068 - Lyron Andrews explains his BeST framework

Pluralsight author Lyron Andrews explains the background and benefits of his recently released BeST framework. He also talks about how the principles of the framework can apply across different industries and teams.

• Business established Service Taxonomy (BeST) Framework: Human-Centered Alignment of Services, Products, and Actions to the Mission
• Securing the Vote: Everything You Need to Know About Election Security

If you enjoy this episode, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.

Please send any questions or comments to podcast@pluralsight.com.

Daniel Blaser:

Hello and welcome to All Hands On Tech. I'm Daniel Blaser. Today, I had the pleasure of speaking with Pluralsight author, Lyron Andrews. He recently released a new framework called the BEST framework, and we discuss what inspired him to create it and how it can be helpful for teams of all sizes and in all industries. We also talk about some of his work to promote allyship within the Pluralsight author community.

Thank you so much for chatting with me today, Lyron. I'm really excited to learn more about your recently released BEST framework. I guess you just released a guide and it outlines this business established service taxonomy framework. Just, can you offer just an elevator pitch of what that framework is?

Lyron Andrews:

Yeah, absolutely. And Daniel, thank you so much for having me on the podcast. I appreciate this. Yeah, so a couple of weeks back, I released this guide to what's called a business established service taxonomy. And the framework is designed primarily to address these things: one, organizations or companies have problems sometimes with referring to individual items or artifacts in that organization by multiple names. So just this lack of congruence, that's one thing. Another is that organizations sometimes have a disconnect between the things that they believe on paper, or that they espouse, and then the things that they actually carry out. And I would say another problem that happens quite often is that they go to solving problems as instances, rather than taking a step back and looking at a systemic enterprise, wide approach to solving problems. So I would say those are the objectives of the framework.

Daniel Blaser:

Interesting. Definitely a lot of what you just mentioned as challenges are things that seem familiar to me. So it seems definitely applicable. What was the inspiration for laying out this framework?

Lyron Andrews:

Oh, that's a great question. I would say that it's kind of been throughout my whole career in technology, and multiple little things ended up inspiring it, until it came to this kind of cohesive thought of, "Wow. Why don't I just address this with some type of a process flow?" But I would have to say one incident that made it painfully clear was one time, I was responsible for developing a training program for a group of technology executives in a company. And these technology executives were wondering why it was taking so long to develop the training. They were impatient about it. They wanted to convert over to using RESTful API from SOAP APIs. And it's a large organization, it's a Fortune 100 organization.

And when I finally got to meet with them and finally got them to pause for a moment and reflect, I told them that the problem comes from not having a common definition of what these new things are. And being a bit dismissive, they were all like, "Okay, well let's just talk about it and resolve it." I said, "I actually want you to understand the problem and I want you to experience it." So I said, "Instead of talking about it, why don't we all write it down?" There were 10 people in the room. I asked them, what is the definition of the technology that we were considering, that they wanted me to create training for? 10 people provided 14 definitions.

So some of them conflicted with themselves, and the way that I thought we could address that was go back up to the level of the business, or the mission, and only there can we first come up with a strategy that would then define a service, and that's basically how BEST works. It looks at three levels of existence in an organization, the mission, informing a strategy, and the strategy informing a service.

Daniel Blaser:

That's so wise to just start with, are we all on the same page of the definition of this thing? And obviously, like you said, it applies to technology and implementing updates and stuff from that realm, but that can apply to anything. I feel like where there's a group of people that want to move forward, there's so much value in just stopping and saying, wait, just to make sure we are all thinking that this, whatever this topic is, we're all just in the same space there, right? Let's make sure before we move forward, that the definition is all agreed upon. Yeah. Very, very wise. I like that.

So what do you see? I mean, to me, some of the advantages of this framework are self-evident, but I'd love to hear kind of what you see as being the primary advantages of implementing the BEST framework.

Lyron Andrews:

Oh, that's another great question. From advantages, I see an organization being able to take what... I find sometimes organizations have what's called, what I would call a framework, fatigue or A guideline fatigue, where it's another framework got to apply this, we have to do this. The BEST framework has modularity and, I would say, abstraction capability so that you could possibly use it as a meta framework. In fact, in the guideline, I encourage using it as a meta framework, so as a framework to help you see the purposefulness of other frameworks.

The three levels of existence in an organization that I mentioned, mission, the strategy, and the service, there are these $25 philosophical terms that I also use to describe them and, purposefully, the reason why I use these terms is because I want an organization to remember their people. So at the very top in mission, there's this thing that I view as being the ontology of the organization and ontology is a $25 word, philosophical word, that basically describes existence. And the fact is, Daniel, that even if you and I agree on something, even if you and I say that, "Yes, we agree that this is the thing that is in existence." We are experiencing that two different ways. Your experience of that is going to be completely different from mine. So if we can codify and define what that existence is and come to a understanding and agreed understanding of that, I think that that is going to solve a lot of problems when you have multiple frameworks that you have to apply within an organization. What you're going to do is tie those back to the mission.

