Today I'm re-authoring
the Action Framework system. It reminded me that in 2002, the Action Framework
was the reason why I started on the journey to producing a better way of
working with data that has since become known as enterprise mashups.
Under any other
description, an Action Framework is a performance management system but unlike
traditional performance management systems that focus too much on strategies
and plans and not enough on reality, the currency of an Action Framework are
the actions that happen across an organization on a daily basis.
When I started NDMC I
was keen to find a better way of managing organizations because I've seen so
many good and enthusiastic people find themselves in middle-management
positions, not knowing why they're doing what they've been asked to do. All too
often, enthusiasm and effort does not translate into results and rewards
because of poor instruction or poor alignment between the actions of these key
people and the required outcomes of the organization. Another issue that I was
keen to resolve was how organizations listen to their customers and learn what
matters most to them. Normally organizations get this wrong because they have
sales people doing the asking or they rely on satisfaction surveys with their
'yes' and 'no' black and white responses. So it made sense to me that a
performance management framework needed to have installed mechanisms to listen
to the outside world and adjust plans based on its ability to learn.
From these fragments
of logic, my colleagues at NDMC and I created the first Action Framework in
2004. Initially our first attempt was built on spreadsheets that I used to
capture strategic plans, budgets and actions and insights. Aligning all of these elements was not
easy on a spreadsheet (I wasn't convinced we were helping anyone see the woods
for the trees with such a complicated landscape of data) so a year on we turned
to the use of an SQL relational database and built a series of data capture and
analysis applications in dotnet.
But there was a
fundamental problem. Whatever we did to create 'the perfect system' for every
organization, there were too many variables and far too many repositories and
sources of data. In consequence, the cost of 'feeding' the Action Framework
with up-to-the-minute data proved too expensive. We had a good model but not a
good 'system'.
What we needed was a
method of creating Action Frameworks that would be different for every
organization; that could capture data from pretty much any data source from
across the enterprise and present insights in new and useful ways without the
traditional overheads and burdens of IT projects.
It was with this
fragment of common sense that we embarked on the production of such a system.
Initially we went to all of the major suspects to see if we could use an
existing tool but it didn't take long for us to realize that our vision was at
odds with what the IT industry believed to be possible.
Enterprise mashups are
a very different concept in IT that requires a fresh perspective in the way
such a technology can be applied. Unfortunately, most people in business apply
the role of enterprise mashups into the current ways of working and uses of IT.
They try to fit Enterprise Mashups into the present day landscape of IT and ask
the question ' so what does it replace?'
People that do this
miss the point.
The envisioned role of
Enterprise Mashups is to provide a system and mechanism for creating an information
management that is always in consort with the information needs of the
community they serve. Any effective Action Framework cannot be affordably
deployed (and therefore can not exist) without this level of agility in IT
systems.
Anyway, back to re-building
that Action Framework;-)












I like the way you've drawn this distinction: "unlike traditional performance management systems that focus too much on strategies and plans and not enough on reality, the currency of an Action Framework are the actions ...".
The "discourse" system I've designed rests on similar thinking, taking "disputed truth" as currency (to use your phrasing). If there's no disagreement on truth or data or policy then all decisions would be mouse-trap simple!