The piece parts of modular scenarios may be assembled in different ways, but with clear points for comparison (in the form of the discrete events). Points of intersection and divergence between scenarios become much clearer. Reassembly becomes possible as new visions/endstates emerge, or as the relationships between scenarios morph and change. Monolithic scenarios can be useful at a single point in time, for thinking about a particular business problem. Modular scenarios are critical to thinking about modular business architecture and its open-ended possibilities. I.e., how might the value components, business units, and functions of an industry or an enterprise be recombined – acquired, divested, re-organized, re-aligned – to better fulfill a mission, be more efficient, etc.?”
Well said Art.
I like it when smart people save me blogging time.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Dan tdaxp:
April 8th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
The idea of modularity reminds me of Unix Philosophy
(i) Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new features.
(ii) Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, as yet unknown, program. Don’t clutter output with extraneous information. Avoid stringently columnar or binary input formats. Don’t insist on interactive input.
(iii) Design and build software, even operating systems, to be tried early, ideally within weeks. Don’t hesitate to throw away the clumsy parts and rebuild them.
(iv) Use tools in preference to unskilled help to lighten a programming task, even if you have to detour to build the tools and expect to throw some of them out after you’ve finished using them.
Summarized as
Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together.
Unsurprisingly, another intepretation provides the following as the first law
Rule of Modularity: Write simple parts connected by clean interfaces.
Sorry to keep cutting and pasting out of the same word document, but it even ties into my “Drawing North America” post:
The only way to write complex software that won’t fall on its face is to hold its global complexity down — to build it out of simple parts connected by well-defined interfaces, so that most problems are local and you can have some hope of upgrading a part without breaking the whole.
Interestingly, the 2nd and 3rd most widely spread operating systems (Linux and Mac OS X) are unixy. Unlike Soviet Windows.
vonny:
April 9th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Hey Mark,
All of this makes me think, in physical terms at least, of something that has always been dominant in areas of science. This interaction and interfacing of local versus global phenomena. one’s perspective can differ radically depending if you look at the macro- or micro-. It is like looking at a smoothly flowing river (laminar flow) and then in one little section stick your finger in to cause local eddies and turbulence. Globalization may be happening all around a particular small area of the world, where internally there is great turbulence and chaos. How does the local affect the global, and how do the parts differ from the sum of the parts? That is going to drive 21st century science as well as 21st century social and political studies.
Nice posts!
mark:
April 9th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Hey Von,
Glad you wrote – I want you to check out the Enterprise Resilience Management Blog ( scroll down for my post on it)as they are trying to develop computer software and management plans based on the principle of resilience to help corporations and government agencies deal with ” swirls and eddies” in real time. I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.
Dan,
Great examples, even for the computer semi-iliterates like myself ;o)
The Army’s modularity plan though is coming under fire.
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/articles/2004-12/a121504a.html
http://www.army.mil/modularforces/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_2_84/ai_n6112503
http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2004/02-03-8.htm
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_3_16_06.htm
http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/002327.html
Shawn in Tokyo:
April 14th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Hi Mark,
I have played off of the ideas of Tom and Steve at my site. Please stop by and check it out. Would love additional, constructive input.
Shawn