Hard Systems vs. Soft Systems

If you live in a densely populated metropolis and have to deal with the traffic congestion in your everyday work and life, you would understand the inconvenience and the stress it brings.

Of course technology can help. For any given day and time, to get from A to B, you can always rely on GPS navigation device or App coupled with real-time live traffic data feed to find a fastest route. Although this does not solve the overall congestion problem, it helps individuals alleviate some of the trouble and stress. This is the concept of “Hard System” in which the problem is well defined (To determine a fastest route to get from A to B), sufficient data about the problem can be collected (Live traffic data are gathered), and scientific analysis or tools can be developed (Navigation software uses algorithm to find an optimal route).

But on the other hand, the problem of traffic congestion is not so easy to analyze and solve. The traffic patterns are very dynamic and unpredictable and are attributable to many interwoven factors. It involves many interconnecting highways, roads, and streets with traffics from many different sources such as schools, shopping trips, work, tourists. Weather plays a big part in influencing the traffic. On a foggy, rainy or snowy day, the traffic definitely gets worse. The day and time also matter a lot. Rush hours and weekdays see much heavier traffic. Furthermore, the overall economy, the immigration policy can also impact the traffic in a larger perspective and scale. There is no simple way to describe, model, analyze and solve the overall problem. That is why traffic congestion problems are forever unsolved and even get worse overtime in major cities. This is the concept of “Soft System” where the problem is complex and even ill-defined, facts are complicated and may not be evident or even agreed upon by all stakeholders, data are hard to collect let alone to analyze, and no optimal solutions exist or can be found.

In the late 1960's systems researchers in the University of Lancaster, UK led by Peter Checkland developed a new approach called Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). One unique characteristic of this approach is its emphasis on the understanding of the problem before even attempting to solve it.

Thinking is only the means, not the end. The end goal is to solve problem. But to solve problems, we have to understand them first. Thinking has to begin with seeing first.

Scrum Team and Self-organization (Part II)

Self-organization as a concept and a phenomenon has its root in systems theory.  It is a key characteristic of a complex adaptive system.

In a complex adaptive system,  a large number of diverse component parts interact and form a cohesive, robust, and resilient whole that exhibits emergent properties and achieves higher order in the absence of intervention or control from external forces.

Natural scientists first discovered these phenomena in natural systems such as a colony of ants, a forest, an ocean.

Engineers attempting to create better, larger, and more complicated systems such as a satellite, a power plant, or an enterprise information system apply the lessons and principles learned from the natural systems to improve the structure, design, and functions of the engineered systems.

Social scientists also find similar phenomena in social systems such as a community, a stock market, an economy and follow the suit by applying scientific knowledge and engineering techniques to effect social changes and to improve human conditions.

Self-organization enables a complex adaptive system to evolve from an initial chaotic, dysfunctional state into a cohesive, functional state. Self-organization also makes a complex adaptive system more robust and resilient to perturbations and uncertainties from its changing environments.

Now let's get back to our original question: Can a scrum team achieve self-organization? or phrase it in a different way: Is a scrum team a complex adaptive system?

A team consists of members who interact with each other to achieve a common goal. In traditional project management, a team is led by a team lead or a project manager and has well defined roles and responsibilities and top-down command and control hierarchy. Clearly, this type of team does not conform to the definition of a complex adaptive system which is a bottom-up grass-root organism without controlling forces imposed from the above.

A scrum team by definition consists of a scrum master which is a servant leader, a product owner which is the liaison of the end users and the champion for the end products, and a development team whose responsibility is to design, build and deliver the products to the end users in an incremental and iterative fashion.

The size of the development team within a scrum team can vary and even the guideline varies as well. Some say 5 plus or minus 2, others say 7 plus or minus 2. The rationale here is that the development team should be cross-functional in that all necessary disciplines are represented (for example, designers, developers, testers) but at the same time should have minimal number of people in order to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in communication and collaboration.

This reflects the emphasis of individuals and interactions from Agile Manifesto:

"Individuals and interactions over processes and tools"

This also reflects the emphasis of face to face conversation from agile principle #6:

"The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation."

This results in a overall scrum team size of less than a dozen people. In practice, the average scrum team size is even smaller. a complex adaptive system typically have large number of component parts. In another words, critical mass is needed to generate the dynamic behavior and to allow for the resilience and robustness to develop over time. Small group may be easier to communicate and collaborate, it does not generate the critical mass.

