
Ask HN: Framework for the entire company? - landgenoot
When running a software company, there is a lot of things besides the DevOps that you need to take care of.<p>E.g. Incident response programs, Information security program, Periodic reviews.<p>Does such an open framework or example documentation exist?
======
ethiclub
I'll have a stab at answering this (from a purely theoretical perspective
rather than suggesting specific solutions). Apologies for the lengthy response
- The below is industry-agnostic, but much of the research and experience is
from the IT industry (software/saas, MSPs, IT project providers etc.). The
scope is SMEs only (200+ pax is a different kettle of fish).

Short answer: not really.

Long answer: The following is an assessment of what such an 'open framework'
should/would/does entail - Including turnkey modules for such things as DevOps
/ Helpdesk / Procurement etc.

While contingency theory
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_theory))
states that there is no standard way to organise a business, I believe that
there is actually a basic framework that could underpin all capitalist
enterprises. This needs to be malleable and allow for variables, but there is
a simple holistic structure that all companies essentially fit. This framework
would be valuable to:

\- Provide an overarching, comprehensive view of the company for peace of mind
and understanding

\- Dictate the systems and process to achieve end products in all areas of the
business

\- Identify what functions have not been codified, or are in need of
improvement (e.g. a Data / Security module may show that a company does not
yet have a Data Controller / GDPR procedure in place).

\- Be the single source of information (i.e. no rogue manuals being created by
staff, no going 'outside of procedure' if it is codified).

Common vernacular across all industries offering such solutions is "a business
process" \- But it is rare to see the phrase "ALL business processes" catered
for. An organisation's documentation / manual / processes are rarely up to
date, and no companies seem to offer a comprehensive business framework.
Management Consultancy rarely deals with a business 'holistically' (But this
strays into a conversation regarding issues with the Management Consulting
industry, which is a topic for another time).

Further, there is no consensus in industry as to a comprehensive business
manual (i.e. all business processes collated, all activities catered for). On
top of this, there is no consensus as to categorisation - I.e. sorting this
common framework into a business processes and organisational structure that
everyone understands. There are many 'business operating systems' and
'business frameworks', but their names always oversell the scope of what the
product actually does - Most will simply be a small collection of tools for
management or the product lifecycle.

There are business problems (for SMEs) that have existed for thousands of
years, but have had solutions for nearly as long. Yet, those problems still
exist. Has a waiter ever forgotten something for your table? This should be a
solved issue (problem: human error, example solution: notepads with categories
including 'miscellaneous requests'). But most restaurants reinvent the wheel
to some extent.

The above paragraphs lead to this hypothesis: "A business framework could be
provided which reduces overhead for SMEs, providing them direction and
structure and preventing them from having to reinvent the wheel. The framework
would be a living, breathing system, allowing for continuous improvement and
preventing issues with existing solutions."

So why does the above not seem to exist? (If anyone knows of any relevant
existing solutions here, I would love to know about it). I suspect that it is
partly this: Capitalism is still immature/changing, so there is no stable
framework yet - even at a macro view. An example manifestation of this is that
'IT' was shoehorned in as a major department over the last 30 years.
Researching into Organisational Structure shows that really, we haven't even
figured out how to categorise a company's activities. Without going into too
much detail, consider Finance and Operations vs the IT department. IT is far
too small in theoretical scope. It deals with the technology of a firm only -
Arguably, an IT department should be an 'internal systems' department that
provides ALL resources and systems (e.g. rather than just technology, this
department should also be suited to providing pens, paper, chairs, desks, and
other non-tech tooling to help undertake a task). It's all the same -
Providing the system and process for the company to undertake activities.
'Uptime' and 'availability' is as relevant for chairs and other items as for
IT systems.

To summarise - I have spent 15 years looking for such a thing, and it simply
doesn't seem to exist to the extent needed. Therefore I am creating my own. I
_feel_ as if I am pioneering - There really is so little precedent for me to
lean on. However, I am convinced that there is a solution here - The reason it
doesn't exist is NOT due to it being impossible.

\-------

I have put some misc notes here, as they may be relevant to the conversation.

