Comments for Asymmetric Design

Comment on When is a stratification not a universal hierarchy? by Ecosystem SOA 2 | Service Oriented Architecture - SOA

Ecosystem SOA 2 | Service Oriented Architecture - SOA — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:15:34 +0000

[...] So there are three challenges I face as a consultant, attempting to tackle this kind of complex problem. The first challenge is to open up a new way of formulating the presenting problem, based on the three cuts. The second challenge is to introduce systematic techniques for analysing the problem and visualizing the key points. And the third challenge is to identify and support any organizational change that may be needed. With thanks to Philip Boxer and Bernie Cohen. For a different formulation of the three cuts, together with a detailed example, see their new paper “Why Critical Systems Need Help to Evolve” Computer, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 56-63, May 2010, doi:10.1109/MC.2010.150. See also Philip Boxer, When is a stratification not a universal hierarchy? (January 30th, 2007) [...]

Comment on Limits to the Use of the Zachman Framework in Developing and Evolving Architectures for Complex Systems of Systems by Oracle’s Architect Day on Cloud Computing – a contradiction? « Emergent Software Architecture

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:04:31 +0000

[...] Questions like security, privacy, vendor lock-in and what do we put in a public cloud are major concerns. But regardless of the applied technologies, it all starts and ends with effective governance. And effective governance doesn’t happen without a good approach to Enterprise Architecture. The Enterprise Architecture challenge is not just about effective and better implementations of current best practice, it is also a question of enhancing our frameworks to cope effectively with cross-company collaborations (as noted by Philip Boxer in his blog, Asymmetric Design). [...]

Comment on Distinguishing the not-good-enough by Penny Georgiou

Penny Georgiou — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:04:41 +0000

Perfection and ‘the best’ are not in the same register.

One is an imaginary absolute while the other is a vector. Hence, striving for the best is workable, whereas perfectionism cripples any working proposition that must include the scope for error.

Comment on Banking Services and User-Defined Policy 2 by Aidan

Aidan — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:54:36 +0000

The fallacy that the banks labour under is that what they provide is service. If you compare what they do with what a straightforward software tool would do, they provide an expensive set of constraints and timewasting measures, for no benefit. The fact that they are able to collect fees for this reflects their monopoly position, and their ability to create new money.

The service equations can only be seen relative to the provision of what people actually need to manage their money. These equations can best be seen where the need for money mangement is most acute, i.e. with the marginally excluded/included (a surprisingly large and increasing sector) who need very tight control and cannot afford fees and penalties.

If you study the way such people handle cash you will understand the nature of service needs. The system is social with individual/family/household/larger group dimensions.

Comment on BlockBusters and SlowBurners by Independent Sources

Independent Sources — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:05:32 +0000

Charting the ever-disappearing blockbuster album

Economic blogger Long Tail pulled together a spreadsheet of the top 100 albums and the years they were released (grouped them in 5-year intervals). They were nice enough to post the raw data for downloading. The resulting chart gives a nice graphica…

Comment on Charitable Donation by Charlie

Charlie — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:09:35 +0000

Your post calls out the asymmetry on the consumer-side:

Value experienced from donation Vaue perceived by donation to a particular charity

It seems as though there is a parallel asymmetry on the supplier-side:

Value available from donation Value proposed by donation

Not surprisingly, this follows the canonical model of communication:

What Party A thinks What Party A says or writes
What Party B understands What Party A hears or reads

In both models, potential for mismatch occurs in 3 places:

o Within the supplier (intent vs. expression)
o Within the consumer (understanding vs. reception)
o Along the communication link (fidelity of transmission)

So this seems to provide the supplier with several opportunities to better connect with potential donors:

o On the supplier-side, more effectively communicate the actual intent as part of the value proposition (e.g. what real benefits have we delivered)

o On the consumer-side, more effectively recognize context-dependencies and plug into them. For example, a potential donor who has a close friend or relative with cancer (or who has just passed away from the disease) is likely to be more receptive to a message, even one that lacks specificity. OTOH, potential donors who have lost someone to heart disease or stroke might be in a context that is less receptive.

o In the communications channel itself, there may be ways to communicate the same content that are more or less effective.

I guess that if value propositions also tell us which parts of the communication channel a business thinks contribute the most. Some businesses pay more attention to what the consumer will perceive. Others pay more attention to what they feel about what they need to say. And others stress about how the message is delivered, and less about its content or how it will be received.

Charlie