Search
137 results for “trondhjort”
-
Recording, slides, chat and even meeting minutes from my session at the #STS Roundtable's Making Work Worth Doing Series are available:
"Real World Examples: Designing Workshops Using #OpenSystemsTheory
https://stsroundtable.com/webinars/making-work-worth-doing-real-world-examples-designing-workshops-using-open-systems-theory-23-april-2026/ -
Recording, slides, chat and even meeting minutes from my session at the #STS Roundtable's Making Work Worth Doing Series are available:
"Real World Examples: Designing Workshops Using #OpenSystemsTheory
https://stsroundtable.com/webinars/making-work-worth-doing-real-world-examples-designing-workshops-using-open-systems-theory-23-april-2026/ -
Off to the ever-lovely Berlin and the brilliant #KanDDDinsky
-
@trondhjort @kandddinsky you forgot to tag your post with #togaf
-
@trondhjort @newcrafts Great talk. Nobody explains #TOGAF better than you.
-
I had a chat with Claude, as one does these days, and asked what a good argument could be made for #OpenSystemsTheory that could catch the ears of top management, and the response was quite nice:
"The single greatest threat to organisational performance isn't market disruption — it's disengagement at the coalface.
When employees lack genuine ownership over their ways of working, discretionary effort evaporates. You haemorrhage top talent, execution suffers, and strategic decisions made in the boardroom become increasingly disconnected from ground-level realities.
Open Systems Theory isn't about flattening hierarchies or diluting accountability — it's about driving organisational effectiveness where it matters most. By embedding structured mechanisms for bottom-up contribution, you unlock richer management information, accelerate stakeholder alignment, and build the organisational agility needed to stay ahead in an increasingly volatile operating environment.
You're not relinquishing control. You're leveraging it more intelligently."
Seems to work on decent training data. Em dash or not.
-
Organisational Dysfunction of the Day
The powerless retrospective
Context: You and your team have decided it's time to do a retrospective prescribed by the Agile methodology you are using. You all see the use of it and contribute with a lot of ideas and concerns about your work. You record them all and have a vote on the most important ones, but soon realise almost all of them are outside of your mandate to change. You note them down and hope the department lead can do something about it, but know that probably nothing will change, and the whole exercise feels like a complete waste.
OST explains: The members of the team come into this believing they are self-managing, at least to a level where they are able to adjust the work to make it better. Even the Agile methodology says so by incorporating the retospective as a recommended element. An essential element in learning is both looking back and improving going forward. The issue here is that the team is not self-managing, in a DP2 structure, as they are not able to change what really matters to them. Most likely, they are in an agile setup where the teams have been given some control, but most still reside in management outside, in the existing bureaucratic DP1 organisation. The retrospective and the learning it ought to provide are mostly ineffective.
-
I managed to make a little dent with my series of posts on #SocioTechnical principles of the day, and thought it was due to do something similar, but this time in the context of modern organisations (especially #agile ones) and the modern version of #STS, known as Emery's #OpenSystemsTheory ( #OST). I'll list some systemic problems I have seen in organisations over the years and explain their causes using OST, one each day as I did back then. Probably way too ambitious, but let's see how this goes. Happy to take comments and rebuttals to each one of them, as the point of doing this is to trigger reflections and critical thinking.
Warning: these will probably be a bit more opinionated. 😁Organisational Dysfunction of the Day
The daily status report
Context: Your team is using Scrum and has been taught how important stand-ups are (daily coordination meeting), but it feels like a drag and a complete waste of time. Feels more like reporting to someone, be it the scrum master or the product owner. And you really do not care about what the others are working on, as it has little to no impact on what you're doing.
OST explains: This team is probably not a team at all; it's more like a group of individuals working on different things. They may contribute to the same delivery but have not been able to take control of the work design and the coordination needed to deliver it. This is not a self-managing team, but rather a delivery group assigned specific tasks by a manager, in charge of splitting the work so that all team members are working as effectively as possible. This is pure DP1 and nowhere close to the self-managing teams in DP2.
-
@trondhjort @marick @newcrafts @kentbeck I'm just wondering if we could use Ward's Federated Wiki for this: possibly writing this book together? #FedWiki #FederatedWiki @k9ox
We have some experience with supporting collective writing of books.
