A system has intrinsic attributes and always exists whether or not its participants know it.
But knowledge is power, and you can change a system if you know how it works. You can identify system components by asking these questions:
- Who does the system involve?
- What are the desired outcomes?
- Where and when do events occur?
- Why are some outcomes desired over others?
- How do people achieve the outcomes?
🪙 This can be summed up by what I call the five P's: people, policies, procedures, platforms, and philosophy.
"Remember that people break down, too, not just machinery."
- Gregory Benford
People are the most critical component of any system because people have rights. Ultimately, nothing happens without them.
It's people who decide what means justify which ends.
There are two types of people in every system: those who have power and those who don't. It's important for those with power to consider the effect their decisions have on those who don't. It's essential to have a diversity of people in a system to round out the considerations of actors.
🤕 Even if their intent isn't malicious, a homogenous power group is more likely to act in a way that causes unintentional harm.
Politik ist die Kunst des Möglichen, des Erreichbaren – die Kunst des Nächstbesten
"Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best" - Otto von Bismarck
Policy answers the question: What are we trying to achieve?
These are the ends. The system evolves or dies on its fulfillment. On death, it is always replaced by another system.
🧐 Based on the nascent philosophy, this can either be a good thing... or a very bad thing.
When adhered to, policies change human behavior in ways expected and not. It's impossible to know what you don't know, so it's essential to monitor the impact of policies to see if the unintended consequences can be lived with.
Policies can be enforced by people or platforms.
Это все бумаги и бланки, вся госслужба похожа на крепость из бумаг, бланков и волокиты.
"It's all papers and forms, the entire Civil Service is like a fortress made of papers, forms and red tape." - Alexander Ostrovsky
If policies are the ends, then procedures are the means.
There's no just-right level of detail for a process. Procedures come in all sorts of details, from very granular instruction manuals at enterprise corporations to, "Just ask Bill." Figuring out what works best depends on the complexity of other system components.
It's fascinating that procedures enshrine policy in the absence of their expression.
When policy is expressed, it's important to ensure that procedures can empirically fulfill the policies they're attached to. If you can't reconcile the two, it's time to axe the procedure or update the policy.
"In the world of technology, it's not about what you build; it's about what you enable."
- Eric Schmidt
Platforms are the locale where people affect change. Right-fitting platforms can make or break a system.
You want to find a collection of platforms that can support and enforce policies and procedures in a way that is easy for people to use. Don't design a system around platforms.
A few pitfalls can happen when a platform doesn't fit just so.
When a policy isn't enforced by the platform, it likely won't be fulfilled if the team culture or an officer does not enforce it otherwise.
Given that people enforce the policy, but the platform can't enforce it, people will find a (usually unsanctioned) platform that can.
It's important to make the distinction that unsanctioned isn't categorically undesired. A valid strategy to find a platform is to let people find some that work, and then adopt the best after some time. The tradeoff with this is that you can fracture the system, and it can be challenging to unify people on a single platform later on without pushback.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."
- Abraham Maslow
You'll typically see this when you have a platform that's too big for the policies it fulfills. It's tempting to do this when power groups purchase licenses for expensive platforms and must use every feature they offer, even if they're subpar to cheaper and better-tailored tools.
If the platform is hostile to the user and usage is strictly enforced, you'll usually wind up with frustrated people. If it's hostile and usage isn't enforced, you'll run into fracturing.
You can smell this when express policies mention specific platforms. Sound policies should be platform-agnostic.
🇨🇭 When you have a Swiss Army knife of platforms, your fulfilled policies might look like Swiss cheese.
Opposed to Maslow's Hammer, too many platforms will likely lead to abandoning some of them because people will have too many context switches to fulfill the policy. When humans start thrashing--like computers--they'll abandon some process to unblock their threads.
何事にもトレードオフがあります。 理想的な結果などありません。
"Everything has its trade-offs; there's no such thing as an ideal outcome." - Haruki Murakami
Many are familiar with the iron triangle: You can have it cheap, fast, or good. Pick any two. This is an example of a non-orthogonal relationship, and everything comes at the cost of something else.
So, when deciding what policies to enforce, making the "right choice" comes down to what you want to optimize for, and what you're willing to part with to get it.
When it's difficult to make a decision, ponder what you really value, and the answer should come in short order.