by Thierry de Pauw on
Child of Chris McDermott @chrisvmcd
@ComSaraDufour: Very interesting in @MaturityMapping #flowcon #coaching #tools #lean #agile https://twitter.com/ComSaraDufour/status/1324398637464592388?s=20
starting point: focus on practices to understand organisations from the perspective of what people do instead of who their are
then Jabe started talking about Social Practice Theory as a method of analysis
Maturity Mapping is a way on how to map practices and how they connect
Maturity Mapping as an emergent method to visualize capabilities described as a group of integrated practices to discuss interventions is socio-technical systems
- @ComSaraDufour: very interesting in @MaturityMapping! #flowcon #coaching #tools #lean #agile https://twitter.com/ComSaraDufour/status/1324398637464592388?s=20
@chrisvmcd send me this map, a Wardley Map. Simon Wardley @swardley will explain Wardley Maps later in this conference.
A Wardley Map has an evolution X-axis at the bottom.
First evolution: how you get good at what you are already doing
Wardley Map: Genesis - Custom Built - Product (+rental) - Commodity (+utility)
Maturity Mapping: Novel - Emerging - Good - Best
The important bit is at the bottom: evolution you get better at a practice as you go from left to right
Visibility (Y-axis): in a Wardley Map that is the user need
We will talk about capabilities, organisation or capability needs, what work needs to be done
Traditional View (in the Western world): see the world as machines
=> everything we describe in an organisation, the way we model, describe (org charts, ...) all use the machine metaphor
but living beings are not a machine
- organicity of Wholes
- interdependency of parts
- emergence of attributes none of the parts have through interactions
parts are interdependent
therefore, the system as a whole can not be divided into independent parts
=> the essential attributes of a system as a whole which none of its parts have
ex: automobil: essential attribute is to get you from one place to another, none of the parts can do this, the wheels can't, the seats can't, ... the automobil can
you live, none of the parts of you live, you have life
you can write, your hand can't write
you can see, your eyes can't see
you can think, your body can't think
and therefore if the system is taken apart it looses its substantial properties
if I bring an automobil into this room and disassemble it, I don't have an automobil
because a system is not the sum of the behaviour of its parts, its a product of their interactions
-- Russel Ackoff
Core of its message is:
interactions are creating properties out of the parts the parts themselves don't have
we call this: they emerge => there is a new whole that emerges out of these properties
this is what creates meaning
Meaning exists in the interactions between things, not in the things themselves.
-- Alicia Juarrero (Complexity Philosopher)
So having a list of your practices is not useful
Because the meaning of the practices come from the interactions the various practices have in your environment with your people as well as with your technology
How good an organisation does human nature permit?
How good a human nature does an organisation permit?
-- Abraham Maslow
(and no he never created and endorsed the pyramid - it was a fake from a management consultant)
We always operate at two levels:
- the organisation itself, limits what we can do as individuals
- but the organisation is also limited by what we can do as individuals independent of the organisation
=> we need to interact at both levels
sometimes constrain things from the organisational level to enable us to do something as individuals
sometimes as individuals constrain what we make available for the organisation so that the organisation can gain greater capability
It is important to shift the focus from individuals (psychology) to practices (social)
Let's stop using psychology and yet use social phenomena (and hence social practice theory)
Social Practice Theory has its roots in ...
- symbolic & social capital
Work as social activity
-- Pierre Bourdieu
see "La théorie sociale de Bourdieu adaptée à la tech" by Romeu Moura @malk_zameth later in this conference
Bourdieu tries to understand society from perspective of the social interaction.
Everybody would know what we would do with normal capital, i.e. financial.
But much more important are symbolic and social capital. Also because they exist in societies that do not have currencies.
Social capital = relationships, people you know, you get access to better jobs if you know somebody with influence, the value we are getting from having relations with other people
Symbolic capital = more cultural, it is more culture specific, eg I have a big diamond on the ring at my finger, it shows I am rich, it shows I've achieved something and so you give me respect, it is not so important whether the diamond was expensive as what it symbolises
Habitus = a field of habits, or practices, that is how we exist, how we interact in our environment
Remember Maslow: society influences us or limits us or enables us, but equally we enable society or we limit society
this interaction can be seen as Habitus
- from inspecting the Being (psychology) to inspecting the Doing (interactions, social)
- Performed & Shared
- "Work as site of practice"
- Worker as Practitioners
He wanted to get away from inspection of being and instead inspect the doing
He started to articulate what is now seen as Social Practice Theory
practices are performed but also they are shared, the way you learn a practice is someone shows you, sometimes you can learn from books or youtube video's, but what you are and the way you are doing in an organisation is: you are a practitioner
If we want to look at practitioners, how would we start describing practices in a tangible way?
