one,
In our experience, expansion-related incidents follow the same pattern. The chief technology officer (CTO) or executive responsible for system platform scalability may view scalability as a purely technical initiative. This understanding is purely a human failure and the first point of failure in the error chain. Because the CTO was so focused on technology, he failed to clearly define the necessary processes to identify scalability bottlenecks, a second point of failure. Because no one is looking for and locating bottlenecks and blockages in the architecture, when the number of users or transactions exceeds a certain limit, the entire system will fail. This is the third point of failure. When the team came together to solve the problem, the team mistakenly identified the problem as "database tuning" because they never invested in the process of troubleshooting and problem location. This is the fourth point of failure. The vicious circle has continued, with people pointing fingers at each other due to various focus on different technical aspects, from firewalls to applications to application-related session persistence layers. Team interactions degenerate into shouting contests and finger-pointing meetings, while service remains slow and sluggish, resulting in customer churn, team frustration, and shareholder withdrawal.
Although the crisis stems from the inability of the system to scale quickly to meet the demands of end users, the source of the problem is almost never purely technical. In our experience as executives and client advisors, scaling issues start with organizations and people, and then spread to process and technology. In the process of system implementation, if people receive wrong information or make wrong choices, it will sometimes appear as a point of failure, which in turn affects the scalability of the system and platform. People neglect to develop processes that help them learn from past mistakes, and sometimes develop and publish processes that lag, either forcing the organization to make the wrong decision, or making it too late and ineffective. Lack of attention to the processes and people that make and support technology decisions often leads to a vicious cycle of poor technology decisions.
two,
The core part of all the most successful products at scaling is a group of people who make a lot of good decisions and, of course, occasionally make bad moves. In terms of scalability, ignoring the role of human factors is a very big mistake. We often find that ignoring human factors is the fundamental reason why products cannot meet user needs.
The right person means that the person has the right knowledge, skills and abilities. Putting a person in the right position at the right time ensures that he or she can successfully position the shareholder to create the greatest value, and it is also in line with the direction of his career development. Appropriate behavior refers to the person's ability to get along with other employees and to identify with the company's culture and values. Poor writing, like lack of skills, is a powerful reason for teams to weed out people, as bad behavior creates a vicious cycle for any team, lowering morale and productivity.
If there are no key performance indicators to help us measure the desired results, then we should not manage the organization. To manage means to measure, and to fail to measure is to fail to manage. If it's hard for an organization to measure everyone's performance, then you can't measure output. If you can't measure the quality of your organization's output and work, you can't deal with sudden and rapid development.
If team members have a clear understanding of whether they have goals and enough authority to complete the task, then the team can rely on the ability of the team to have the goal and achieve the goal. On the contrary, it can only rely on other teams to achieve the goal. Teams with sufficient authorization usually have higher morale, lower turnover rate, and faster market response than teams with insufficient authorization. Authorization is based on the ability to independently make the necessary decisions to achieve goals.
Emotional conflicts are role- or control-based conflicts that often occur between teams. Cognitive conflict is often about "who" does it, or "how" to do it. Emotional conflict rarely increases the value of a product, and instead almost always delays product release and increases costs. Further, if not handled properly, it will reduce employee morale, increase employee turnover, and reduce the level of innovation within the company. Cognitive conflicts, when handled properly, are often referred to as "good conflicts." The most common cognitive conflicts are about "why" something must happen, or "what" a company needs to achieve a desired outcome. Cognitive conflict expands the range of possible strategies by combining different knowledge, skills, and experiences to cover those intersecting parts, thereby increasing the probability of the right decision.
three,
A common cause of scalability and availability failures is unclear accountability. Sometimes, unclear roles and responsibilities mean that something is not being done. The other extreme of the "no accountability" problem is when multiple organizations or individuals are assigned the same goals. The problem of multiple people being responsible is at the heart of emotional conflict.
