Cultural impacts on federal civilian departments is laden with historical impacts, perceptions of that history, societal values and reactions, and differing orders of domains – ranging from serving, business, policy, and innovation.
This can be centralized at a high-level into the larger picture of how historical imprints create varying reactions in the civilian government sub-cultures. The softer sciences have historically had a large influence on management theory on how to address, but as the technology revolution, driven by the uncontrollable force of Moore’s Law weighs in, the future of management is being more driven by harder science.
The recent history of current few-decade managers are impacted by the organizations and industries history over several score (i.e. four score and seven years ago type of imprint). Finally, any organization history is impacted by the societal values put upon it as driven by a long-term revolution, or nature of humanity towards the industry.
History and precedence has fundamentally driven the value models for selecting value frameworks in societies (i.e. despotism, democracy, hiring models), as well as managing and governing resources for business (i.e. distributed, products, services, aggregator, manufacturer, service provider). It is those investment approaches the have yielded technologies, that are controlled to within a certain society or set of societies
– and those investment approaches have yielded technologies, that once invented, are or can be controlled to within a certain society or set of societies
It is the latter that is changing the landscape ever since the industrial revolution. Oil discovered in the U.S. meant an infrastructure needed a lifeblood economy. That yielded exploration world-wide, in non-allied countries. Geo-politicism changed from sea-based conflict to oil-based. Yet, most other countries didn’t have the manufacturing power to use it. And they didn’t have the value framework to incent growth – quite the opposite, many used propaganda against western imperialism to maintain their current value-system.
Post-World War II began investment in new allies. Investment in manufacturing in Japan that led to 40 years later having other countries develop value frameworks around those business models. Yet, the U.S. research investment model followed the spot university innovation fund model that funded disparate projects based on its success during World War II – meaning, incubation project funding versus segment or “hub” funding. In the 1980s manufacturing business models moved to Asia and in early 2000s. It took near 80 years for manufacturing after massive oil exploration to create a new economy. Softer sciences were used in management to grow relationships, learn from history.
But looking forward, mostly due to the digital world which since the 1970s has been on a doubling every 18-24 months in capability, softer science management techniques are failing. The external driving our core architecture concepts we have expressed . A huge bellweather of change is looking at how the NSF and other research funding organizations are finally revising the 60 year old approach used to fund research, as a result of university support in World War II is now changing to more coordinated models to garner faster research to stay ahead. As offshoring models move services to Asia in similar vein of manufacturing, the United States management techniques are still relying on softer sciences to address cultural change. This is why Our concepts are biased towards the next “generations” concept .
Example Application of this theory
The approach stem from looking at External Pressure Trends observed in working with our executive clients in this space for developing a shared services environment. The summation below, to some, this may seem a bit dramatic, but consider the following factors happening globally.
First, the change in World Population to grow two-times in a single generation – for the first time in the history of the earth by no means is insignificant to how to address innovation. In addition, with the baby boomer population, who has lead the U.S. during this period, retiring en masse, there is a looming U.S. brain drain and not as many Generation X’ers to transition leadership to.
Second, legacy Physical Resources reaching limits which has put new larger focus on geoscience, planning, and resource managers which many of those infrastructures have not been stood up to prepare for such a large collective information and policy response. Delays to decisions and action on climate change has not changed consumption patterns of the U.S. and the rest of the world is following the natural resource and outdated suburban planning growth models. Furthermore, the change in 24/7 news media has further complicated through sensationalism without context and put under a lens with higher scrutiny how science is presented and perceived to a population that is continuously overloaded with information and cannot digest this complex set of scenarios.
The rapid change in consumer patterns of information is not helping matters either, as faster and more global transactions are outpacing the capability to get the message out. Information delivery and consumption has been logarithmic-ally accelerated by the Moore’s Law, yet the science community has not kept pace.
In reaction to this pace, there have been many more shorter term policy approaches, yielding disparate funding models, focus on building the technology in hopes that scientists and planners will come and build investments upon such. This has exacerbated the challenge to integrate the scientists and planners, and there has become a data analysis obsession for the wrong data as policies have not focused on organizing the supplier and assuring the quality data is used.
These shorter term policies, a focus on technology “Build it and they will come” approaches ultimately does not yield the true desire to have environments that will allow scientists, planners, and providers of data to collaborate on more complex problems in a shared environments.
Though Innovation in America is still seen as the leader of the world – as expressed to us by Japanese contracting partners on a few occasions in collaborative work – the American management style is struggling to adopt more measured techniques to deal with the rapid transformation. Technology investments in corporation, either be in management information systems, user self-service models, or data science issues have shorter lifespans on architectures developed just a few years before deemed to be multiple iterations.
Given such, toolsets such as transformation methods that adopt a myriad of architecture techniques, enterprise analysis, business process modeling, compliance analysis, maturity model comparison, logical architecture and pattern analysis, and other measure methodologies are going through growing pains to help address this needed gap in management models with more hard science and objective analysis.
Xentity has looked at what we developed in the Methodology for Business Transformation and we presented to the Federal Enterprise Certification body and experts some concepts to overlay on top Cultural Transformation concepts that help address the management understanding gap. The following few blogs look to capture analysis approaches on how to do just that.