Generative Transformation :- System is the Method

Simple View – Cognition

Multi-Lateral View – Cognition

System is the Method:-

Application :- Accountable Care Organization (ACO) – Complex Adaptive / Generative System – CAS Modeling

ACO objective is to achieve Systemic Healthcare Effectiveness through High Quality Rendering at Least Possible Cost, by co-ordinated efforts, while the engaging to achieve a share in  the savings. This is completely a different Systemic behavior, such as seen in swarming of birds.

Cognition – result of social observation
Where each social unit employs relevant symbols to capture the knowledge and each of these knowledge could be a different level of abstraction. Enterprise or System Architecture as a architecture is sum of several architecture abstractions (various social observations), where architecture is considered as set of decisions. Architecture is established to navigate the system complexities. System architecture is described by sets of abstractions and system occupies different orders to mitigate complexities owing to entropy in a very complex system (messy).

The above challenge of observation (discernment) by different stakeholders can be brought into an assimilation, realized from the integrative influence, where different disciplines intermingle and create an ecosystem influence. Such findings are being studied to understand the rich diversity that emerged during cambrian explosion. Example the the geological influence on the sedimentation and its impact on the living organisms developing functional capabilities deriving from certain calcite properties as in bones, teeth etc

Combining discussion around Context and Integrative Social Inquiry

A. Observer (unconditioned and defeating imposition) merely observing system and asking only one question “why” – in context

(incorporating Bohm – Science, Order and Creativity – significance of social abilities in languaging, sensing, cognition, assimilation etc playing a role in formation of situational experience / knowledge).

B. Within system complexity becoming more complex – higher order of complexity. System “constraints” are experienced.

Change which is a constant by itself, has ‘conflict’ traveling along side constantly. This is a paradoxical phenomenon. Conflict is because of the inherent ‘constraint’ that is pushing the system to seek transformation. The constraint emerges due to the conflict in the resources, for which all living organisms are fighting for its own sustenance. Seeking to resolve the conflict, in order to overcome the constraint, the system transforms and it undergoes entropy occupying different increasing orders, as it mitigates levels of complexities in a complex system.

C. Observer (set of observers) record the “order” of the system as a result of integrative influences. Observers have to acquire ways to achieve equilibrium in the new order of complexity, by overcoming system constraints.

D. There are two contending ways the society can respond to achieve harmony within complex system.

From – De’Arcy Wentworth Thomson (DWT) – Growth and Form

and Form and Transformation – Gerry Webster and Brian Goodwin; this book makes a case for generative development in biology

a. Natural Selection – Adaptive – Darwinian – Natural Selection – Survival Of Fittest – Dominance

b. Self Regulation – Generative – Innovation – Diversity – Cambrian Explosion – Unique Peculiarities – Co Existence – Emergent

Accountable Care Organization (ACO) driven by Affordability Care Act transforms the present Healthcare System that is adaptive (competitive) into generative (collaborative / co-ordinated) to achieve inclusive success and partake in the savings achieved. This is a generative systemic response contrasting the functional and competitive response of an adaptive system.

Natural selection seems to have resulted in functional transformation, where adaptive is the mode; does not account for diversity.

Self Regulation – seems like is a systemic outcome due to integrative influence (ecosystem), responding to the system constraints. Accounts for rich diversity.

The observer learns generatively from the system constraints for the type of reflexive response required (Refer – Generative Grammar – Immune System – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC554270/pdf/emboj00269-0006.pdf)

From the above observation, should the theory in self regulation seem more correct and that adheres to laws of nature, in which generative learning occurs. Then, the assertion is “method” is offered by the system itself. System’s ontology has an implicate knowledge of the processes required for transformation (David Bohm – Implicate Order)

For very large complex system,

System itself is the method – impetus is the “constraint”.

In the video below, the ability for the cells to creatively create the script is discussed which makes the case for self regulated and generative complex system in addition to complex adaptive system.


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.

Transformative Enterprise Architecture Framework – Connecting Strategy – Tactical (Operational) – Execution (Implementation)

Defeat Darwinian Enterprise Model that is Adaptive, rather strive to achieve Generative Model that is transformative creating rich diversity from minimal sets.

Modified View of Zachman Framework

Connect – Strategy – Architecture / Operations – Implementation

Ref:- FEAC Institute, FEA Guidance, INGINE INC, Srinidhi Boray

Ref:- FEAC Institute, FEA Guidance, INGINE INC, Srinidhi Boray

Transformation Operating Model

Ingine Inc – Operating Model – Based on FEAF – FEA – OMB – CPIC