A nivel operativo

Excluding the most obvious and localised sensemaking processes at the individual (intra- subjective) level, three higher levels of sensemaking are identified (Wiley, 1988). These are the intersubjective, generic subjective and extrasubjective.

Intersubjective

The intersubjective level of sensemaking goes beyond the intrasubjective’s individual thoughts, feelings and intentions. All these elements are combined in a process moving the “I” to a “we” through conversing. This causes the subjective meaning to be interchanged and synthesised with the subjective meaning of another self.

In essence this results in a fusion of meaning between two or more selves within the context of some social interaction. This creates a “level of social reality” (p. 254).

Generic Subjective

The generic subjective is on the level of social structures. The focus on this level is no longer placed on individual (concrete) human beings. “Selves are left behind at the interactive level. Social structure implies a generic self, interchangeable part — as filler of roles and follower of rules — but not concrete, individualised selves. The ‘relation to subject’ then, at this level is categorical and abstract” (Wiley, 1988, p. 258).

Many social phenomena such as work roles, relational roles, social networks, “scripts” and “plots” are located at this level. These standardised plots make people interchangeable and enable organisations to function given a constantly changing workforce.

In managing uncertainty, sensemakers rely on a mixture of the intersubjective and generic subjective with the intersubjective acting as a fall-back mechanism to fill gaps in sense.

Extrasubjective

The highest level of sensemaking is that of the extrasubjective. This is the level at which culture is located. On this level the generic self is replaced by “pure meaning” (Popper, 1968).

This level of culture is an “abstract idealised framework constructed as the result of many cycles of prior interaction” (Weick, 1995, p. 72).

When proceeding with a sensemaking analysis, it is imperative to consider the appropri- ate level of sensemaking for that particular analysis. Also note that sensemaking processes may occur simultaneously on different levels.

4.5 — Level of Analysis (Institutional Theory) 82

This concludes the brief summary of sensemaking, but is in no way meant to be com- plete. Additional concepts applicable to specific analyses will be introduced in the following chapters. At this point enough of a (sensemaking) framework has been established to enable the evaluation of agile development in this light.

Agile Development as Managed

Sensemaking

Previous chapters have evaluated the development of software methodologies, defined the term ‘agile development’ and presented an integrated view of sensemaking theory. As stated in the first chapter, the goal is now to evaluate our conception of agile development against the background of this integrated view of sensemaking and thereby gain a better understanding of this new approach to software development1.

The objective in this case is to try and establish whether the underlying principles and assumptions in the agile approach can be explained by the process of sensemaking (or rather, organisational sensemaking). Through evaluating stated values and principles and inves- tigating the activities of agile development, this chapter proposes that agile development can be better understood from a sensemaking perspective and even more importantly, that the reasons for agile development as approach rather than formalised approaches resonate particularly well with the framework of understanding cognitive processes in changing and unpredictable environments.

Using sensemaking as a conceptual framework is not a novel approach. However, as demonstrated in the previous chapter, this theory was not designed as a formal model against which cases can be evaluated in a check-list fashion. Sensemaking was also not conceptualised with a set of criteria which phenomena need to display in order to qualify as being a process of ‘sensemaking’.

1

Although the salient points are briefly listed here, it is recommended that the reader refer back to chapters three and four for the detailed discussion of agile development and a review of sensemaking.

5.1 — Meta-sensemaking & Recursion 84

To perform this analysis we therefore have to look at the entire agile development ap- proach and ask if the behaviour, specifications and underlying assumptions display the same patterns as seen in the literature describing sensemaking acts. To this end a the- matic approach is followed, identifying several correlations between sensemaking and agile development.

Sensemaking theory is presented as a scaffolding with which to gain a better under- standing of the emergent behaviour observed in the establishment of agile development.

Once again, bear in mind that this thesis is dealing with managed sensemaking. By evaluating the fit between sensemaking and agile development, we can reflect on the steps organisations need to take to ensure that the organisational conditions are conducive to the act of sensemaking being undertaken in their own contexts.

At the same time the notion of managing sensemaking itself is a misnomer. Attempting to influence sensemaking acts in this way is na¨ıve and futile for the same reasons knowledge management cannot manage knowledge itself. Chapter 6 expands on this topic.

5.1

Meta-sensemaking & Recursion

This chapter will outline several correlations between different sensemaking acts and activ- ities within the agile development process. Sensemaking happens at many different levels during agile development. This section will briefly look at these layers of sensemaking.