Chris McDermott @chrisvmcd: show me all the things that you are doing
teams we show Jira, or frameworks they use, ... => very confused
Almost everything you do can be described as a practice
from the morning you get up, you wash yourself, you have breakfast, you do some work ...
We were looking for a language: how can we express practices in a tangible way also in a way we can talk to each other about practices in a meaningful way like how can we improve a practice
Some things need to be said ...
Best practices?? a practice might be good in one environment but it is not always best in any other environment or in any circumstances, @somesheep
yet maturity models have this need to express things in universally valid circumstances and framings
usually practices encapsulate some value of things that were learned by the people who did it, so they are practitioners
but, the biggest problems are:
they don't change, they don't adapt to your context
=> Maturity Models see competences as something that is context-free. This fundamentally disagrees with what Bourdieu and Latour say about practices. @somesheep
Practices happening in certain environments are an expression of characteristics of the environment, the people and the technology that we are using in this environment. @somesheep
You can't take competences out of context.
you only know how you know it when you need to know it
-- Dave Snowden, @snowded
Even when you try to explain something to somebody how they need to do something, you will miss things, you won't even be aware
The easiest way to teach somebody a practice is pairing. You have to be in the context, with the people, with the technology doing it to properly explain the practice.
It is in the doing that we discover the things we must do.
-- Woody Zuill, @WoodyZuill
Unless we do the practice we will not discover what we actually should be practising.
You can start with a practice. But as soon as you start practising, you will start experiencing friction. Friction informs you how you have to change the practice to your context.
Unless you do, you will not have any experiences from your context that informs you how you improve.
So: all about doing!
To conclude there is a problem with the word Maturity Models:
if you don't do things this way you are not mature.
What works for a 'mature' multinational is going to be counter productive for an 'immature' 30 person company
What we often experience though when applying maturity models, is that: we don't really do what it says because in our circumstances this won't work and so we changed it, but now the model says we are immature
=> if somebody comes from the outside and assesses us: immature team
Conflates level of effectiveness with learning path
It conflates effectiveness with learning path.
What you start to realise: It is not very effective to gain expertise in the linear path.
On the path you need to learn what they think fills up their maturity but a lot of that might be irrelevant for the problem you are trying to solve.
So you will start pick and choose from the maturity model according to the problem you are trying to solve. And you might not ever touch the other things if you got the benefit from studying the maturity model
A treasure map where X marks the spot, but no info on the terrain
It shows you the territory and marks the X and a little path, but it doesn't tell you anything about topography, obstacles you might encounter.
The worst thing about Maturity Models:
They come with a cast of High Priests: certification program (like Scrum, SAFe, a whole pyramid scheme of certifications and courses). And then you end but needing people that do the ceremonies as does everybody else otherwise you are not profiting from having invested into this pyramid.
Another way of looking at Maturity Models:
=> Practice and Capability need Tailoring not customisation
DORA, the questionnaire, is a decision tree => customisation
How do you recontextualise a maturity model?
Playing in the semantic space and provide an antidote against being judged on the scale of context-free maturity models
=> why we called it Maturity Mapping
Maturity Model = just a categorisation system
Maturity Mapping = rich content
- Organisations as Open Socio-Technical Systems
- Social interactions mediated by technology
earlier talk at FlowCon
Maturity Models play in the space of cognitive engineering.
Social World: resilient/observable
Physical World: robust/reliable
Transition over Transformation
stop to think about transformation: it has an end-point and it finishes
=> we need to start thinking about transitioning
=> focus on understand the current situation, where we are
@ComSaraDufour: ...bearing in mind Elizabeth Shove's Social Practice Theory, in which Practice is seen as:
—a unit of analysis of socio-technical systems
—an integration of meaning+material+competence
—that changes/evolves and materializes #flowcon #Praxis https://twitter.com/ComSaraDufour/status/1324424518690082819?s=20
they are not independent elements, but they interact all the time
important to see: you can improve them all, but you can only do one of them so much until it starts to influence the others
it only has 3 stages:
- proto-practices: where you see there is no integration, the things are around but we haven't seen the integration
- practices: you integrated them and that's when it becomes a practice
- ex-practices: it might get superseded by another practice that comes along
Changes over time:
practices evolve over time and they might influence each other
=> practices evolve at different speeds
meaning changes slowly or not
- competence gets materialised, tools are materialised practice
practice as unit of analysis of socio-technical systems
practice as integration of:
Chris McDermott, @chrisvmcd on why we like Social Practice Theory
- understand Work
- Why | How | What
- how small Doings integrate together into larger complex Doings
- Social, how we do things together, and Individual, how you and I do things
- how all this information helps to make sense of the context
visualisation of capabilities as an
integration of practices
that informs us about how we improve
this is a Wardley Mapping
Left: visibility, at the top the need we want to achieve
Bottom: how good are we - Concept, Novel, Good, Best
it talks about movement
going to the right: you want to develop, amplify, scale
going to the left: something is not right, you need to reconfigure (do things again manual, instead of using a tool)
Purpose: why are you doing the map, who are the person that actually care about the map, actually explain what the need is
Map: describe all the things you do, all the practices
the core value of a Wardley Map
you get more value from the thing when you go from left to right
proto-practice: at the beginning
practice: all the way to the right
ex-practice: is off the map
unconscious competence: is off the map, if you don't have sense of the value, you would not even enter the map, you would not know how to improve the competence
you need to be conscious competence
Wardley has some labels that we used: Concept, Novel, Good, Best
this is Work in Process: maybe some day we will come up with better labels
comes from Observability: what can you observe?
