X : Thoughts on monitoring staff?
Me : Ok, monitoring of staff in order to improve performance is not unreasonable as long as ... you clearly tell people that you're doing this. They will discover otherwise and when that happens you have a breach of trust.
X : Ok, but ...
X : ... what if you suspect someone is behaving badly or you have a requirement to monitor.
Me : If you don't trust your staff to begin with then you have a huge problem. Again monitoring is fine, as long as you tell people.
Me : Try to avoid the desire to act like spooks, you're a commercial company, not secret service agents. Also remember that you're likely to face enhanced mobility which is a risk in itself.
X : Enhanced mobility?
Me : When the economy recovers and ... shock, shock ... we discover that the new practices that have emerged mean we're not just going back to how it was, people will realise they can change jobs without leaving the home, moving to a new area, putting the kids in new schools.
Me : Which means, if you're been caught out playing spook on your own staff ... you might find yourself quickly gutted of talent. And I mean quickly, in this new world people can change roles rapidly. A lot of the barriers to change are dismantling.
Me : Then there's gross misconduct,
X : ?
Me : If your company values integrity to which the behaviour you wish to create is trust (two way) then going spooky on your staff is a breach of trust and challenges that value of integrity.
X : Fire the manager?
Me : I would ...
Me : ... but you might want to consider using training. Just think carefully on whether that desire to monitor others in secret is something you really want in your organisation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
X : Your table on next gen practices?
Me : You mean this one? It's from 2010, published in 2011. Not really next gen today.
X : The chaos engines bit.
Me : Netflix Chaos Monkey, Amazon's "Master of Disaster" (early to mid 2000's), old manufacturing concept ...
... the constant drive towards ever greater levels of resilience through the constant introduction of random failures and chaos.
X : Is that the same as adaptation?
Me : Not quite. Adaptation is a much broader concept including themes like inheritance, mutation, exaptation ...
... but in general, nature (as a whole system) is the most resilient system we know. It has both engineering and ecological resilience. CS Hollings work is definitely worth a read.
I have multiple UPS covering critical systems (server + network) plus my Tesla battery connected to solar ... switching off main power, everything keeps running (even over the 100ms switch of the distribution board) ... happy bunny. Three power cuts in last year (I live in UK).
X : Server?
Me : My desktop. Beefed up system, liquid cooled, decent graphic card, multiple networks (I triplicate traffic over three lines to a server in London to cope with poor networks) ... it gives me a solid base to connect to all my cloudy services (where work is done).
The weakness in the cloudy world is not cloud services - we can architect highly resilient systems (because of low MttR) across multiple zones - instead the problem has always been my connection to it (i.e. the home) both in networks and the odd power cut here and then.
This is spot on. The loss of public trust through Dom's actions and the failure for Gov to act cannot be ignored. Also, blaming the people? That's a new low but one that was expected ...
... the role of Gov should be to "equip and enable us: to share as much information as possible and as much power as possible, so that we can work together where we live to find a new and sustainable normal" ... instead, for the last six months we've been following a path of ...
X : How much do you make from mapping?
Me : Do you mean beyond my normal research job in which I use mapping (and get paid a salary) i.e. royalties from books, investments, speaking engagements, events, consultancy advice etc?
X : Yes, roughly.
Me : £0, precisely ...
... I don't do this for money, I do it because I love the field, I meet really interesting people and it helps me in my research.
X : Just love of maps?
Me : There are other factors such as my long term play in which I intend to be arms dealer of strategic gameplays and that requires me to create a market, There is also my personal belief to give more than I take from the system wherever possible ...
X : Tips on introducing pioneer - settler - town planner (PST)?
Me :
Step 1. A five year ban on any re-organisation.
Step 2. Spend five years fixing your doctrine (see attached).
Step 3. Now you can talk about PST.
X : Do you think people will listen?
Me : Probably not. Execs often want magic easy fixes and people think re-organisation gives them that, it's a quick hit. Just say "no" to re-organisation.
X : How do you know that doctrine is right?
Me : I don't. It's all derived from mapping, even the phases are built on it. But it's called Wardley's doctrine because it is my doctrine. If it doesn't work, blame me, it's my name on it. Maybe someone will find a better list.
X : Do you think brexit could be successful?
Me : Many paths can be taken. I don't know what the plan is.
X : Example?
Me : Subdivide the UK into four regions with each region having a specific FTA - i.e. EU / RCEP / US / Commonwealth and cross border trade internally?
X : Would that work?
Me : It's an example of a path, an option. There are many options. Some will work, otherwise will not for various practical, political and legal reasons. I do not know what the path we've chosen is.
X : Be a global trading nation?
Me : That's just a statement of intent. A bit like leaving was just an action. Behind this there will be options, plans and many calculations. Endless rounds of scenario planning over the last four years ... I would expect this to be the case.