There are pros and cons to any organizational structure decision, and it is important to include full accountability in the design of the organization, clearly defining not only who the decision maker is, but who is responsible for providing the decision maker with information, decisions, and courses of action. Who should be informed and who is responsible for implementing the decision. The most critical element of making the best decisions is having an optimal decision-making process that ensures the right people gather the right information and make it available to the final decision maker.
When defining the roles and responsibilities of an organization, you are designing a blueprint beneath the rights. Broadly speaking, below power is empowering others to do what you are supposed to do. It is very important here that you can delegate any authority, but you must take full responsibility for its results . Accept that the individual or team under your authority bears joint and several responsibility at most. Although you can fire, promote, reward or punish the team, you must know that you are fully responsible for the final result. Good leaders instinctively understand this, they always leave praise to the team, admit failure and take responsibility openly. On the contrary, poor leaders look for scapegoats when they fail and take credit when they succeed.
The responsibility of the architect is to ensure that the design and architecture of the system can scale as the business grows. Here we clearly point out the difference between design and implementation. Architects need to think before business needs happen, and think deeply about how to scale the system long before business unit forecasts exceed the capacity of the platform. The architect is responsible for designing the system and ensuring that its design solves any scaling problems. Architects can also be responsible for information technology regulations, standards and processes. Some large companies may organize process-engineering joint teams to be responsible for the definition of processes and the implementation of standards.
The first is a software architect, who is primarily concerned with how to design and architect software. These architects focus on different areas, for example, service-oriented architecture frameworks or code templates to guide developers. The second is the system architect, who is mainly responsible for solving software problems in hardware configuration and support. These architects focus on removing single points of failure, spotting mistakes and doing capacity planning.
Your organization's realistic solutions may differ significantly from these structures, and roles should be defined in accordance with the company's culture and needs. As you enhance role clarity, take care to avoid overlapping responsibilities, which can create ineffective effort and value-destroying conflicts.
Four,
The efficiency of an organization can be improved through standardization. An organization that does not pay attention to the formulation, release and application of code, documentation, specifications and configuration standards will inevitably have low R&D efficiency and quality, and there is a great risk of serious problems in production.
The minimum team size is 6 people and the upper limit is 15 people. The lower limit means that the team has no less than 6 engineers, because if there are less than 6 people, there is no need to divide them into a separate team. The upper limit is that a team should not have more than 15 people. The size of 15 people begins to hinder the manager's management ability, and the communication ability between team members begins to have problems.
Another challenge that functional organizations face is conflict between teams. If these teams are tasked with delivering and supporting products or services that require cross-departmental collaboration to accomplish, conflict between teams is inevitable. We have witnessed conflicts between teams of individuals who think they are different from each other, which in the most extreme cases even develops into discrimination.
Conflicts are divided into cognitive conflicts and affective conflicts; cognitive conflicts are considered good conflicts and help the team expand the possible range of action. Different insights and experiences come together to have the opportunity to solve problems from multiple perspectives. (Brainstorming session) Bad or emotional conflicts can cause physical and organizational trauma. Physically, it drains our energy, and over time, the constant emotional conflict tires us out. Organizationally, research has shown that conflict creates organizational fragmentation, which in turn limits options tactically and strategically. Fighting closes our minds to options, meaning the outcome may not be optimal. By creating an open, caring and respectful cultural atmosphere, cognitive conflicts are maximized and emotional conflicts are minimized. Limit sources of emotional conflict by setting clear roles and responsibilities. By absorbing all kinds of talents with complementary skills and vision, the opportunity for group thinking is minimized, the range of strategies is maximized, and the organization is encouraged to grow rapidly.
The advantages of a functional structure are homogeneity of management, simple and clear responsibilities, easy assignment of tasks and good adherence to standards. (For example, product, R&D, testing, this horizontal organizational structure).
