As network organization is evolutionary and must be constantly adjusted to actual value being delivered you must have evolutionary architecture. Both approaches are aimed to decompose “Big Ball of Mud …”
Even though i think it is essential for network organisation company structured in any way will benefit from this type of product architecture.
You can read more about that in this great article – https://www.thoughtworks.com/insights/blog/microservices-evolutionary-architecture
Microservices meet this definition because of its strong bounded context principle, making the logical division described in Evan’s Domain Driven Design a physical separation. Microservices achieve this separation via advanced DevOps practices like machine provisioning, testing, and automated deployments. Because each service is decoupled from all other services (at the structural level), replacing one microservice with another resembles swapping one Lego brick for another.
Stumbled upon couple of terms related to negotiations. Adding to my good stuff library and sharing it with you.
IMHO, very interesting concepts which can help to keep discussions constructive and encourage to for win/win situation.
I. Find common ground and red lines
(pronounced IN-DAR-BAH), and is used to simplify discussions between many parties.
An indaba is designed to allow every party to voice its opinion, but still arrive at a consensus quickly. It works because opinions and arguments can only be aired in a particular way:
Instead of repeating stated positions, each party is encouraged to speak personally and state their “red lines,” which are thresholds that they don’t want to cross.
But while telling others their hard limits, they are also asked to provide solutions to find a common ground.
II. Everyone must understand value of the agreement if consequences if it’s not reached.
“Nbatana” stands for “next best alternative to a negotiated agreement”. This means that everybody should be aware of what they will be left with if no agreement is reached; this helps them to understand the value of agreement, and correspondingly how much it is worth compromising before reaching the point where agreement costs you more than not reaching agreement.
p.s. if you know more these kind of hints please share them, would love to explore more on the topic as didn’t find anything more about this easily
Perfect explanation of network organisation principles. Goes to my “good stuff library”. Credits to Tanmay Vora!
Stumbled upon while was reviewing my notes. Notes were with a funny titles “Hints for myself” (unfortunately can’t remember where i read it, so can’t refer to the source)
- Manage Your Mood
- Don’t Check Email in The Morning
- Before You Try To Do It Faster, Ask Whether It Should Be Done At All
- Focus Is Nothing More Than Eliminating Distractions
- Have A Personal System
- Define Your Goals The Night Before
Here is the article that shows how managers create more work for others, but necessarily contribute to value creation – http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/the-true-cost-of-hiring-yet-another-manager/
A large software company we worked with recently eliminated more than 40% of its supervisors, ensuring that the people who actually develop the product aren’t overburdened with managers and other functionaries.
Seems to be that idea (mentioned in my previous post “Org. design and Scrum“) of making it difficult to hire a manager is not such a bad thing after all… Especially if you want to create network organisation oriented towards value creation, but not hierarchy and functional departments.
p.s. you can read more about network organizations here – http://www.organizeforcomplexity.com/