In Absprache mit meinem Verlag stelle ich mein Buch als pdf frei zur Verfügung. Bitte senden Sie bei Interesse eine E-Mail mit Ihrem vollständigen Namen an publications (at) generate-value [dot] com – Sie erhalten dann baldmöglichst den Download-Link. Viel Spass beim Lesen.

Mehr Infos zu den Inhalten erhalten Sie unter Infos zum Buch: BPM im Enterprise 2.0 unter Dynamik (de).

Below are some words concerning the agile management in the “sweet spot” between chaos and order (see [Domb11]) to gain the maximal flexibility coupled to sufficient stability.

A few days ago I stumbled upon an ARIS Expert Paper of IDS Scheer (now Software AG) written by Scheer, with the title “Jazz-Improvisation und Management” (see [Sche07]), that still was under the pile of references that I used for writing my book… In his Expert Paper, Scheer compares jazz compositions with the management of companies. Although the text is a few years old, I like this ‘metapher’, because it reminds me of enterprise collaboration between experts with different key competencies in Enterprise 2.0.

Scheer describes some similarities between jazz compositions and management. Below the core statements are summarized analogously (I’ll try to give a gist of the text, the original expert paper is in German language):

• Companies have to deal with a kind of ad-hoc, low structured processes – Scheer calls them “emergent processes” – that are unable to be scheduled upfront. Particularly this type of processes is of special relevance to gather a competitive advantage in turbulent environments.
• Although improvisation is associated with prejudices like slowing efficiency, Scheer (btw – he’s not alone in thinking this) sees improvisation as the key to address enterprise problems in turbulent environments and to handle emergent processes.
• Another key issue is how experts with different key competencies can be connected in order to be able to share their core competencies and to solve business critical problems – or figuratively – to “play” together in a highly connected manner to create a well-composited “jazz composition”.

All these facts are “not really” new. In professional literature, there are some similar approaches (see e.g. [Tome02]) and other comparable management concepts that go into the same direction (e.g. see [Clipp99], [Appe10]). But Scheer brings a number of ideas of agile management to the point. He sketches a recipe for a more agile management in a real, turbulent enterprise environment and reflects his ideas by using the jazz picture.

I describe some of these management ideas in my book, for details please have a look into it (see [Domb11]). As Enterprise 2.0 – services are emerging, agile and ad-hoc management with unstructured and emergent processes will become more and more relevant in future. Articles like the one of Scheer will gain more importance again.
But, get your own picture of it. You can download the IDS Scheer expert paper from Scherr (see [Sche07]) or have a look at the relevant passages of my book (see [Domb11]). Do not hesitate to contact me or to write me a comment…

Reference list:

• [Appe10] APPELO, Jurgen: “Management 3.0: Leading Agile Developers, Developing Agile Leaders.”
  Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley Longman, 2010
• [Clipp99] CLIPPINGER, John H., III: „Order from the Bottom Up – Complex Adaptive Systems and Their Management.“ In: CLIPPINGER, John H., III (Hrsg.): The Biology of Business – Decoding The Natural Laws of Enterprise.
  San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999, S. 1-30
• [Domb11] DOMBROWSKI, Boris: “Potenziale und Herausforderungen des Geschäftsprozessmanagements im Enterprise 2.0 unter der Berücksichtigung der Dynamik unternehmerischer Systeme.”
  Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2011
• [Sche07] SCHEER, August-W.: „Jazz-Improvisation und Management.“ ARIS Expert Paper. URL: http://www.ids-scheer.de/set/6473/ARIS_-_Scheer_-_Jazz-Improvisation_-_AEP_de.pdf, last verified May 15, 2011.
  Saarbrücken: IDS Scheer AG, 2007
• [Tome02] TOMENENDAL, Matthias: „Virtuelle Organisation am Rande des Chaos – Eine complex-dynamische Modellierung organisatorischer Virtualität.“ Zugleich Dissertation an der Universität des Saarlandes.
  München, Mering: Rainer Hampp, 2002

