Dick (Copeland),
I haven't addressed the issue of "mapping complex organizations
organically/dynamically rather than linearly" anywhere nearly as seriously
as you are attempting to do. But here is a thing or two that might send
you in worthwhile directions.
1. In order to "map" an organization one must, at some early point,
determine its boundary. That is, what is to go "inside" and what
"outside" the organization. While I understand, philosophically, the
modern desire to "include" more and more "stakeholders" in one's picture,
from a practical perspective it is still important to distinguish what's
"inside" from what is "outside."
By my definition, those for whom the organization's output is primarily
intended (those being "served" by the organization -- also called
"customers" in a generalized sense) are "outside." Also outside are those
who provide services to us that enable us to serve others -- also called
"suppliers."
Thus, I often begin by drawing the boundary between the organization and
the rest of the world by mapping all of the kinds of interactions that
exist between those being served and those serving them. Jan Carlzon
called these interactions "Moments of Truth." I like to map the most
important Moments of Truth and enumerate who is being served and who is
serving at those instants and picture the context in which the service is
being provided. I can then do a "connect-the-dots" by drawing a line
through all of these Moments of Truth -- and this line is the boundary of
the organization.
Does that make any sense?
2. I recognize that modern organizations are doing certain things that
blur the boundary, but I handle them as exceptions to the general boundary
line. For example, "partnering" with customers by providing them direct
computer access to your warehouse (for expediting orders), or with
suppliers to tie them into your processes so they can anticipate your
needs, blurs the inside/outside distinction somewhat. Outsiders are given
access to act a bit like insiders. But I can still maintain a boundary
there -- even though it becomes a bit more permeable.
3. Inside the boundary it is interesting to take the viewpoint (idealized
though it may be) that there are only "two kinds of people" (Jan Carlzon
again): (1) those who (directly) serve the customer, and (2) everybody
else. I draw an internal boundary line by connecting-the-dots between
those situations (internal Moments of Truth) where someone is providing
something to someone else so that they may serve the customer. Doing so
creates what some of my clients have called the "Amoeba Model" of an
organization -- with, as yet, only a single internal membrane.
4. By tracing the patterns of service provided and service received (all
aimed, eventually, at some Moment of Truth on the external boundary of the
organization), one can form other connect-the-dots membranes within the
organization. Because these boundaries represent where services
(information, power/authority, control, materials, etc.) FLOW from one
person or system to another, this map can be a kind of dynamic picture of
the organization.
However, I must say that as useful as the Amoeba Model may be for getting
people to stop thinking in old paradigms, it is not the most useful
dynamic model of an organization. For that I believe one must turn to a
system dynamics stock-and-flow diagram of the essential organizational
processes.
John W. Gunkler
jgunkler@sprintmail.com
--"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>