee: How does this tool connect beyond verbal input -- feelings, systemic flows (weather, group dynamics...)? 01:40:33 Sue Larson: the one who always thinks they are right?? 01:40:42 Paul Tolchinsky: 👍 01:42:16 Mike McGovern: As part of implementation, you can use AI tool but still test solution in the real world as part of implementation shake-out strategy. 01:42:32 Zach Bonaker - San Diego, CA, USA: Narrow AI… as smart as it seems, it’s still an a—>b model, unless I’m wrong, even GPT isn’t close to a general AI 01:44:03 Bruce Mabee: It strikes me that this verbal convergenge example can be groundwork as we get many more kinds of sensors embedded in us and the broader systems. 01:45:49 Jodie Goulden: I am excited to see where this goes. At the same time, I'm paying attention to the aspects that make me uncomfortable. Usually that means something - I just need to let it swirl around in my mind for a while :-) 01:46:36 Mark Robinson: Reacted to "I am excited to see ..." with 👍 01:46:40 Molly Breazeale: Thanks for sharing this expertise and passion for the future! 01:46:41 Jodie Goulden: And get to use the tool hands on. What fun. 01:46:42 Pierre Neis - Zurich 🇨🇭: For chapter 3, the challenge is to forget authority 01:46:54 Haris Ahmed: This is in the hands of an org design expert can be powerful! in the hands of a novice it can be a disaster... 01:47:03 Mark Robinson: 👍 01:47:02 Bruce Mabee: Let's ask the tool what our chat says 01:47:04 Jodie Goulden: Thanks Paul, Phanish, Chuck. Great session. 01:47:31 Molly Breazeale: 👍🏻 01:48:20 Keith Warren: Awesome session. Thanks Chuck, Phanish, and Paul.