As I am about to finish my book, I would like to point out a specific aspect of it, „The Strength of Weak Ties“ from Granovetter…

On the basis of a non-representative social networks-study (N=296) of Milgram in 1967 (“The small world problem”, see [Milg67, pp. 61 et seq.]), Milgram and Travers claimed that any two persons are linked to one another through a chain with “somewhat greater than five” (see [TrMi69, pp. 441 et seq.]). The results of this study, often cited and known as “6 degrees of separation”, have been confirmed several times. For example, in 2007 it was figured out in another study, that the average path length in messenger networks is 6.6 (see [LeHo07, p. 23]).

But how can we use our ties in volatile environment with increasingly less structured “problem solving processes” in an effective way? Granovetter points out that in addition to close ties, loose connections are of relevance. Granovetter has analyzed this in “The Strength of Weak Ties (SWT)” in 1973 (see [Gran73, pp. 1360 et seq.]). Loose connections are important: they serve as “good bridges” (see above) between established networks to establish contact. Such “good bridges” are of particular value for the management of internal or cross-company processes in case specific expertise or the inclusion of different actors is required to solve problems. In other words, “network-short cuts” are needed to detect and aggregate the required process knowledge.

In this context, we come to Enterprise 2.0 and in particular to the importance of social networks in enterprises. Through the usage of loose ties, problem-relevant expertise can be more easily and quickly detected and relevant knowledge is more transparent. As a result, problem solving can be facilitated and knowledge-intensive, dynamic processes can be speeded up. Thus, the effective usage of loose ties and “good bridges” respectively can also be key to set a company apart from its competitors.

Andrew McAfee, the “father” of the term “Enterprise 2.0”, also often refers to Granovetter, for example in his book “Enterprise 2.0 – New collaborative tools for your organization’s toughest challenges”.

“A tidy summary of SWT’s conclusion is that strong ties are unlikely to bridges between networks, while weak ties are good bridges. Bridges help solve problems, gather information, and import unfamiliar ideas. They enable work to be accomplished more quickly and more effectively. The ideal network for a knowledge worker probably consists of a core of strong ties and a large periphery of weak ones.” [McAf09, pp. 83 et seq.]

For additional information, see the forthcoming book “Potenziale und Herausforderungen des Geschäftsprozessmanagements im Enterprise 2.0 unter Berücksichtigung der Dynamik unternehmerischer Systeme” (see [Domb11]) and the research sources in the reference list – or just come up to me.

Reference list:

• [Domb11] Dombrowski, Boris – Forthcoming Book: “Potenziale und Herausforderungen des Geschäftsprozessmanagements im Enterprise 2.0 unter der Berücksichtigung der Dynamik unternehmerischer Systeme.”
  Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2011
• [Gran73] Granovetter, Mark: „The strength of Weak Ties.” In: American Journal of Sociology, Volume 78, Issue 6.
  Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 1360-1380
• [LeHo07] Leskovec, Jure; Horvitz, Eric: „Planetary-Scale Views on an Instant-Messaging Network.” – Microsoft Research Technical Report, MSR-TR-2006-186, URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0939, last verified on February 28, 2011.
  Redmond WA: Microsoft Corp., 2007
• [McAf09] McAfee, Andrew P.: „Enterprise 2.0 – New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges.“
  Boston MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2009
• [Milg67] Milgram, Stanley: „The small world problem.” In: Psychology Today 1 (May) / 1967.
  New York, NY: Psychology Today, 1967, pp. 61-67
• [TrMi69] Travers, Jeffrey; Milgram, Stanley: „An experimental study of the small world problem.” In: Sociometry, Issue 32(4), URL: www.stanford.edu/class/cs224w/readings/travers69smallworld.pdf, last verified on March 1, 2011.
  Washington DC: American Sociological Association, 1969, pp. 425-443