Another aspect of scrum is the emphasis of the role of the scrum master. A scrum master is the opposite of a traditional project manager or team lead in that it does not provide management function of command and control. In contrast, it is a servant leader and its primary goal is to protect the team from external influence, to facilitate communication and collaboration,  to remove impediments, and to enable the team to focus on the tasks and deliver the products. In one of the agile projects I have worked on, we call the scrum master "Super Mom" to reflect the similarity of the role and the same initials (SM). This makes the scrum team somewhat like a closed system instead of an open system which a complex adaptive system is meant to be.

From the above, we can clearly see that agile methodology and scrum process put some structure and constrain around the makeup and function of a scrum team in terms of size, roles and responsibilities, and interaction with external entities such as end users, subject matter experts, and stakeholders.

The structure and constraints find its roots in the traditional project management and make the scrum team less a complex adaptive system.

Additionally, several characteristics of a complex adaptive system are missing in a scrum team.

First, a complex adaptive system typically starts in a organic way in that component parts are not "hand picked" by an external force but rather are naturally formed together organically such as a flock of birds or a schools of fishes.

Secondly, component parts within a complex adaptive system are typically equal and diverse without supervisor-subordinate relationship and clear distinction of roles and responsibilities. They are sometimes called agents. The emergent properties of a complex adaptive system come from the free and seemingly random interactions among the parts and also with the environments.

Lastly, it takes time for a complex adaptive system to form organically and to transition from chaotic state to a harmonic state. The time boxing nature of scrum and the limited time duration of projects do not provide the time needed for a scrum team to adapt and grow naturally.

The conclusion is that a scrum team is not a complex adaptive system and cannot achieve self-organization naturally or organically.

This is why scrum teams struggle to self-organize.

Scrum Team and Self-organization (Part I)

Among many agile frameworks (Extreme Programming, Kan-ban, Lean, etc.), Scrum has become prevailing and dominant over the past decade. Many organizations from businesses to government agencies adopt scrum as they move away from traditional waterfall methodology to agile methodology. Some follow agile and scrum strictly and religiously, others mix it with waterfall in a hybrid attempting to reap the best of both worlds.

Ken Schwaber, one of the two co-developers of Scrum process, both among the 17 initial signatories of the Agile Manifesto, wrote in his book "Agile Project Management with Scrum":

"For Scrum to work, the team has to deeply and viscerally understand collective commitment and self-organization. Scrum’s theory, practices, and rules are easy to grasp intellectually. But until a group of individuals has made a collective commitment to deliver something tangible in a fixed amount of time, those individuals probably don’t get Scrum. When the team members stop acting as many and adopt and commit to a common purpose, the team becomes capable of self-organization and can quickly cut through complexity and produce actionable plans."

This echos one of the 12 principles behind the agile manifesto:

"The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams."

The key phrase here is "self-organization" as a noun or "self-organizing" as an adjective.

Even though many agile and Scrum practitioners are preaching "self-organization" and trying hard to improve the effectiveness of the scrum teams through self-organization, the results are mixed.

From many years of practicing agile and Scrum in both small scale and large scale information technology projects ranging from private to public sector, I witnessed teams struggle to form cohesion and to deliver the outcomes promised by Scrum. Many of the projects are short-term ranging from a few months to a year or so, by the time the team has gone through the forming, storming, and norming phase and you start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, the project deadline is approaching which leaves little time for the performing phase. Much of the fruits from the initial team learning and development effort goes underutilized or even untapped.

This leads me to think about "self-organization": 

• What exactly is "self-organization"? 
• Can a scrum team achieve self-organization? 
• If yes, how can the team achieve it? 
• If not, what are the impediments? 
• Can the team achieve some level of self-organization under some circumstances?

More to come. Stay tuned.

(picture from https://www.mendix.com/blog/the-road-to-adopting-scrum-team-composition/)

To Solve Social Problems, We Need A Different STEM

The world has become more complex and less safe even though the last several decades have seen rapid advancement in science and technologies and increasing global economic development and growth. We are now facing challenging threats from global warming, terrorism, identity theft, cyber attacks, racial and religious conflicts, income inequality and social injustice, and many more.

What is puzzling is that as a human race we were able to send spaceships and astronauts to the outer space and we invented Internet, mobile devices, and social media networks to instantly connect people worldwide but we are still not able to resolve our differences and conflicts. More sadly, we still resort to bloody wars and sufferings of innocents for settling disputes and achieving peace the same way it has been for thousands of years.