The advantage of a matrix organization is that project leaders are clearly identified and communication across departments is improved. (Similar to the functional organizational structure, only some members of each functional team are formed into a new virtual team, and the person in charge is determined according to the project)
An agile organization, especially organized by service and architecture, increases the creativity of teams, which can be measured by market responsiveness, high-quality new features, and high-availability services. (In an agile organization, each team includes complete functional personnel, such as R&D, testing, operation and maintenance, products, etc., and each team targets a specific business project.)
Fives,
"The power to influence the behavior of an organization or individual to achieve a specific goal" is leadership. Perhaps it's easiest to understand leadership along the lines of "leading activities." Developing a vision inspires an organization and guides the organization toward its goals. Set specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely goals along the way to the vision, setting milestones that can help the organization correct deviations along the way.
Leadership isn't just about the person or the organization's direct report, leadership is about what you do and how you influence the behavior of others around you, for good or ill.
We often overestimate our abilities, and they note that this overestimation is worst when inexperienced or with a high degree of ignorance . After discussing leadership models and the pros and cons to be aware of, let's take a look at a few traits shared by some of the best leaders we've ever had the pleasure of working with. This includes leading by example, not being self-willed, and working hard to accomplish the mission, while being mindful and sympathetic to the needs of the organization, making timely decisions, empowering the team, and aligning with the interests of shareholders.
We advocate a creed, "what you want people to do, then teach what, what you teach, what is your standard".
Empowering teams has a greater impact on an organization's ability to scale than any leadership activity or behavior. Delegation is the assignment of actions, responsibilities, and ownership, and may include the transfer of some or all of leadership and management to an individual or organization. In leadership terms, empowerment is about raising the pride of individuals, teams, leaders and managers for what they are responsible for. In general, individuals who believe they are empowered are more effective in decision-making and management processes than those who believe they are merely executing orders. In short, true empowerment management is equivalent to doubling the output of an organization because it is no longer the bottleneck for all activities in itself.
The vision is the destination, it helps the company inspire people, attract outside talent, retain the best talent, and help people understand what to do when managers aren't watching from behind. Ideally, the vision motivates the team, but can also serve as a guideline on where to go and what to do without management or leadership. The vision should be measurable and verifiable. That is, to have a simple method and determine whether the predetermined goal has been achieved. It should also contain part of the belief in the better meaning of the organization's existence.
Perhaps the easiest way to present a vision is from the perspective of how to give instructions to a person. When the order is issued, you will also explain how to determine whether the goal has been achieved.
A vision should meet these criteria:
1) A vivid description of an ideal future
2) Creating value for shareholders is important
3) Measurable
4) Exciting
5) Factors incorporating beliefs
6) Roughly unchanged, but can be modified as needed
7) Easy to remember
If a vision is a vivid depiction of an ideal future or the end of a journey, then a mission is a plan of action for our general route to our destination. The description of the mission is more focused on the current state of the company, because the current state is extremely important in reaching the desired state or vision of the company. The mission should include some purpose, some things to do today, and directions on how to achieve the vision. Verification of the mission statement should include determination. When executed properly, a mission statement can help inspire initiative and drive an organization or company to its vision. The mission description should meet the following conditions:
1) A description of the current state and actions
2) Purposeful
3) Measurable
4) A general direction or a path to a vision.
If vision is a description of where you are going, and mission is a general direction on how to get there, then goals are road signs or milestones in travel that make sure we are on the right path. Set goals according to SMART:
1) Specific(s)
2) Measurable (M)
3) Achievable (but challenging) (A)
4) Reality (R)
5) Time-limited (T)
Leadership is the influence of an organization or individual to accomplish specific goals. Regarding leadership, our mindset is a function of individual attributes, skills, experiences and behaviors. To be a better leader, start to understand where your weaknesses and strengths lie within your leadership function. Leadership can affect the scalability of teams and companies in many ways. Poor leadership limits the growth and output of companies and teams. By contrast, good leadership can act as a growth accelerator, enabling the organization to grow in aggregate size and individual output. Organizations and companies are empowered by becoming a better leader.
Architecture and the Future (first four chapters)