In my post: "What is Orgtology?", I present orgamatics as a study of workplace systematics. This is a unique approach where we use a theoretical model to grasp Org. The model consists of four theories, which I briefly describe here. Through these theories we can cluster the generic functions of Org within systems. A system is a container for processes that have similar purpose. In orgamatics, operations are the repetitive work of Org. Therefore, operations are the sum of all systems and their processes. Strategy will be the non-repetitive work that we must do to change things. Operations drive performance and strategy drives relevance. In orgamatics we work with four base systems that aim to help Org to perform and stay relevant. They are the core business-; resource-; orgtelligence-; and relationship- systems. I discuss each of them in this post. The task of orgamatics is to ensure a Relevant and Performing Organisation, or RPO in short. We emphasise relevance and performance as different things, since we cannot achieve them in the same way. Relevance is about doing the right things. Performance is about doing things right. Their mathematics do not only differ but are also inverse. This means that an increase in effort to stay relevant will decrease the effort to perform. Both efforts will draw from the same resource pool. The four orgamatics systems help us to manage this equilibrium.
One begins to grasp orgamatics, through its four base theories. In my post: "What is Orgtology?", I give a brief on "Hypothesis 2x of inverse duality". This is the core concept of orgtology. It leads all the theories of orgamatics and organamics. In line with Hypothesis 2x, all the theories of orgamatics have a binary or dual nature. This means that each theory holds two concepts, where one is always in direct relation to the other. Mostly, these relationships are inverse. This means that where you decrease the value of one, the value of its dual side will increase. We always strive to find equilibrium between dual concepts. E.g., We hold that strategy drives relevance, and operations drive performance. Therefore, we must know how much our common resource pool will aid to the funding of each. In this example, the energy that we can use for operations will influence the energy we have for strategy. I explain the four theories below…
|Theory 2I of Orgtelligence||The world does all its work within organisations. To do this work, you must either do something repetitive or something that is not. In orgamatics we see the former as a cyclic process and the latter as a project. This theory relates to the relation between process-based work and project-based work.|
| Theory 2P of Work||Here we relate implied (implicit) intelligence with tacit intellect. The process construct owns implied intelligence, whilst humans own tacit intellect. Orgtelligence is the sum of both.|
| Theory 2E of Results||This theory drives what we achieve. It helps us to gasp the relationship between that which helps us to perform and that which helps us to stay relevant. This is the relation between efficiency and effectiveness. The theory gives a mathematical construct for both concepts and helps us to grasp the role of the "results" variable within each.|
| Theory O of the RPO||This theory brings together the other three. It explains what a Relevant and Performing Organisation, or RPO is. It also gives a mathematical construct for creating an RPO. Where the other three theories intersect, they create an RPO ability.|
Jointly, the four theories above give rise to the four base systems of Org. They are the resource-, orgtelligence-, relationship-, and core business systems. The sketch below shows how the systems of Org interact, and the effect thereof. Use the points below as guidance to grasp the model.
From the sketch above you will see that each system holds a construct. A construct is a mental manifestation. In other words, it is something that we assume. Unlike a structure it is not physical. A construct is a blueprint for the flow of activity. It is the consciousness that creates structures, outputs, and outcomes. Below is a list of each system with its construct:
The Venn diagram above shows how the systems, constructs, and theories interact…
We cluster all orgamatics items under three groups. They are "Work", "Orgtelligence", and "Results". As I show in the Venn diagram above, it is not possible to create mutually exclusive clusters. The interaction between the elements of orgamatics is dynamic and not static. Yet, we must find a way to contain them so that we can study them. Click on any of the tabs below to see concepts that we cluster together…
Theory 2P explains the orgamatics perspective on work. It says that activity is either repetitive or non-repetitive. The former is a process and the latter a project. Processes aim to maintain things, whilst projects aim to change things. In that sense operations are all process-based, whilst strategy is project-based. One could argue that a project is also a process. We acknowledge that. Our differentiation is more on activity that cycle vs. activity that does not.
The Process Construct:
The process construct holds all the repetitive work of Org. Unlike a structure, a construct is not tangible. We can only make assumptions about a process; we can never touch or see it. What we see is a manifestation thereof. In that sense, a factory conveyer belt is the structural manifestation of a process. The process itself is a mathematical construct of the flow of activity. The conveyer belt brings such process to life. In nature we have the eco system. We can see caterpillars becoming butterflies. Behind that structural manifestation, there is a mathematical construct. That is the process construct.