Apparently, the STEM as it stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math alone does not solve human problems. The advancement in STEM does not directly lead to solutions of human problems and does not directly translate into the betterment of humanity. Even though people enjoy the benefits of what STEM brings to their daily lives, they continue to suffer from stress and anxiety from deteriorating environments, declining health, broken relationships, and physical and financial threats.

It may be time to look at alternatives. How about a different kind of STEM?

This one stands for Systems Thinking, Engagement, and Mindfulness.

First, system thinking is a paradigm shift. We can no longer look at problems in isolation. We are much more interconnected and interdependent at many aspects and at many levels now than ever. All problems are correlated and affect each other whether we see the relationships or not.  We don't just examine and solve one problem. We have to examine and solve all problems together in a systemic way.

In addition to treating problems as systems with a holistic and panoramic lenses, we must devise potential solutions with systemic approaches. There is no single approach or solution to problems. We have to evaluate multiple alternatives. Alternative approaches don't necessarily compete with each other but rather they complement each other. Science and technology are not the only solutions, they are part of the more comprehensive and overarching solutions. Science and technology alone are not able to solve social problems. Humanity has to be considered as a key component in the solutions.

It is actually part of the problem that we give the traditional STEM too much attention and value. Many young talents are attracted to the STEM fields with the promise of better career and higher income. Businesses touts countless innovations to gain competitive advantage and to maximize corporate profits and shareholder returns. The subjects of humanity such as arts, music, languages, cultures, religions, and history are neglected and undervalued. The imbalance between science and humanity limits our options and our abilities to solve multi-faceted social problems.

The E in the new STEM stands for Engagement. The top down, command and control approach of problem solving from traditional management textbook no long works in the modern complex world. To solve problems, we need to engage stakeholders at all levels at all times. Engagement brings about multiple views, alternative ways of thinking, and better solutions. Engagement is really a part of system thinking. To gain system perspective, we have to engage everyone.

The M in the new STEM stands for Mindfulness. Mindfulness is a Buddhist concept and practice followed by millions of followers for thousands of years and have been adopted by the west for the past many decades for its benefits in improving both physical and mental health. Buddhism believes that human sufferings originate from ignorance which is the incorrect view of the reality and of ourselves and instructs its followers to clam and cleanse their mind by focusing on the present moment and paying close attention to ourselves and our surroundings without forcing and judging. Regular practices of mindfulness will help reduce and eventually eliminate the ignorance and hence bring us back to full awareness, enlightenment, wisdom, and happiness.

If engagement is about collective wisdom, then mindfulness is about individual wisdom. Collective wisdom relies on individual wisdom.  They go hand in hand just like the parts and the whole in the systems thinking.

(Picture source: http://missioncollege.edu/student_services/stem/images/STEM-Logo1.jpg)

Mindfulness for Systems Thinkers

Systems thinking is more than thinking. It starts with seeing and ends at doing. Thinking is only the intermediate step. We don't just think for the sake of thinking, we think in order to solve problems. But if we don't see the problems clearly first, we will not be able to think of them critically. Poor seeing and thinking will eventually lead to undesirable actions and ineffective solutions.

Mindfulness is about seeing. It brings our mind back from distractions and disturbances and keeps it fully aware of ourselves and our surroundings at the present moment and from moment to moment. This awareness grounds us on the matters, their relationships, and the fine details here and now so that we can see with our senses and our mind the reality in a brighter light and a fuller view.

Mindfulness is also about acceptance. We observe ourselves, others around us, and our surrounding environments with full attention and unconditional empathy without prejudice and judgement. We accept what it is. Acceptance leads to better understanding and appreciation of the reality. Acceptance helps us gain more objective mental models of the reality. Mental models are foods for thoughts. While our thinking tends to be subjective, objective inputs to our thought process can help alleviate the inherent limitation of the subjectivity.

Mindfulness is rooted in Buddhism and has been practiced by its followers for thousands of years. Over the past several decades, this ancient Eastern religious practice has been adopted worldwide including the west. Many researches have documented both the physical and mental health benefits of mindfulness. The regular practices of mindfulness have been proven effective in helping people alleviate sufferings and achieve happiness.

A happier mind sees better, thinks better and acts better.

(Source of picture: https://www.uhs.umich.edu/files/uhs/field/image/Mindfulness.jpg)

The Iceberg Model of Mind

In 1976, American anthropologist Edward T. Hall developed the Iceberg Analogy of Culture in his book "Beyond Culture".  He used iceberg as a metaphor to illustrate the complexity of culture. He reasoned that a culture has two aspects. One is external, visible, conscious and the other is internal, invisible, and subconscious. A culture is like an iceberg where the part above the water is visible and only constitutes a small portion of it (roughly 10%) and the part underneath the surface is invisible and constitutes the majority of it (roughly 90%). In order to understand a culture, one has to dive deep and get close to it.