Concept: at the conscious stage: you are aware, you know there is such a thing as a practice or there should be a practice for a particular problem, but you are not really getting any value out of it, you are experimenting things, you want to get used to it
Emerging: start using it you get benefit from it, the organisation can see that you have improved, the value and the benefits are recognised, there is no consistency, that is when you get Good
Good: consistency, now you do some things repeatedly, they work reliably, they give you the value, you still see a lot of friction that is why you are not Best yet, but also your organisation gets interested in this, show us what you are doing, should other people maybe start doing this, now it gets traction, it becomes a thing in the organisation
Best: when the other teams come to ask: please show us, we want to learn from you, we have these problems, can we please discuss these with you, the practice itself is consist, it has no friction, in a retro it never comes up as a thing you need to talk about
The idea is you start with these generic questions.
Over time, add/replace these generic questions by practice specific questions appropriate to your context
As you start using the generic questions, you should be able to say over time: with our teams, in our context, if you still have these problems, you are in Emergent, if you have these kind of problems, you are still in Good or if we see all of these things, then you are in Best.
It is important that you contextualise your X-axis and how you position this in your context. Not a Maturity Model. This is still context-free but it forces you to observe. And so it helps you to contextualise.
@ComSaraDufour: I loved the Practice Cards, and the idea of mapping them. Here, we can visualize the complexity of an apparently trivial practice, such as ironing a shirt. https://twitter.com/ComSaraDufour/status/1324427529139224577?s=20
@ComSaraDufour: I'm definitely trying this tool. #coaching #collaboration #alignment #flowcon https://twitter.com/ComSaraDufour/status/1324428188596973574?s=20
one card per practice:
and then you can put them on a map
Competences are often a bit tricky. What good competences look like?
Capture stories about practices. How you talk about practices?
=> Telling transition stories using maps
Maturity Mapping can also be applied to an individual in a team.
X-axis is evaluated against the team: Best is you are the best in the team, Concept you just know about it but you don't have expertise about it
=> you can develop personal development maps and you can discuss how this would fit in the bigger picture of the team
Maturity Mapping for skills liquidity capture of practices inside a team: for every individual put dots where you have expertise
=> allows to decide on how to best split a team in order to grow
When we design things. Don't design a future structure!
Look at what you're doing, which of these things that you are doing you want more of (function) what it does (capability) and try to figure out how you get more of that, more people doing it.
How would you embed this? Look at the map. How do these things fit in the wider organisation?
eg You want to have Continuous Delivery. Because you want to release more quickly. But your product function can't keep up with telling you the good things to build. You are wasting your time improving your Continuous Delivery further. A practice map will start show the connection between practices: I can't move this one to the right if the other one is still at the far left. I would not get any benefit. That's a sign for friction.
This allows you to start focussing on function and let structure emerge.
This is how nature works. Nature never designs structure. Structure is the outcome of evolution.
If you do moves on the practice map, you can use the 4 corners of contextualisation from Cynefin to inform how to do the move.
things are clear, everybody knows how to do it
complicated: experts know how to deal with it, you want to learn it, but you know who knows it.
complex: but a lot of you need to know in an organisation is actually new learning, we need to discover things, they might work elsewhere but the way they work elsewhere does not really translate here, that also is discovering new ways of doing => safe to fail parallel experiments
=> try to find the smallest intervention that could possibly give you benefit
=> try to articulate your transition as the smallest thing that could possibly work
How well can we perform this practice in our current context
Difference between Maturity Maps and Wardley Map
Wardley Map -> articulate your technology, product or service strategy
Maturity Map -> how will you execute it, do we have the right competences, the right skills, are we set up for this or vice versa what strategy options do we have, where are our strengths, how can we leverage our strength, which practices do we have to improve to improve our strength
Situational awareness of what you do and need to do
Where Wardley is more: where are you in terms of what you have and what you want
The future is not created, it is co-created
-- Nilofer Merchant 2009
The future is not created by a single person.
Future emerges from the interactions, from us trying to improve, to do things better.