Many frameworks and organisational structures fail to explicitly identify
Supplier (or partner) Relations. This is a core component of many businesses.
Presumably Supplier relations is usually implied within either Strategic
Management or Procurement. Porter (Porter's Value chain (1985) -
[https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/dstools/value-
chain-/](https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/dstools/value-chain-/))
identifies this within the 'inbound logistics' process. However, this fails to
holistically cater for the entire supplier lifecycle, or do justice to its
scope or importance. For example, Supplier sourcing may include a diligent
tender process with credit checks and shortlisting. It may also involve
ongoing relationship activities to maintain the contract.

Similarly, Porter's Value Chain can be seen as under-catering for the
importance of Community Relations. Marketing and Sales is bundled as a core
process of delivering to the consumer. However, Marketing should be seen as
much more than this. Rather than being tied to sales or customers, in this
century we should acknowledge that a modern business needs to have a mechanism
for interacting with the community regarding many things other than specific
Sales - Community participation, market feedback from stakeholders other than
customers, PR regarding company changes or other events that are not sales-
driven, etc.

[side note: Proponents of Porter's Value Chain would argue that this is
miscontruing the purpose of the tool. My counter-argument is that the Value
Chain model does not fulfil requirements as well as a different-view framework
would].

Current org structures don't cater for future needs in the free market. E.g.
If trying to add an 'ethics' function - Where to put it? Many would place it
in the Executive department/pod. Many would shoehorn it into Finance (as
finance are assessing risk and identifying externalities, they can do so for
things other than fiscal value). Regardless, current Org Structure theory
appears stuck in a legacy 'capital only' mentality - They don't cater for 21st
century Capitalism, where the consumer is starting to demand things other than
just quality product + low price.

Most business operating systems, business frameworks etc. do not provide an
overarching, binding solution to all of an organisation's tools and processes.
Their scope is small, and just adds another tool to maintain for the business.

\- EOS for example is a leadership or people management tool. It is very macro
- I.e. it does not provide solutions to anything specific other than some HR
and management exercises. ([https://blog.eosworldwide.com/blog/what-the-heck-
is-business...](https://blog.eosworldwide.com/blog/what-the-heck-is-business-
operating-system)) Orca comes close with its philosophy but falls short with
scope and cohesion/categorisation

\- Many management consulting firms will tout a BOS, but without an actual
system/framework to support it - And those systems that are provided are
lacking in scope. ([http://www.orcabos.com/what-is-a-
bos/](http://www.orcabos.com/what-is-a-bos/),
[https://www.qpr.com/solutions/business-process-
management](https://www.qpr.com/solutions/business-process-management),
[https://www.quickeasysoftware.com/business-operating-
system/](https://www.quickeasysoftware.com/business-operating-system/))

\- Lincolnshire council (UK) does a good job (HR department only) of exposing
all procedures ready for compilation into a BOS.
[https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/jobs/manuals/employment-
manu...](https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/jobs/manuals/employment-manual/a-z-
list-of-policies-and-procedures/)

~~~
ethiclub
I should probably also have noted libraries, frameworks or standards such as:

\- ISO:9001, 14001, 45001, 27001, annex structure, etc.

\- IT Service: ITIL

\- Project: PMBOK, PRINCE2

\- Management & Org: EOS
([https://www.eosworldwide.com/australia](https://www.eosworldwide.com/australia))

\- Manifestos: Agile et al.

\- Strategy frameworks / tools: [https://hbr.org/2015/06/navigating-the-
dozens-of-different-s...](https://hbr.org/2015/06/navigating-the-dozens-of-
different-strategy-options)

\- Specific functions: Unofficial guides such as
[https://www.businessclan.com/gdpr/](https://www.businessclan.com/gdpr/)

\- ERPs and platforms: Many companies such as ServiceNow, Hubspot,
ConnectWise, Workday etc. are arguably standardising industry practices more
than standards and frameworks.

All of the above - to some extent - can be seen as frameworks or libraries
that suggest functions and structure best practices. However - as argued in
the previous comment, none of these are a comprehensive framework across all
business operations, nor even a complete turnkey solution for a single
function.