In 1973, Chinese archaeologists uncovered four silk manuscripts of previously unknown works along with the well known Tao Te Ching when they excavated "Tomb Number 3" (dated back to 168 BCE) in an archaeological site in Hunan province (ancient state of Chu).

These four texts collectively are thought to reflect a branch of Taoism and provide new insights into the Taoist philosophy. The first text is the longest with about 5000 Chinese characters and is titled "The Constancy of Law".

One paragraph from the first text is particularly interesting and can be thought of as the ancient equivalence of the modern iceberg model.

The original text in Chinese:

道者，神明之原也。神明者，处于度之内而见於度之外者也。处於度之（内）者，不言而信。见于度之外者，言而不可易也。处于度之内者，静而不可移也。见于度之外者，动而□不可化也。动而静而不移，动而不化，故曰神。神明者，见知之稽也。

The translation in English (by the author):

The Tao gives birth to the Mind.  The Mind has internal virtues and external manifestations. The internal virtues are unspeakable yet authentic. The external manifestations may be described but not be misinterpreted.  The internal virtues are tranquil and undisturbed. The external manifestations are moving but unwavering. From moving to tranquil free of disturbance, moving yet unwavering, it is the divine mystery of the Mind. The Mind is the source of knowledge and wisdom.

Like culture, mind is a complex adaptive system. At the surface are the manifestations through languages, speeches,  emotions, and behaviors. These manifestations originate from our conscious mind and are visible and comprehensible. Below the surface are our mental models of the reality, our ideas and believes, our values and thought processes. These form our unconscious mind and are invisible and difficult to grasp.

Great minds think alike. The iceberg model of mind from ancient Chinese sages remarkably parallels the iceberg model of culture from the modern American anthropologist,  more than 2000 years apart.

Is there a deeper connection between mind and culture other than the fact that they both share the same iceberg model? Underlying a culture are people and the essence of a person is his or her mind. May we simplify a culture as a system of individual minds?

Systems Thinking in Buddhism

Buddhism is more than a religion. It is also philosophy and psychology. Some even claim it is science.

At the core of its teachings are ways of seeing the true reality of the phenomenal world, understanding the root causes of the human sufferings, and achieving the enlightenment and eternal happiness through practices of kindness and mindfulness.

Three Universal Truths of Buddhism

One of the fundamental concepts of Buddhism is the Three Universal Truths or Three Dharma Seals(Tri-drsti-namitta-mudrā in Sanskrit or 三法印 in Chinese）.  It summarizes the many Buddhist teachings at a deeper, higher and more abstract level and also serves as the benchmarks to validate whether a teaching or a practice adheres to the Buddhist ideology.

The First Universal Truth is called "Impermanence" ("Anitya" in Sanskrit, "无常" or "诸行无常" in Chinese) . It can be interpreted as "All phenomena are impermanent".

The Second Universal Truth is "Non-self" ("Anatman" in Sanskrit，"无我" or "诸法无我" in Chinese）. It can be interpreted as "Selfness is a fleeing phenomenon and hence is non-existent."

The Third Universal Truth is "Liberation"（"Nirvana" in Sanskrit, "涅槃" or "涅槃寂静" in Chinese). It can be interpreted as "Human beings can be forever freed from endless sufferings through mindfulness and enlightenment" .

Here we see clear parallel between the 2500 year old ancient Eastern Buddhist thinking and the less than century old modern Western systems thinking.

Buddhism sees the world as a complex system in which many constantly changing and evolving phenomena interact with each other. The world as a whole constantly changes and evolves as causes and effects are interwoven and emergent properties and behaviors come and go like non-stop running water. Buddhism advises its followers to have a right view of the world and not to be fooled by the human tendency of desiring a constant and fixed reality.

Buddhism also sees the human beings as complex systems and are an integral part of the world and advises its followers to have a right view of ourselves and not to be fooled by our egos which are really non-coherent, non-existent, and fleeting phenomena. Our thoughts are based on the static mental models of the dynamic world and hence do not represent the true reality. Our minds are the obstacles to the right views of the complex world and only the practices of mindfulness can remove the ignorance and indulging desires and save us from endless sufferings.

What you see if what you think. What you think is what you act. Before you can act systemically you have to think systemically. Before you can think systemically you have to see systemically.