Let\u2019s face it.\u00a0 We\u2019ve all done it \u2013 depicted processes, functions, entire systems, organizational departments and other such complex concepts as nothing more than self-contained, orderly boxes on a diagram.\u00a0 Connected with lines implying relationships, dependencies and potential impacts, these models are widely used to understand the Big Picture and\/or solve a problem.\u00a0 I admit to using this modeling approach with such regularity that I started to forget the initial motive \u2013 to temporarily obscure, but never hide the inherent complexity.\u00a0 The trouble is, all too often, the individual nodes are not re-examined or scrutinized.\u00a0 And the more visibility and adoption they gain, the more decisions hinge on them, paradoxically the less likely they are to be changed.\u00a0 It is only when the observed behavior in some major way deviates from what these simplified models ever intended to demonstrate that we start paying attention.<\/p>\n
I recently read an article, \u201cDeconstructing the concept of strategic alignment\u201d<\/em> [Ciborra, 1997], which offers a cautionary note, in my view off course, about trying to abstract too far away from the underlying complexity and fit the chaos of the real world into neat nodes.\u00a0 Here\u2019s the specific paragraph that I feel articulates this quite well:<\/p>\n \u201cThose researchers made multiple abstractions out of the muddling-through and drifting; idealized tinkering and called IT strategy; idealized technology as a controllable set of means and called IT; granted to these concepts existence and essence, transformed them into boxes and traced a line be-tween them. Then, they started the difficult journey back to the real world, and found difficulties in measuring \u201cthe strength of the line\u201d or formulating prescriptions that would be followed by managers when tracing the line on the field of practice. They ingeniously provided more and more sophisticated representations of alignment, as more analytical and detailed maps for the actors to operate in the real world. To no avail: the higher conceptual detail remained confined to the world of idealized abstractions, but had little impact on the life worlds of business and organizations. The research wheel was turning on empty.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Let\u2019s face it.\u00a0 We\u2019ve all done it \u2013 depicted processes, functions, entire systems, organizational departments and other such complex concepts as nothing more than self-contained, orderly boxes on a diagram.\u00a0 Connected with lines implying relationships, dependencies and potential impacts, these models are widely used to understand the Big Picture and\/or solve a problem.\u00a0 I admit …<\/p>\n