Systems
211
difficult set of tasks, but also most disruptive to operations and worker’s
habits. Each organization has a “style” and culture of work that is instrumental in bringing out the subtleties of the architecture. Even recognizing
the nuances is often insufficient to keep from disrupting workflow and
efficiency.
The fourth category of a system of systems organizational power structure
is the agglomerate—a decentralized scheme of controlling access to valuable
resources, with central control over policies that impact on various groups.
As with the syndicate and the amalgamation, the agglomerate has groups
organized for a particular purpose or convenience, but each with a different
mix of incentives. Those incentives are sometimes locally contrived and
enacted without the limits set by the central controlling entity. As with the
syndicate, the amalgamation is comprised of like-minded individuals who
are focused on nearly the same goal—supporting the organization with various specialties that add to the total skills of the organization. And consistent
with an agglomerate, individuals in the amalgamation have very different
agendas for their association with the organization, differences with regard
to accessing valuable resources, and perhaps local control over such access.
An amalgamation is comprised of a group of stakeholders or subsystems
with (perhaps significantly) different views about the operations, value of
the valuable resources, and access to those valuable resources. The subsystems and individuals in the organization want to be in the organization and
participate in the same operations as are offered by the system of systems.
They have a preference to continue working within the current group or
subsystem, but their allegiance can be compromised (as referenced to either
the policies of the central or local governance). Members and subsystems of
the syndicate have greater solidarity than do members or subsystems of an
amalgamation.
The group of doctors at Doctors, Ltd. self-organized into a syndicate, each
doctor agreeing to give up some degree of autonomy and self-reliance to join
with other doctors. The syndication of professional skills as a legal entity
(Doctors, Ltd.) has value to Hospital, Ltd. as an organized group of medical
practitioners with whom they have an established rapport, credibility, and
trust. Rather than dealing with one doctor at a time, the system of systems
(Doctor, Ltd.) has its own metafunctions that illustrate coupling, cohesiveness, and connectivity through EMMI sufficient for metastability. The essential emergent property of Doctor, Ltd. is suggested through the filling in by
one colleague for another colleague in case of emergencies. This “covering”
holes in a schedule are typical systemic behavior that is motivated by factors
such as desire to help, economic incentives, sacrificing for the good of the
group, reinforcement of teamness, wanting to maintain the relationship with
the patient through continuity of experience with the same medical practice,
and so forth. Such behavior is less common in private, individual medical
practice because of the limited amount of time in a doctor’s schedule to cover
for another doctor.
211
difficult set of tasks, but also most disruptive to operations and worker’s
habits. Each organization has a “style” and culture of work that is instrumental in bringing out the subtleties of the architecture. Even recognizing
the nuances is often insufficient to keep from disrupting workflow and
efficiency.
The fourth category of a system of systems organizational power structure
is the agglomerate—a decentralized scheme of controlling access to valuable
resources, with central control over policies that impact on various groups.
As with the syndicate and the amalgamation, the agglomerate has groups
organized for a particular purpose or convenience, but each with a different
mix of incentives. Those incentives are sometimes locally contrived and
enacted without the limits set by the central controlling entity. As with the
syndicate, the amalgamation is comprised of like-minded individuals who
are focused on nearly the same goal—supporting the organization with various specialties that add to the total skills of the organization. And consistent
with an agglomerate, individuals in the amalgamation have very different
agendas for their association with the organization, differences with regard
to accessing valuable resources, and perhaps local control over such access.
An amalgamation is comprised of a group of stakeholders or subsystems
with (perhaps significantly) different views about the operations, value of
the valuable resources, and access to those valuable resources. The subsystems and individuals in the organization want to be in the organization and
participate in the same operations as are offered by the system of systems.
They have a preference to continue working within the current group or
subsystem, but their allegiance can be compromised (as referenced to either
the policies of the central or local governance). Members and subsystems of
the syndicate have greater solidarity than do members or subsystems of an
amalgamation.
The group of doctors at Doctors, Ltd. self-organized into a syndicate, each
doctor agreeing to give up some degree of autonomy and self-reliance to join
with other doctors. The syndication of professional skills as a legal entity
(Doctors, Ltd.) has value to Hospital, Ltd. as an organized group of medical
practitioners with whom they have an established rapport, credibility, and
trust. Rather than dealing with one doctor at a time, the system of systems
(Doctor, Ltd.) has its own metafunctions that illustrate coupling, cohesiveness, and connectivity through EMMI sufficient for metastability. The essential emergent property of Doctor, Ltd. is suggested through the filling in by
one colleague for another colleague in case of emergencies. This “covering”
holes in a schedule are typical systemic behavior that is motivated by factors
such as desire to help, economic incentives, sacrificing for the good of the
group, reinforcement of teamness, wanting to maintain the relationship with
the patient through continuity of experience with the same medical practice,
and so forth. Such behavior is less common in private, individual medical
practice because of the limited amount of time in a doctor’s schedule to cover
for another doctor.