Beyond 'People, Process & Technology'?

This post is a follow-up to: Are we stuck with 'People, Process & Technology'? where I questioned whether the People, Process, Technology (PPT) paradigm had limited peoples' thinking about operating model design and, perhaps, Enterprise Architecture (EA) more generally ... which prompted some fascinating responses.

Whilst this post won't fully address all of the points raised by those that commented on the original post or in various LinkedIn groups, it will set out an alternative paradigm for thinking about and modelling company operations. And I hope it will spark further discussion in the spirit captured in Marc Gewertz's recent post on collaboration. 

Company Operations 

Company Operations, as I think of them, encompasses everything that a company [or 'firm'] does. They are a reflection of the business it does in the markets and territories it operates in.

Somewhat simplistically: if a company is in the widget business, it needs an operation that can identify and/or generate demand for widgets; agree terms of sale; and then (create and) supply widgets according to those terms, whilst simultaneously satisfying suppliers, impacted third parties and complying with prevailing regulations and legislation.

But what separates one widget supplying company from another is how, and how well, it does these things. The Devil - and the margin - is in the details! And more often than not, these details are described using models based on the PPT paradigm.

Modelling using the PPT paradigm

Modellers typically start by defining Process - usually in the form of a prescribed sequence of activities (or tasks or actions) associated with other activities or events (or triggers). More rarely are processes defined as how something is transformed from one state to another.

At higher levels of simplification/abstraction, business processes often are represented as 'Value-Chains' or 'Functions' or 'Capabilities' or 'Business Services' - each more a label of what is done rather than how or when. And these representations can provide a useful anchor for subsequent models. However, very few process models - especially at higher levels of abstraction - describe how well a process is performed. This might appear in 'dashboards', but typically has to be derived from financial statements or period reports.

In defining Process, modellers usually capture and variously represent the People that perform the activities, tasks or actions. But rather than identify actual real people, they usually record the name/title of a Role or a Group (e.g. board, team, committee, body, etc). And in separate models they may represent a nominal hierarchy of roles (e.g. 'Org Chart') and groups (e.g. 'Governance Chart') sometimes identifying role-holders or group members.

Some activities (tasks or actions) may be partially or fully automated; and some may require the use of information, tools, equipment, devices, applications, IT networks, facilities and other 'Technology'. Other models - usually created by different modellers - may represent data stores and flows; services, messages and protocols; or servers, systems, platforms and networks.

Under most Enterprise Architecture (EA) initiatives, Process and People are usually modelled within the Business domain; and Technology models are usually separated into Application, Data/Information and Technical/Infrastructure domains. Consequently, Technology becomes almost entirely synonymous with Information Technology (IT).

An alternative modelling paradigm 

Firstly, I'm not saying that PPT-based models aren't useful. They really can be. And secondly, I'm not proposing another model (or "log on the fire"), but an alternative modelling paradigm [context or framework] in which a wider set of models [constructs or views] might exist.

An alternative paradigm is provided by:

• Assets - the current and fixed, tangible and intangible 'things' from which income/revenue/value is derived and costs/expenses incurred
• Connections - how 'things' are connected, associated, related, arranged, structured or organised 
• Dynamics - how 'things' behave, flow, move, act, interact and change over time, or in response to stimuli.

And this is better because ... ?

This paradigm challenges the modeller to think more widely about the nature of company operations - what a company does, how and how well.

Assets are a wider class of 'thing' than Technology. They underpin a company's market value and its ability to generate income/revenue and make a return on investment. Current assets include cash, money and stocks/inventory. Fixed assets include tools, plant and machinery, facilities and equipment as well as IT applications, servers and networks, etc. Less tangible assets include trademarks, patents, (data) records, IP, supplier relations, brand awareness, goodwill, etc. These are the 'things' that companies use to 'do business'.

Connections are a more than the cables that form Local Area Networks or the chain-of-command between senior management and shop-floor staff. Connections can describe the position or location of 'things' or the nature of relationships between 'things'; how they relate to one another; how they interface; how well they facilitate the flow and transfer of data, information, energy and other resources.

Dynamics are a set of forces and properties that describe motion and change that is wider in scope than Process. Dynamics can describe behaviour and the emergence of, or changes to, behaviour. It can be applied to individual 'things' (e.g. people) and connected 'things' such as complex systems, which may possess properties not found in their component parts. It can describe feedback; the accumulation of flows into stocks; stock depletion; and time delays between cause and effect.

But these aren't models 

No they aren't; and I never committed to proposing any. What I set out to do was suggest an alternative paradigm [to PPT] that could be used by anyone interested in better understanding and improving company operations - what a company does, how and how well. We still need a means of listing or otherwise representing the 'operations', and whether this is by describing them as 'Business Services', 'Capabilities', 'Value-Chains' or something else is a topic for another time. But, once we've defined the scope of the operation, perhaps this paradigm provides a wider, more comprehensive, more insightful way of thinking about them, analysing them, and designing them?

Instead of thinking in terms of PPT, framing operational issues, risks or opportunities in terms of Assets, Connections and Dynamics might provide more varied and valuable views. What's needed next are simple, effective and complementary modelling tools and techniques for creating and sharing such views.

Some formal methods already exist. Assets are routinely represented on balance sheets and in various financial/accounting models; Connections can be represented in causal loop diagrams; and Dynamics can be modelled using stock & flow diagrams or simulation software. Granted, these aren't as widely used as org-charts, activity diagrams and network schematics, but what's to say that similarly simple, easy-to-use modelling tools and techniques can't be developed?

Maybe we just stopped thinking about trying something else?

I for one hope we're not stuck with People, Process and Technology or variations on the theme. And I'd be interested to hear peoples' views on the existence, development and usage of models based on an Assets, Connections and Dynamics paradigm. Moreover, I'd be thrilled to hear the views of COOs and managers of company operations as to whether the prospect of a different, wider set of models would provide more value than those of the PPT variety?

And then there's the question of whether this paradigm might effect how we think about Enterprise Architecture and its domains ... or how we practice it?!

----------

Ben is an independent Business Architect and designer of business models, solutions and services. He's available to hire on a contract basis, but he'll also consider retainers, advisory and permanent positions. 

You can read his other posts here, including: 'Can I be a [Something] Architect too?' and 'Lessons in business architecture from Gaudí'.