独家优惠奖金 100% 高达 1 BTC + 180 免费旋转

How to design a scale free Data Strategy

Organisational Pyramids, Fractals and Points of Leverage.

Who is the most powerful person in an organisation?

The convoluted answers to this deceptively simple question will largely determine the likelihood of success for any corporate data strategy.

Why?

Because contrary to popular opinion, Geometry is in fact the hidden hand that orchestrates organisational behaviour.

Here’s a thought experiment;

Which geometrical shape does any organisation chart resemble the most?

Why?

Is it possible to model this structure any other way so it would serve its intended objectives better?

As a point of reference, Planet Earth, another complex ecosystem, albeit finely balanced is spherical in shape.

Pyramids are fractal patterns that have been around for a while; in nature (Mountains) and in all manners of human endeavour, from Architecture (Giza) to Psychology (Maslow). They can be deconstructed simply as 4 basic triangles with multiple interconnected layers and a final apex point. They offer symmetry, hierarchical elegance and what architects like to call a “separation of concerns” approach which feeds nicely into a layered architecture method.

But here’s the catch though; Pyramids by design represent a centralisation model of power and resource that travels one way (upwards) which conversely means that the higher up in the pyramid hierarchy you are (closer to the apex point), the farther away you are from the working guts of the organisation (necessarily so) where the true nature of the organism reveals itself in all its messiness and complexity. Unlike, the great pyramid of Giza, a genuine marvel of mathematical precision, astronomy, engineering and foresight, organisational pyramids are largely static command and control structures designed to serve a purpose that has either long since been met or has been repurposed. Either way, the perceived sense of power and authority that is available to the apex occupants (regardless of their expertise) lacks leverage, real, non-negotiable leverage that enables cross-functional connect across the various layers of the pyramid. The System will not accept this.

In short, We have a Structural Design Problem.

The Social Economy Paradox

Contrary to their capitalist ideals, look closely and you will find that corporate organisations are in fact social economies that operate based on a collective set of agreed social contracts and bonds where the relationships and connections are the key to success. A common ideal which unites based on voluntary and consensual participation of all stakeholders. Commerce and Economics are just a small part of the glue that strengthens these bonds.

But here’s the really important detail;

If what we seek is true transformative change in the organisational mindset and culture, we must acknowledge that the strength of this social economy is predicated on an energy quotient that is organic and inherent to each of the layers and sub-layers.

It is this energy generated via the social contracts, bonds and relationships in its varying forms, degrees and intensities that actually fuels and drives the organisation forward towards its goals. It should come as no surprise therefore that the rate of innovation or transformation in an organisation is directly proportional to its cumulative energy state.

The Laws of Physics (i expounded upon in an earlier post) provide a scientific basis for this assertion;

Consequently, This Fractal Energy quotient (Figure 2) must be sufficiently high and cohesive for any corporate data strategy to truly take effect.

The challenge then is clear.

How can we generate, sustain, harness the right degree and intensity of energy across all the fractals of an organisational pyramid to successfully deliver a corporate data strategy?

A reductive approach will simply mean addressing symptoms and not the root cause(s). What we ideally need is a systemic approach to meet such an intricate, expansive challenge.

We need Structural Leverage.

Powerful intrinsic levers embedded into the mechanics of how the organisation works.

Information Pathways | Feedback Loops | Decision Models

If you are looking at a Corporate Data Strategy roadmap that does not highlight the need for these key structural levers, you ought to reconsider.

Not convinced? I present to you King Louis XIV of France.

The longest serving monarch of any Sovereign European Nation;

No mean feat when you think about the general state of disorder and treachery that was commonplace at the time. Incredibly, he also managed to achieve this despite deliberately moving his base to Versailles, away from the traditional power centre that was Paris.

How did Louis XIV pull this off despite everything stacked against him?

Simple. He understood the perils of being disconnected from information and therefore deliberately designed his new power base such that everything circled around him.

Members of nobility that were best connected and offered the most valuable source of information were housed closest to the royal chambers at Versailles so Louis could always stay abreast of news that mattered the most.

This ensured his Information Pathways were always well understood and managed. He was also very astute with providing feedback (both positive and negative) to the nobility so they knew very well the behaviours that were rewarded and the ones that weren’t (meaning you were out of favour and downgraded).

