Business Culture: Part 6, An Abstract Model of Culture

This is the sixth and last part in a series of blog posts on Business Culture.  This part incorporates the concepts discussed in earlier parts to define concepts and relationships used to model a culture or a cultural architecture.

In order to clarify the meanings of the concepts, I will present a series of conceptual model segments that build to an overall business culture conceptual model. I offer this model, not as a final solution, but as a useful basis for understanding culture and for further discussion.  This model should be helpful for considering approaches to development, adaptation or alignment of culture with business goals. It is not an architecture of culture, but rather it defines the elements that might be composed into patterns that represent a particular cultural architecture or composed to represent a business culture with or without awareness of architecture.

Figure 1, Collaboration activities

Figure 1, shows the basic elements of collaboration.  Participants fill roles to perform activities.  The participants provide capabilities that enable performance of the activities.  A capability is the ability to perform a particular kind of work that may include knowledge, skills, tools and resources.  A role may be associated with multiple activities, and each activity may require that the same participant have different capabilities.

Figure 2, Practices and related collaborations

Figure 2 extends the basic elements to identify business practices and recognize relationships with other collaborations.  Business practices are commonly occurring patterns of activities and participant roles.  These patterns enable the collaboration to quickly respond to a situation without a lot of analysis and discussion because they do what has worked before.  Where the situation is a bit different, a business practice may be used as the basis for tailoring the activities to the new situation.  Business practices may not be documented but are understood by the participants.  As circumstances change, old practices may be adapted or abandoned.  Business practices are “the way we do things.”

A role and thus the activities it performs in a collaboration may be filled by another collaboration.  This occurs when the primary collaboration requires skills or resources that it does not have, or the engaged collaboration manages shared resources for economies of scale.  Delegation to such a collaboration occurs in each activity of the same role.  Each activity defines the specific objectives/requirements to be achieved by the engaged collaboration.

Participants in the primary collaboration may also participate in other collaborations.  An engineer may participate in a design review or a professional society.  The interests of participants may be affected by values of other collaborations such as technical guidelines, ethical standards or ideals.  This can influence the participant’s performance in the primary collaboration.   

Figure 3, Participant Motivation

Figure 3 extends the model to consider motivation.  Participant interests are aspirations and concerns that may inspire the participant to take (or oppose) some action.  Participants have interests that provide motivation to engage in collaboration activities.  In order to engage a participant, some of the participant interests must align with goals, objectives or values of the collaboration.  In addition, the relevant interests of different participants must not be in conflict. 

For example, if representatives of multiple software companies come together to develop an industry standard, each of them has an interest in minimizing the adverse impact of the standard on their product(s).  The collaboration will only be successful if either they can reconcile their different interests in a consensus solution, or they individually recognize that they must participate to mitigate and plan for the consequences to their products in order to compete in an emerging market. 

The synergy of a collaboration may also be affected by the similarity of interests of individuals that go beyond their interests in the goals and incentives of the collaboration, and extend their relationships to a social context—personal relationships.  The social context may improve cooperation, but it may also increase resistance to change.  This reconciliation of interests is part of the formation and evolution of culture.

If a role is filled by another collaboration, the interests of that collaboration are reflected in its own goals and objectives (discussed later). 

Participants  may also have interests that are not relevant, or interests that conflict with the collaboration goals or activities.  A collaboration may include incentives that leverage relevant participant interests to enhance motivation.  Typically, the primary business incentive is financial compensation.  Without incentives, the participant may not be motivated to contribute, although some interests may be strong enough to provide motivation without incentives.

Motivation is a net effect of multiple interests and incentives. Incentives can offset the effects of conflicting interests.  For example, a participant may have an interest in family activities, but will forego some family activities if paid overtime or offered a bonus. 

Figure 4, Work products and values

Figure 4 extends the model with work products and values.  Some work products may be external inputs to the collaboration.  Many of the work products may be used internal to the collaboration as inputs to other activities.  Some of the work products become output products of the collaboration.

Values are properties of work products that affect the desirability of the work product or the activitiy that produces it.  The cost, timeliness and quality of a work product are included as values.  Values may also be negative, depending on the recipient’s perspective.  So the creation of pollution or toxic waste may be of concern to participants as well as to others outside the collaboration.  External incentives, such as laws and regulations, may be created to mitigate the environmental impact.  The collaboration may also have social or economic impacts that are of interest to participants and affect their motivation.  In some collaborations, these are the primary sources of motivation.

Consequently, values reinforce some motivations, and fulfill the intent of some incentives.  A value achieved may fulfill an incentive to become the basis for some benefit such as a bonus or recognition of achievement.  Of course some values may have negative effects on motivation and incentives.

Figure 5, Goals and Objectives

Figure 5 Adds Collaboration goals and objectives.  Goals are general aspirations for the effects of the collaboration over time.  Objectives are specific, measurable accomplishments.  Goals are the basis for the participants to form or join the collaboration.  Objectives are specific to particular undertakings and may be different for different undertakings, but not inconsistent with support for the goals.  Some objectives are internal to adapt or improve the collaboration capabilities.

For example, if the collaboration provides services, the goals would characterize the general purpose and capabilities of the collaboration.  Objectives would define the results to be provided in response to a particular service request.  Consequently, the objectives must be satisfied by values achieved in response to that particular service request.

Incentives are designed to promote the goals and objectives of the collaboration.  Consequently, some incentives may be designed for long-term effects, and others may be designed to affect more specific results of a series of actions by the collaboration.