-
New blog post, this time in Norwegian:
Given that your company is serious about people being the core assets and wants their engagement in your vision and goals, sociotechnical system design is the way to go. As a bonus, you'll also get better productivity, quality, and sustainable cost reductions.
#SocioTechnical #OpenSystems #OrgDesign
https://www.capraconsulting.no/vare-historier/sosioteknisk-systemdesign-for-moderne-bedrifter
-
This is a fantastic talk by Kent Beck. And so important. What he is saying here, using his perspective from Extreme Programming (XP), basically sums up all my talks from the last few years. His distinction between deserts and forests is the same as bureaucracy and sociotechnical/democratic systems, respectively, and the parallel universes are the unmixable world views that people carry around. No data or good arguments can make people switch from one to the other. It's futile to try, IMHO. Only by being aware of what they are and how different they make you see the world can a conscious choice be made to move from one to the other.
<thinking hat>
You can't extrapolate from a closed system to an open one, but you can reduce an open system to a closed one. Or, put it in Beck's terms, you cannot grasp a forest when all you know is the desert, but you can imagine how a forest can become a desert. 😉
</thinking hat> -
New blog post:
Given that work also produces people, in addition to products and services, how can we make sure that we create a work environment that makes the world a better place?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/work-produce-people-far-reaching-effects-design-trond-hjorteland-8tm5f
#SocioTechnical #OpenSystems #OrgDesign -
Detailing the plans for a Search Conference next week with Capra Consulting.
Super excited to be able to put the training by Merrelyn Emery with the OST group in Canberra two years ago into real practice.
https://opensystemstheory.org/home/learning/origins_of_our_group/
https://opensystemstheory.org/home/tools-of-ost/search-conference/
#OpenSystems -
The summer holiday slumber is a great time for some more rabbit-hole deep dives. 🤓 Like Fred Emery and Eric Trist's conceptualization of a system's environment.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/trondhjort_the-summer-holiday-slumber-is-a-great-time-activity-7221524987285803008-BPaJ
#OpenSystems -
Had a lovely chat with Bruce Eckel and James Ward the other day.
#SocioTechnical #OpenSystems #Agile https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/happypathprogramming/episodes/99-The-Agile-Illusion-with-Trond-Hjorteland-e2kmka7 -
Excerpt from my talk on human-centred system design at @newcrafts. See the full talk here: https://vimeo.com/949428992
#SocioTechnical #OpenSystems #newCrafts -
I blog from time to time and hope people find them useful. Watch this link https://www.linkedin.com/in/trondhjort/recent-activity/posts/ or this space for posts on #socioTechnical, #OpenSystems, #DDDesign, #SOA, #agile, #entArch, #softArch and such. ☺️
-
New blog post:
Ever wondered why orgs have so many dysfunctions, even when well-meaning people try to make changes for the better? I have a suggestion as to why that is and need to get a bit philosophical.
https://linkedin.com/pulse/seeing-world-through-different-lens-trond-hjorteland-szvof
#SocioTechnical #OpenSystems #agile #philosphy -
Hey folks!
Together with @trondhjort, we have a workshop that is focused on on open system thinking, how how it can be applied to set strategic goals and evolve the organisation structure.
We are looking for conferences where we can run the workshop. Do you have any suggestions?
-
Organisational Dysfunction of the Day
Involvement theatre
Context: Some architects, project leads, or managers want to do things properly. They genuinely believe in collaboration and know the teams have valuable knowledge. So they organise workshops, like EventStorming sessions, design sprints, or other types of collaborative design workshops. People are invited, post-its go up, discussions happen, and there is real energy in the room. Then the session ends, the outputs are photographed, the facilitator disappears with the material, and a few weeks later, a design document or architecture proposal lands in the team's inbox. It looks nothing like what people thought they were building together. When questions are raised, the answer is that the workshop inputs were "taken into account." The teams learn quickly that the workshops are not really about designing together. They are about being consulted. Next time, fewer people will engage seriously. The post-its get sparser. The energy in the room is noticeably lower, even hostile.