Most importantly, although he fully believed in absolutism and led a centralised model of power (pyramid), he also understood the inherent design problem of this structure and shrewdly avoided being boxed in by its constraints by using these structural levers.

The upshot of all this meant he was rarely ever caught by surprise and remained a step ahead of his rivals.

In a time when loyalties were constantly traded, this meant his continued survival and an uninterrupted reign as ruler of France for over 70 years.

The illustration below (Figure 3) shows these levers arranged as an organisational pyramid.

Information Pathways

Here’s another true story that illustrates in broader terms the power of this leverage point.

1906: The Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded to J.J Thomson for discovering electrons and also positing that light (made up of electrons) travels as beams of particles (photons).

1921: The Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded to Albert Einstein for his discovery of the “Photoelectric effect” in which he posited that light can travel both as beams of particles and as waves.

1929: The Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded to Louis de Broglie positing the wave-duality phenomenon (De Broglie Hypothesis); i.e. Light can travel in waves and as beams of particles but also crucially that waves themselves can behave like particles and vice-versa.

1937: The Nobel Prize in Physics is jointly awarded to Sir JP Thomson (JJ’s son) and Clinton Davisson for demonstrating and proving the De Broglie hypothesis.

What is the first thought that comes to your mind when reading this chronology of events?

Scientists are ultra-competitive just like any other profession; but conducting path-breaking research in this sort of linear, sequential fashion has cost the world precious time and the benefits of these discoveries. Imagine if just a couple of these brilliant minds had decided to join forces and share information with each other (notwithstanding their personal aspirations to be acknowledged as first in class).

What would and could have been the outcomes of such a collaboration and information exchange? Imagine the extended and potentially exponential benefits of having such unique and brilliant minds work together sharing information pathways?

Of course, you could argue that the nature of their work (scientific research) and their unique personalities warrants this sort of approach which is understandable but the principle of information exchange and having the pathways well structured, well understood and well managed remains valid especially in any complex organisation that is not seeking a Nobel prize for individual excellence.

Information Clusters. Information Dams. Information Scarcity

To gain structural leverage, we must acknowledge that Information flows both linearly (formal) and non-linearly (informal) within an organisation in different forms and formats (syntactic, semantic, contextual, temporal etc.). What is critical is the ability to fully understand the ebbs and flows of this information cycle, the clusters, overflows, underflows, dams and swamps that have been created throughout the organisation thereby preventing the right information from reaching the right people in time.

A great modern example of this is the fitbit device. Real-time, factual information about your physical exertions that directly informs and influences your lifestyle choices.

Feedback Loops

The human condition thrives and survives due to feedback loops; an evolutionary inbuilt mechanism that continually provides information (usually instantaneously) to ensure the human body is running at an optimal temperature.

It’s the body’s natural, automated feedback mechanism that alerts us to the need for a jumper or a pair of flip-flops depending on the weather.

A Positive (reinforcing) feedback loop as the name suggests is one where the behaviour typically leads to a positive outcome therefore reinforcing the same behavioural pattern.

For instance: good grades lead to words of appreciation and a surge in confidence which makes you want to continue to get good grades (multiplying effect).

A Negative (balancing) feedback loop is in essence the policeman that keeps behaviours in check for our own good when they surface as undesirable outcomes of positive behaviour that has outlasted its benefits (diminishing returns).

For instance: if you are burning out trying to get those good grades, there is a breakdown that occurs; i.e. mental or physical exhaustion which is a way of balancing the scores so we have some degree of order.

For Feedback loops to be effective, Delay or time it takes for the feedback to get to its intended source must be minimal. More delay equals greater irrelevance of the feedback.

Why are Feedback loops necessary for driving Corporate Data Strategy?

Feedback loops offer discoverability.

An evidence-based scorecard of what is working and what isn’t within the organisation.

For instance: how do we strike the right balance between different dimensions of data strategy such as Data Monetisation and Data Governance?

In this context, Data Monetisation can be viewed as a positive feedback loop which will always be in demand (multiplication) but this must be balanced (negative feedback loop) by Data Governance measures to ensure the laws of the land and other regulatory, procedural and compliance requirements are met.

Most important of all, the strength of the balancing (negative) feedback loop must be directly proportional to the scale and scope of transformation being sought.

