“Change Architects” live in interesting times.
The companies they work for, as employee or as consultant, exist within the turmoil of transitioning towards, participating in, or becoming an “enterprise ecosystem”. The rate of change of companies today is dramatically high and the trend is that this rate of change is still increasing.
How to remain firm in your role, even when roles themselves are changing? Change Architects act in roles like: enterprise architect, business architect, solution architect, organization architect, information architect, application architect, IT architect, digital architect; or like change manager, digital strategist, and other. Not mentioning all types of technologies that may be involved like for cloud, mobile and Internet of Things. Or all types of endeavors they need to manage, such as transformations, modernizations, rationalizations, mergers, divestments and outsourcing.
It seems like, being a change architect, it all comes down to oneself. Just stay firm, creative and valuable in contexts of stakeholder interests, conflicting project portfolio’s, legacies, business innovations and new technological opportunities.
Create compelling solutions
Within all this turmoil, how can a change architect still believe he can create compelling solutions that, in the end, lead to constancies? This believe dominates their practices since, conventionally, a change architect is in a process of changing one constancy into another; changing an as-is state into a to-be state, a current state into a future state. He just changes two ‘states’, two constancies. Is he a constancy-architect rather than a change-architect?
If that is his believe pattern, how will he ever be able to manage change phenomena like: disruptions, breakthroughs, boosts, rebalances, leverages, transitions, busts, swaps, crises?
These phenomena inherently change. How to architect for them? Or, how to guide them into desired directions when they turn out negatively?
As a change architect, how can you ever say firm and definitely: “I create compelling solutions”, if you are not able to manage these change phenomena?
And, as a change architect, what do you think companies need to manage most nowadays? Does managing states, like current states and future states, still suffice? Or are companies waiting for change architects who are able to manage change itself. Change architects who show their added value by being able to manage change phenomena such as disruptions, collapses and crises. But also growth, adaptation and sustainment. Here no as-is and to-be states exist, or can you say there exists an in-between-state?
I believe we need to be competent to handle change phenomena of all sorts. We need to be able to act on the increasingly strong trend of organizations becoming more complex, more dynamic and more varied. Since if not, we risk being overwhelmed, mind trapped or burned out.
The Enterprise Polarism Discipline
And we can, since we can apply the Enterprise Polarism Discipline. With Enterprise Polarism change architects experience how they can create compelling solutions, definitely, simply because of being able to apply polarities when they create their solutions.
Polarities are at the root of all change phenomena. It is evident that they are at the root of balances and leverages. But they are also at the root of phenomena such as disruptions, collapses, growth and sustainment. They are at the root of phenomena where feedback is involved such as cycles, reinforcements and crises. They are even at the root of organization creation itself, especially in forms how nature does it, like with organismic self-creation of plants.
In modern times change architects need to be able to manage polarities like simple ↔ complex, static ↔ dynamic, specific ↔ generic and many others, (including the polarity constancy ↔ change). They need to be able to manage polar phenomena that derive from them, such as balances, transitions and leverages. And they need to understand and become able to create them within the domain of organizations and systems development. Change architects need the Enterprise Polarism Discipline so they can remain firm in their role and continue to contribute to developing organizations, without the risk being overwhelmed, mind trapped or burned out.
Change architects themselves need change. They need to move away from “state-management” to real change-management. They need to enhance their profession with being able to manage universal change phenomena that are apparent in modern organizations. And they can do so with applying the Enterprise Polarism knowledge discipline.
What do you think, are we in a need of change architects who can manage and guide phenomena like, on the negative: disruptions and crises, and on the positive: growth and sustainment?