OST explains: This is one of the most common misapplications of participative techniques in DP1 organisations: design authority is retained above, while the appearance of participation is layered on top to legitimise decisions already made or soon to be made elsewhere. OST explains why it fails on two levels. First, Bion's basic assumptions: the moment a person with authority enters the room, even a well-meaning independent facilitator, people shift into dependency or fight/flight, so the workshop never produces genuine collaborative design, regardless of how it is facilitated. Second, Fred and Merrelyn Emery were explicit that it is only when people design their own work that they develop the motivation, responsibility, and commitment to implement it effectively. A design imposed on a group, even one consulted, will never have the ownership that a design created by the group has. Involvement theatre does not just fail to produce good design; it actively corrodes trust in the collaborative process, making genuine participation harder to achieve each time. As Kurt Lewin warned, people cannot be trained for democracy by autocratic means.
-
Organisational Dysfunction of the Day
Involvement theatre
Context: Some architects, project leads, or managers want to do things properly. They genuinely believe in collaboration and know the teams have valuable knowledge. So they organise workshops, like EventStorming sessions, design sprints, or other types of collaborative design workshops. People are invited, post-its go up, discussions happen, and there is real energy in the room. Then the session ends, the outputs are photographed, the facilitator disappears with the material, and a few weeks later, a design document or architecture proposal lands in the team's inbox. It looks nothing like what people thought they were building together. When questions are raised, the answer is that the workshop inputs were "taken into account." The teams learn quickly that the workshops are not really about designing together. They are about being consulted. Next time, fewer people will engage seriously. The post-its get sparser. The energy in the room is noticeably lower, even hostile.
OST explains: This is one of the most common misapplications of participative techniques in DP1 organisations: design authority is retained above, while the appearance of participation is layered on top to legitimise decisions already made or soon to be made elsewhere. OST explains why it fails on two levels. First, Bion's basic assumptions: the moment a person with authority enters the room, even a well-meaning independent facilitator, people shift into dependency or fight/flight, so the workshop never produces genuine collaborative design, regardless of how it is facilitated. Second, Fred and Merrelyn Emery were explicit that it is only when people design their own work that they develop the motivation, responsibility, and commitment to implement it effectively. A design imposed on a group, even one consulted, will never have the ownership that a design created by the group has. Involvement theatre does not just fail to produce good design; it actively corrodes trust in the collaborative process, making genuine participation harder to achieve each time. As Kurt Lewin warned, people cannot be trained for democracy by autocratic means.
-
Organisational Dysfunction of the Day
Involvement theatre
Context: Some architects, project leads, or managers want to do things properly. They genuinely believe in collaboration and know the teams have valuable knowledge. So they organise workshops, like EventStorming sessions, design sprints, or other types of collaborative design workshops. People are invited, post-its go up, discussions happen, and there is real energy in the room. Then the session ends, the outputs are photographed, the facilitator disappears with the material, and a few weeks later, a design document or architecture proposal lands in the team's inbox. It looks nothing like what people thought they were building together. When questions are raised, the answer is that the workshop inputs were "taken into account." The teams learn quickly that the workshops are not really about designing together. They are about being consulted. Next time, fewer people will engage seriously. The post-its get sparser. The energy in the room is noticeably lower, even hostile.
OST explains: This is one of the most common misapplications of participative techniques in DP1 organisations: design authority is retained above, while the appearance of participation is layered on top to legitimise decisions already made or soon to be made elsewhere. OST explains why it fails on two levels. First, Bion's basic assumptions: the moment a person with authority enters the room, even a well-meaning independent facilitator, people shift into dependency or fight/flight, so the workshop never produces genuine collaborative design, regardless of how it is facilitated. Second, Fred and Merrelyn Emery were explicit that it is only when people design their own work that they develop the motivation, responsibility, and commitment to implement it effectively. A design imposed on a group, even one consulted, will never have the ownership that a design created by the group has. Involvement theatre does not just fail to produce good design; it actively corrodes trust in the collaborative process, making genuine participation harder to achieve each time. As Kurt Lewin warned, people cannot be trained for democracy by autocratic means.
-
Organisational Dysfunction of the Day
Involvement theatre
Context: Some architects, project leads, or managers want to do things properly. They genuinely believe in collaboration and know the teams have valuable knowledge. So they organise workshops, like EventStorming sessions, design sprints, or other types of collaborative design workshops. People are invited, post-its go up, discussions happen, and there is real energy in the room. Then the session ends, the outputs are photographed, the facilitator disappears with the material, and a few weeks later, a design document or architecture proposal lands in the team's inbox. It looks nothing like what people thought they were building together. When questions are raised, the answer is that the workshop inputs were "taken into account." The teams learn quickly that the workshops are not really about designing together. They are about being consulted. Next time, fewer people will engage seriously. The post-its get sparser. The energy in the room is noticeably lower, even hostile.
