Organisations are parts of larger chains or configurations of interaction. Is it the part or the whole that defines the entity?

.

.

The border and the interaction at the border are  important and defining parts of an organisation.

These interactions are part of larger chains of interactions. That is one of the characteristics of our current society with interwoven streams of specialised activities.

Where does the entity of organizing begin and where does it end? Is it about the big picture or the small?

A mixed and complex picture that needs appropriate organisation design, that provides answers and spacious solutions and starts with asking the right questions. Design that recognises the fact that defining the unit of organisation is fluid and fuzzy, sometimes.

 

 

The borders define the organisation not on blank sheet, but in a multifaceted environment

An organisation borders with a diverse environment of various other organisations, individuals, entities and spheres.

The border of an organisation is de facto multiform, because the other side varies.

Although the organisation might want to build uniformity, for al kinds of reasons. The experience of the border will nevertheless vary, because of the variations on the outside.

Although the defined brand-image (a form of border) might be rolled-out in a global uniform way, the actual experience will differ between clients, geography, the services and products exchanged. There may be a kind of unity in atmosphere, but assuming a standard interface (and one image) is foolish and certainly myopic.

So in reality there is no blank sheet to design the organisation on.

 

Forces that divide an organisation: the internal emerging boundary and the external splitting pinch.

Is it an inside or an outside job?

And who is consciously designing a split or are organisation subject to not yet understood forces of nature?

Understanding the deconstruction in order to understand the design of organisations.

 

When does a single organisation become too big to remain a meaningful one? And starts to behave as a multiple?

Organisation can be seen a single object. The outside border is the defining border.

There are inside borders but they are less relevant in the definition of the whole.

There might nevertheless become a moment when the inside division becomes more and more relevant.  Even to the extent that the one becomes two. Apparently, the size of one became too big to remain meaningful.

And this story can be told vice versa.

The materialisation and the form of the exchange. They matter for the design of the organisation.

Not only the shape of the area of interaction matters, also what is actually exchanged and in what form matters.

Packages, separate streams or waves?

The characteristics of the exchange have an impact on the design of an organisation. Or put differently, the design can allow certain forms of exchange or inhibit them.

Practically, do organisation really design for meaningful interaction or just for logistical economies?

A kind of gradual change of influence on the border of an organisation / shades of belonging

The hole in the border can allow for a gradual exchange.

A border can also have shades of grey, not only black and white.

The question of belonging can become more or less hazed.

How digital is a border?

 

What does actual happen in the interaction between organisations and the umfeld? What is the template of thinking?

Looking at the area of interaction, as part of the border, we can see two ideas for its creation.

Is it an area formed by the implicit space where the border lines are shaped to allow for the common space?

Or is is created as being a kind of overlay over de existing border?

Why does this matter? Because it has consequences for the governance, the spirit, the rules of engagement of the interaction. To what extent do the various spheres of influence  dominate the interaction?

A border exchange via a peep-hole, an indent or maybe a dedicated interaction zone?

.

.

.

.

Above some variations on how the interaction in a border maybe conceptually drawn.

Do we connect by looking at each other from our own territory, or is exchange moving the border, or is about creating a common space?

The revealing details and intriguing characteristics of the defining border of organisations

.

The defining border can be viewed in detail. How does it actually work in detail? And as organisations exist in their exchange with their surroundings, how does the interaction look like? What needs to be designed?

.

.

There is a kind of paradox in that interchange. Does the border cease to exist, when there is an exchange? And how and where on the border does the exchange take place?

Borders of organisations are not static, they evolve over time.

 

Borders of organisation are not fixed. They evolve over time and change in place and form. Because the environment changes and the organisation changes. So the interaction between will change as well.

Consequences are that any design should allow for that dynamism and flexibility.