The Resource System:
The resource system facilitates the people, money, and assets that Org needs. It gets resources into Org, consumes them, and then disposes of such. It is quite a cold and mechanical system that only has one focus, and that is to be efficient. Here we work with recruitment; procurement; cost management; discipline; retrenchment; logistics; asset disposal; etc.
Theory 2I explains the orgamatics view on organisational intelligence. We hold that there are two types of intelligence in Org. The first is the implied intelligence of a process. Org owns this intelligence. The second is the tacit intellect of a human. Org does not own this. Jointly they create the intelligence of Org. We call the sum of all organisational intelligence, orgtelligence.
The Project Construct:
The project construct holds all the non-repetitive work of Org. The aim of a project construct is to interlink all the projects within Org. I explain more on how we do this in my posts on strategy development and project management. It links to orgtelligence because we create intelligence through changing our processes. This could entail starting, ending, or fixing a process. The project construct manages this change.
The Orgtelligence System:
Orgtelligence manages all the tacit and implied intelligence of Org. The aim of this system is to keep Org relevant and to help it perform. Orgtelligence begins with research. This helps us to learn or unlearn. We implement orgtelligence through EOP. This is the risk Exposure, Opportunities, and Process efficiency of Org. We deal with risk through mitigation and contingency plans. We use strategy to manage opportunities and transformation to deal with process efficiency. Examples of orgtelligence initiatives are assessments; accounting; performance management; human resource development; strategy; risk mitigation; contingency plans; internal audit; etc.
Theory 2E explains the orgamatics view on results. We hold that there are two types of results. The first are the outputs that the processes and intelligence of systems facilitate. Efficiency drive outputs. This means that what we get out must always be more than we put in. Org has full control over its outputs. The second are the outcomes that the projects and intellect of humans create. Effectiveness drive outcomes. This means that our outputs must be relevant to those who need them. Perception mostly drives outcomes and Org has limited control over that.
The Relationship Construct:
We do all the work of Org through relationships. Without relationships, Org will die. This construct holds the rules and dynamics of the relationships that Org must have. The aim of a relationship construct is to keep Org relevant and to help it perform. It links to results because Org produces outputs for entities. These same entities will decide the outcomes of those outputs. Relationships are thus the core of any result.
The Relationship System:
A relationship system manages the relationships of Org. It keeps and ends the relationships that Org will need to survive. Examples are CRM; call centres; marketing; communications; stakeholder relations; labour relations; etc. In orgamatics we cluster relationships according to their contribution towards Org. We must always test such contribution against the purpose and intent of Org. This will make any relationship with Org purposeful and intentional.
This "three-tyre" systems approach is quite different to the usual divisional approach (HR, finance, supply chain, marketing, sales, etc.) of business management. Orgamatics rejects the idea that you can cluster functionality within topics. Instead, we cluster process flow within purpose. In other words, we do not ask; "What must we do within our department, division, or unit?". Rather we ask; "What energy does Org need, and how must it consume such energy?"; "What intelligence must Org process to stay relevant?"; and "Which relationships must Org hone to make sure that it stays sponsored?". In so, something such as "recruitment" would be part of a "resource system"; whilst "performance assessment" will be part of an "orgtelligence system"; and "labour relations" is part of a "relationship system". This means that e.g., a department such as HR will enable three distinct systems. In orgamatics we do not see a unit or department as a process, but instead we view it as a practical container that enables our systems. Therefore, our systems are the non-physical construct of Org, and its structure and infrastructures are its physical manifestations.
This overview of orgamatics can by no means account for the wide range that it covers. It is a study of all activity within Org. However, it does exclude a study of the human dynamics that happens within Org. For the latter, we have a study that we call organamics - something that I discuss in the blog article: "What is Organamics?" Orgamatics therefore takes a scientific approach to study what happens inside Org.
If you are interested to learn more, I suggest that you enrol for the IOI online "Practice of Orgtology" programme. This will enable you to register as an Orgtologist or Orgtology Specialist. You can get more info from the website www.orgtology.org .
© 2018: CFT Hendrikz