OST explains: This is one of the most common misapplications of participative techniques in DP1 organisations: design authority is retained above, while the appearance of participation is layered on top to legitimise decisions already made or soon to be made elsewhere. OST explains why it fails on two levels. First, Bion's basic assumptions: the moment a person with authority enters the room, even a well-meaning independent facilitator, people shift into dependency or fight/flight, so the workshop never produces genuine collaborative design, regardless of how it is facilitated. Second, Fred and Merrelyn Emery were explicit that it is only when people design their own work that they develop the motivation, responsibility, and commitment to implement it effectively. A design imposed on a group, even one consulted, will never have the ownership that a design created by the group has. Involvement theatre does not just fail to produce good design; it actively corrodes trust in the collaborative process, making genuine participation harder to achieve each time. As Kurt Lewin warned, people cannot be trained for democracy by autocratic means.
-
Organisational Dysfunction of the Day
Involvement theatre
Context: Some architects, project leads, or managers want to do things properly. They genuinely believe in collaboration and know the teams have valuable knowledge. So they organise workshops, like EventStorming sessions, design sprints, or other types of collaborative design workshops. People are invited, post-its go up, discussions happen, and there is real energy in the room. Then the session ends, the outputs are photographed, the facilitator disappears with the material, and a few weeks later, a design document or architecture proposal lands in the team's inbox. It looks nothing like what people thought they were building together. When questions are raised, the answer is that the workshop inputs were "taken into account." The teams learn quickly that the workshops are not really about designing together. They are about being consulted. Next time, fewer people will engage seriously. The post-its get sparser. The energy in the room is noticeably lower, even hostile.
OST explains: This is one of the most common misapplications of participative techniques in DP1 organisations: design authority is retained above, while the appearance of participation is layered on top to legitimise decisions already made or soon to be made elsewhere. OST explains why it fails on two levels. First, Bion's basic assumptions: the moment a person with authority enters the room, even a well-meaning independent facilitator, people shift into dependency or fight/flight, so the workshop never produces genuine collaborative design, regardless of how it is facilitated. Second, Fred and Merrelyn Emery were explicit that it is only when people design their own work that they develop the motivation, responsibility, and commitment to implement it effectively. A design imposed on a group, even one consulted, will never have the ownership that a design created by the group has. Involvement theatre does not just fail to produce good design; it actively corrodes trust in the collaborative process, making genuine participation harder to achieve each time. As Kurt Lewin warned, people cannot be trained for democracy by autocratic means.
-
“I fear that organisations that work on the basis of a paradigm of control, hierarchy and administrative oversight cannot also – and at the same time – operate on a self-management paradigm based on trust, devolvement and support”.
https://matthewkalmanmezey.substack.com/p/the-possibility-of-autonomous-buurtzorg
OST agree, mixed mode having both DP1 and DP2 is not sustainable.
#SocioTechnical #Buurtzorg -
@snowded Thank you for an interesting read. As you do into #SocioTechnical here, you seem to only reference the older materials, which were expert driven and more experimental in it's nature. Partly because of the experiments done in the 60s, like in Norway. Emery took this further and developed Open Systems Theory, which is partly covered in the third Tavistock anthology, social-ecology. Core of it is obviously the openness of the system, but especially important is the participative nature of the work design (the joint optimisation) to create the conditions to fulfil the workers psykological job requirements. If you have, how does that fit in with your perspectives? A big ask if you are familiar with it, but would be great to get some ideas.
-
Join us for the "Intentional Architecture" workshop with @trondhjort and me in Milan on June 5th and 6th in collaboration with Avanscoperta.
Explore how to create a sensible organization design for self-management and technology optimization.
Get your tickets here ➡️ https://buff.ly/3vMGgsF
-
Recording of my talk at #FastFlowConf on self-organisation is out! @fastflowconf
https://youtu.be/DPDm89r0dLM -
@trondhjort on self organizing organisations at #fastflowconf
-
"Human-centred system design" by @trondhjort #NewCrafts #NewCrafts2024 #sketchnote