Idiom

Image via Wikipedia

Take a system, let’s call it System A.
Split this System A up into its components as defined by their function. System A now functions by these components cooperating, communicating and supporting each other. It also makes the components and thus the system as a whole, easier to administer.

Now if we establish what System A’s core reason, values, remit are and we find that one of those components does not sit well with these other functions then one could ostensibly hive off this component into a stand alone system. Let’s do that and call it System I.

System I is essential to and underpins the very foundations of System A. Without System I, System A cannot cooperate, communicate or indeed function.

But the advantage is that System I is now in a position to provide its functionality to other regionally local Systems, with benefits of shared resourcing, knowledge base, consistency of processes.

Now let us look at System I and we may see that one of its larger and more important Aspects has been deemed inappropriate, dysfunctional, abrasive and not conducive to the smooth and effective running of said System. In fact so unwelcome is this grit in the well oiled machine that is System I is that it is removed and placed on something called Gardening Leave.

It is worth pointing out at this point that the Aspect was originally part of System A and migrated to System I when it was outsourced. And also worth pointing out that System A and System I are now two completely disparate, independent and discrete organisations. One is a customer one is a service provider. There are no shared resources. One purchases from the other.

Suddenly the Aspect which has caused so much chaffing in System I is to be found back in System A and returning at the most senior level possible. Which is a curious thing because the title and therefore remit appear to point to the very components that the Aspect used to manage but which have now migrated to System I and are thus no longer part of the organisation that is System A. So one would be reasonable in asking what it is that the Aspect is going to be managing, given there appears to be not much to manage?

An obvious conclusion would to be some sort of interface between the two Systems (A & I), but to use such a chaffing, annoying and troublesome a component that has been ejected by System I as an interface to System I on a customer relationship basis would be possibly be questionable if only for reasons of logic. Why use a dysfunctional irritation as the mechanism upon which two systems interface with each other? Another question may be where the business case is for System A to bring something which they have already seen reason to eject to System I in the first place, was the original business case for this somehow erroneous? A further question may be where this Aspect shaped hole magically appeared so quickly from and at what point was due process followed? And one further point would be that the detritus that is all the other components are constantly being told to stop complaining, stop asking for the proper resources to do their role adequately and just get on with it, mainly because there is no money. But a six figure amount can be materialised out of the ether for something which a) has already been proven to be not needed, b) been proven to be not fit for purpose and c) been placed in a position that could maximise any potential disruption to a service which System A relies on absolutely to function. Can you spot the idiom yet boys and girls?