Relationship to VDML

This culture model aligns with some elements of VDML (Value Delivery Modeling Language).   VDML is a modeling language (a metamodel) under development at OMG for representation of enterprise architecture and business design.  See Outside-In Business Architecture with VDML and earlier posts about VDML on this blog.  The core structure of a VDML model is a network of collaborations, roles and capabilities that contribute to the success of an enterprise.  The modeling elements include collaborations, roles, activities, capabilities, methods, deliverables, flows, values and resources to specify and support analysis of the operation of an enterprise.  Some of these concepts correspond to concepts in the culture model discussed above.  Concepts of the culture model could extend the VDML metamodel to represent the impact of culture and incentives, as well as personal interests, on the operation of an enterprise. 

A final version of the VDML specification is expected to be submitted to the OMG in November, 2012.

Summary

The culture model, above, aligns with the collaborations, the roles, the capabilities, the activities and the value delivery of VDML, including the intangibles of VNA (Value Network Analysis).  It adds objectives, individual interests, incentives and motivation that affect how well and efficiently the work gets done, as well as the feedback that leads to further refinement.  Thus we can see how culture fits into a business model and how it affects the delivery of value.

This model does not define a cultural architecture, nor does VDML define a business architecture, but the elements provide the basis for describing architectures.  An architecture can be expressed as particular patterns of elements and relationships between elements.  By analogy, houses are built, using generally available construction components.  Patterns of configuration and particular features of those elements express an architecture.

While the foregoing discussions and the culture model described above still require more work, I hope they can provide a basis for a better understanding of culture, additional discussion and development of a computer-based, culture modeling capability.

Business Culture: Part 3, Evolution of Culture

This is the third part in a series of six blog posts on Business Culture.  Cultures are rarely designed, but emerge from sustained human relationships.  This part explores the evolution of culture as a product of collaboration with flexible roles and shared goals.  VDML (value Delivery Modeling Language) under development at OMG, provides for modeling the formal context and informal collaborations of an enterprise, but does not include culture that drives participation and supports agility.

When people come together to collaborate, they have a shared purpose, but they do not have a shared culture that is aligned with that shared purpose.  They have personal interests, beliefs, capabilities and experiences along with personal relationships from other cultures and activities in their lives.  The personal interests of participants must be compatible with respect to the goals, objectives and methods of the collaboration, and they will be more comfortable with other participants who have similar interests outside those that are pertinent to the collaboration. 

Note that under my definition of collaboration, I include citizens of a country, professional associations and members of a religion as well as corporations, departments, committees, task forces and personal relationships.  Any collaboration can develop a culture.

If given the opportunity, individuals that join a collaboration with a compatible culture will look for ways they can contribute to the shared purpose in a way that is consistent with their personal interests and beliefs, and where they can best use their capabilities, experiences and personal relationships.  They will evolve their individual roles by working with others and developing consensus on how they and others communicate and contribute.  Their roles will be influenced by successes of the group, reinforcement they receive for their individual contributions, and satisfaction of their personal interests.

Patterns of activities and interactions—business practices—will emerge to address recurring undertakings.  These will become accepted practices of the culture.  Successes will shape the related patterns of work and individual contributions, but these patterns are not cast in stone—they may not be documented.   The roles defined by these practices tend to reflect the individual characteristics of the members who were part of the original collaboration.  Thus when membership changes, the roles and associated practices may need to be adapted, or else the new members may not fit in, and the contributions of departing members may be lost.  The participant interests, beliefs, experiences, capabilities and relationships are less likely to change than the roles and practices.

As collaboration continues, the group will encounter different situations and adapt to improve their effectiveness.  This will drive adaptations of roles, activities and contributions, but it will also influence interests, beliefs and individual commitment.  Some members may increase their commitment and loyalty while others may lose interest and become less committed or leave.  The departure of less committed individuals strengthens the culture.  The resulting synergy is the real strength of culture. 

Culture supports and adopts certain business practices but it provides a complementary source of resilience and flexibility that transcends any given practice. A business practice can be formalized as a business process, but the rigidity of a business process may undermine the ability of the group to respond to exceptions or changes of participants.  A formal business process may also limit the roles and expectations of participants to the lowest common denominator—failing to utilize the unique talents and interests of individuals.

For example, a production line engages a number of individuals in well-defined roles.  Their behavior and relationships are tightly prescribed.  Culture has little effect on what work is done and how it is done.  However, the culture of the production worker community may affect absenteeism, grievances, responses to changes in production rates, effort to reduce defects or support for operational improvements.  The production workers have shared interests and expectations and probably have practices for dealing with these issues.  Culture clearly can be a blessing or a curse.

As another example, information systems development requires much more judgment, individual initiative and collaboration.  An application development team may be assembled for a particular project with little common experience.  The team will go through a period of adjustment for getting to know each other and their respective roles and capabilities.  A team that works together harmoniously for an extended period of time will evolve its own culture that will enable its members to organize a response to a problem or new situation with minimal discussion.  Each of them knows what to expect from the others—including their strengths and weaknesses. They can be highly efficient and fulfilled by their work.  The experienced team may be highly effective in dealing with a variety of circumstances and adapting to new challenges.  They will develop business practices that are more like Lego blocks, to be assembled in different patterns to address particular circumstances.

If directed to use a prescribed methodology, an established team could become less effective than a newly formed one.  They will be disoriented by a methodology if it appears to conflict with their cultural roles, their relationships with others, their personal interests, their successful past experiences or their “Lego blocks.” 

On the surface, culture for a particular collaboration may be evidenced by accepted business practices, or “the way we do things,” but culture is much more than a collection of practices.  Culture includes “who we are, what we do, and why we do it,” both individually and collectively.