Here’s a common systems thinking example of this: If we want kids to eat less sugar, then it’s simply not sufficient to run advertising stating the harmful effects of sugar. This kind of balancing feedback loop is the equivalent of using a scalpel for a sledgehammer’s job. We need a much stronger negative feedback loop which includes government legislation, penalties, taxes and regulation to really balance the lopsided equation that is in favour of the positive (reinforcing) loops. i.e. Profits over Health.

Decision Models

How are decisions actually made in an organisation?

Are they supported by an unambiguous, transparent decision-making framework that clearly articulates why a decision has been made and the machinations of this process?

Clearly, we can all agree that this would offer immeasurable value since it provides clarity to all concerned but in a complex system such as an organisation it is also the hardest thing to do not least due to the structural design problem we discussed earlier.

The Anatomy of a Decision.

In trying to functionally decompose the mechanics of how a decision is made, it is obvious that there are a number of personal inclinations at play.

- Opinions (including cognitive bias)

- Acquaintance with previous history of such decisions

- Personal experience in being part of such decisions

- Organisational culture (linked to empowerment, collaboration, leadership)

These are all key dimensions of the decision-making process and contribute to the gulf that exists between the evaluation and execution phases of a project.

Take for instance (Figure 4) the plans we make (evaluation) when embarking upon a project; they are standard cause and effect models (sometimes cloaked in the Agile garb) but nevertheless plagued at their roots by a lack of clarity on why and how decisions are made.

It isn’t a surprise therefore that the actual execution plan for the same project looks somewhat like the illustration in Figure 5.

Richard Feynman and The Path Integral

The crucial detail here is that there isn’t just one way to get to the end goal. There are always multiple scenarios and paths available to get there as evidenced by Richard Feynman, who famously introduced the concept of the “Path Integral” in Quantum Physics.

Adopting a systems thinking (synergetic) approach and having a clear understanding of the motivations and drivers underpinning decisions will make it much more efficient and effective to choose the right path and avoid the unnecessary detours and roundabouts.

Imagine a decision model (Figure 6) that is solely driven by the following dimensions:

The objectivity these dimensions imbue to the decision framework is obvious. But above all, the confidence and trust this will breed within the pyramid fractals is priceless.

Conclusion

Energy is an extremely valuable commodity because it’s what keeps everything ticking over, and since it is fundamental to everything, it’s also a notoriously mercurial resource that is very hard to manage.

Therefore, it’s imperative (in my view) that we try and view wholesale transformations and Enterprise Wide Data Strategies through the prism of the Organisational Pyramid and the Fractal Energy that it contains (or doesn’t).

The foremost consideration when designing a Corporate Data Strategy is the acknowledgement that Strategy frameworks are agnostic (by design) and therefore must always be tailored to match specific cultural needs and idiosyncrasies of the organisation.

In that context, adopting a Systems Thinking mindset allows us to view an organisation as a complex system and understand how it operates as a whole (synergetic). This affords us the ability to employ and embed structural levers such as Information Pathways, Feedback Loops and Decision Models to ensure well informed, well managed decisions and gain a true reliable measure of how the strategy is being received (and course correct swiftly).

For instance, when Scientists and Global health authorities talk about a coordinated response to fight the current pandemic: They are effectively talking about adopting a Systems Thinking approach.

To conclude, I would posit that looking inward at the way the organisation is setup, its cultural mindset, operating paradigms and DNA offer many valuable insights and clues about how a Data Strategy specific to the organisation can be defined with a much greater probability of success. Looking outward in contrast offers minimal benefits in my view.

Stay safe and well.

Add a comment

What is your view?

Send

Related posts:

Injustice overpowering our society

Imagine being scared to walk to school in fear that you will be kidnapped. Envision being taken from your loved ones, and sold all around the world. The previous statements are real situations that…

Spiraling Into Darkness

The clarity of the past is blinding, With ill-conceived words And deeds now binding. Longing for a change inside and out, All I’m left with now is doubt. Any feeling is a good feeling, Bleeding…

The Pendle Hill Witch Trials in Lancashire UK

I have been doing some research on witchcraft and witches for my next book and I have found a story about the Pendle Hill witch trials that took place in Lancashire UK. I was excited about it, so I…