Month: December 2012

Invention (Innovation) Not Strategy Creates Renaissance – Moving from Darwinian Adaptive to Generative Transformation

Invention (Innovation), Not Strategy Creates Renaissance. Most Darwinian concepts does not engender to developing creativity, and so to innovation. Instead it is about strategy for developing dominant position, this is not a sustainable model as history has shown. Instead, Enterprise Architects should begin reinforcing energy into lost opportunities in innovation and explore to create newer territories.

In the recent times, we saw the fall of Michael Porter’s ideas around corporate Darwinism. His company during the past two decades influenced the CEO’s with trickle down ideas and C level were enamoured by it, as it helped them device system giving them enormous clout. Suddenly the landscape has changed, the market response has been very different, from what the CEO’s sought. This is because Darwinian theory does not sustain. Inorganic decisions are not working. From recent HP’s fiasco (Autonomy acquisition), it is much evident how corporates are massively faltering. Decade back, Carly Fiorina then HP’s CEO sought EA framework based on Darwinian adaptive principles as a way to achieve business enablement. It has not worked. It is now exactly a decade since she introduced. Theories developed on Darwinian dominance has been flawed and it is now much evident. Porter’s company recently declared bankruptcy. Those ideas are history.

What killed Michael Porter’s Monitor Group

Check out interview with Carly’s Darwin EA framework to create adaptive capabilities.

Based on flawed ideas, corporates employed resources targeting to achieve market dominating capabilities. Against this landscape, IT unfortunately has been delivering diminishing return. To overcome the value struggle that IT could offer, various schemes in the industry has been probed. Especially, TOGAF itself has been maturing to develop dialogue for IT from being across LOB service provider, cost to profit center, to more ambitious as business enabler. The argument of Nicholas Carr’s IT Does Not Matter when seemed almost true, ideas around creating EA driven strategic operating model emerged. Jeanne Ross book on EA as Strategy – Achieve Competitive Advantage

These ideas are getting outmoded. The essence of creating sustainable business model is to keep throttle on innovation. Challenges still remain to solve or probably discover newer opportunities by innovation that creates generative system, which intrinsically allows for emergence.

Check out Jeanne Ross discussion on EA – IT in context of business transformation

MIT’s Ross on How Enterprise Architecture and IT More Than Ever Lead to Business Transformation

In my mind, even Jeanne dwells on conventional wisdom. She is not discovering newer landscape. She discuses to improve the leverage to achieve strategy for transformation. The question is why/ which / what / where/ when strategy and how transformation and finally what outcome??

Dealing with thoughts like these, EA is not a domain of IT alone. EA is an integrative subject that brings together several disciplines to solve both macro systemic and micro functional concerns. EA can be used to reimagine and repurpose architectures including those realized by IT.

Another concern that EA must tackle in its value proposition is the value it can help achieve at system level. The GDP related to digitization has been in the increase. However, what is not evident is the “productive” impact of the digitized portion of the GDP. Meaning what activities in the digitized world are essential to mankind’s survival, are productive GDP. Innovations are required in increasing the potential of the productive GDP driven by IT. This argument is crucial.

In my view, EA can offer a great leverage to reimagine future, besides achieving leverage in the existing operating model. In pursuit of such mission, EA does not belong to “IT” alone. What we need is generative and not mere adaptive transformation efforts. It is in generative system, where integrative disciplines will work to allow for tacit knowledge creation. It is this tacit knowledge that will trigger emergence of newer opportunities, creating emergent architecture.


What came first Design (Gene – DNA – Chromosomes) or Building Material (Protein) :- Architecture Paradox

Below is the Reply to a Question what came first DNA or Protein? One seem not to exist without the other. This a paradox.

System is combination of questions (problem domain) and answers (solution domain) – why, how, what, when, where. Also, it alludes to transformation – lets say driven by entropy. So, system dynamics.

A. DNA precedes Protein – possible

B. Relation between Gene, DNA, Chromosome and what it does to Protein

C. Paradox of DNA vs Protein – leads into Intelligent Design Discussion

D. Method to bring our mind to study them and arrive at more hypothesis, postulates or just appreciate the grandeur we live in.

A. Paper presented at NIH – discusses the possibility of DNA preceding protein.

DNA before proteins? Recent discoveries in nucleic acid catalysis strengthen the case.

B. Think Architecture Talk Language. I think we are struggling to represent complex concept structurally – typical architecture problem discussed with constraints of linearity in language.

a. Instruction Set
Chromosome is a molecule containing DNA cell
DNA cell is made up of gene segment
gene has basic unit code or stroke on piano
chromosome describes the script or note on piano = set of strokes
{Chromosome [(DNA(GENE)]} = information = coded tune for set of functions to emerge
I think chromosomes also knows how to orchestrate the choreography that finally realizes the living organism.

b. Construction Material
Protein is the building block. It gets instruction from set of chromosomes and it builds creating complex forms from simple building blocks. Complex forms are uniquely created with different functional capability.

More complex living organism, more complex sets of chromosomes. Simpler organisms have smaller number of sets of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs, that is 46 chromosomes

DNA, Chromosomes and Gene

Discussion on DNA – Protein

C. Paradox of DNA vs Protein leading into discussion about Intelligent Design discussed below

D. My own spin – studying Implicate Order and System Dynamics; proposed by David Bohm

Design (DNA) was created either by a designer or by an “emergence process – emergent architecture”. Also, it could be affected by both causality or acausality.

Chromosomes (DNA) is the implicate order – by generative process it creates the explicate order (everything external) in rich diversity. It is such an architecture, where the ontology of which has containment of the process of creation (notes, tunes, choreography and orchestration)

Complex subjects or ideas needs to be investigated employing integrative tools. To understand the how vs what paradox, we have applied ideas from what we have understood of the world from following disciplines – biology, chemistry, physics and economics + maths. It is the fight for resource (economics), which brings in modes of life form emergence from its simpler forms to complex forms. The fight for resource is both inter and intra. Fiscal Cliff is the fight amongst ourselves. Rich and Poor’ who should own the resource and who should benefit. It is fight for control and eventually our life.

Implicate order, studied within the notion of system driven by entropy discusses energy and need for achieving stability via entropic journey creating order and chaos. This creates various social structures with varying stresses. Order and Chaos are English words to describe the state of entropy as it dynamically exists in a continuum – System Dynamics. This is very well discussed in the video below.

Very beautiful video to see if a different perspective on thermodynamics helps our understanding of complexity and even more of life itself.

password “montana”

The unique form that living organism takes; probably could be described combining macro & micro physics (quantum dynamics) and chemistry. Applying Pauli’s Exclusion Principle – different energy pattern affect composition, so we have a periodic table.