I also think another advantage of using it, imagine disparate groups having a conversation, and by conversation, I don't mean talking heads on a newsmagazine show where they're arguing and fighting points one side or the other. What I mean is that people who don't share common beliefs actually wanting to solve problems together with those that represent disparate groups, organizations, disparate societal structures. You can only imagine in 2020 that those groups are plentiful. If people want to come together and solve problems and they come from disparate beliefs, disparate groups, wouldn't it be cool to come up with a common ground, a common set of terms, a common set of definitions related to the crux of their problem? So that's the other advantage that I see in applying the framework.

Daniel Blaser:

I really liked that. Obviously, like you said, very applicable to a lot of different situations right now, inside and outside of businesses, right? And I do think that I... I feel like a lot of people, like you said, from coming from different places and different points of view, a lot of people do want to come to a place of common understanding and they have good intentions. It's just, it can be hard to navigate that sometimes. So I definitely am with you there. I think it's interesting.

You talked a little bit about the fact that organizations often end up with a lot of different frameworks and a lot of different considerations like this. I'd just love to hear you talk a little bit more about like, okay, you're in an organization and maybe you already do feel framework overload, how does that apply to those organizations? How does the BEST framework apply?

Lyron Andrews:

Personally, I come from the security world and before that, from a technology world, generically, and now specifically with security. And I think about all of the frameworks that exist out there from a security perspective. When using BEST, BEST, as I said, first draws an organization to understand what is their mission. What is it that we are in existence for? Well, up at the mission level, an organization may have some external pressures that are actually driving what their mission is. Some of these external pressures could be laws and regulations that tell an organization what they are to be engaged in and what they're not to be engaged in. In some cases, those laws and regulations actually drive what's called a risk appetite for an organization, that is what activities are they allowed to get involved in based off of their internal governance and then also based off of what the laws and regulations say.

In the world of cybersecurity, an organization could use the BEST framework to think about what broad level guidelines are out there that could inform their strategy on how they meet this mission. So now, they could record those as artifacts. In fact, at each of the phases, when you apply the BEST framework, you start off at the mission phase, defining that, and coming up with this mission as understood document. You may have things that are about national, international, regional laws. You would have things related to your governance in your organization. How you carry out or how you strive to meet that mission would be manifest in your organizational strategy. I think that's where all these frameworks would start appearing.

So for instance, you might see the NIST cybersecurity framework show up as a way to approach maturity for your cybersecurity practice. You might see SABSA show up, which is another framework security base that helps an organization to develop processes for service management when it comes to their security. So there are very specific placeholders, if you will, that we would call artifacts that each of those frameworks would show up as, and you would have a line of purpose that goes back up to your mission from one of those frameworks. I'm using it for this purpose, and it's not static by any stretch of the imagination. It's also dynamic and can change based off of changing frameworks, based off on changing goals and even possibly an organization reconsidering their mission, which is something I do want to talk to you about, but I'm going to shut up and let you ask the next question.

Daniel Blaser:

There's a reason that you chose an acronym that spells out BEST, I feel like, and it's partially because of what you just said, the adaptability, the fact that it can encompass all these others, all these other existing frameworks and stuff that makes sense. You talked a little bit about your background in cybersecurity, the beginning, you shared an example from that world. I'd love to hear how you see this framework being applied for cybersecurity and IT professionals.

Lyron Andrews:

With IT professionals, I think it's imperative that they grow in their understanding of what the business is about. I think because of the world that we grow up in, in IT, we grew up in this world of certitude and you have to have it, and if you don't have certitude, then you don't qualify. You don't have the competency to get this job done. So there's... I don't know, a sort of a thinking apparatus that's a part of your typical IT person. And in some cases, I think it makes the information technology person feel as if they are the center of the universe and that people don't understand what they're talking about. That's the misgiving of those people. That's not my problem and they need to get up to my level.

And I'm absolutely being overgeneralizing in my statements here and then, also, a bit stereotypical, but I'm saying that's kind of how people look at IT people, even if the IT person doesn't feel that way, that's how they look at them. I think that one of the primary reasons for that is the language that they choose to use. A quick story to illustrate this. Another company that I was consulting for, it's a Fortune 100 company, just to show the gravity of what was going on, and a CIO was making a presentation to the CEO and to some board members. When the CIO finished the presentation, the CIO exited the room, the CEO thanked him before walking out, and as soon as the door was closed, the CEO said, "What the blank did he just say?"

And the room erupts in laughter and I felt like a fly on the wall because, here it is, I'm a technology person and because I was consulting, I remained in the room, but I got to see the reaction... Analogy that came in my head almost instantly, and I've referenced this in the guide, is of going to your favorite restaurant and upon entry in the restaurant, the maître d', or the host greets you, and instead of sitting down at your seat, giving you a menu, they say, "Before you sit down, let me show you this awesome technology refrigeration system, this sub zebra refrigeration system. And let me show you the state-of-the-art ovens that we use in order to cook this food." I think there are a few among us who would geek out on that and be like, "Wow, that's great." But most of us didn't go to the restaurant for that purpose. Most of us went to the restaurant to enjoy the fine food and the fine service.

That is precisely what the business wants from technology, not fine food, but they want excellent service and they want excellent benefits. They don't care about the features. And so the framework helps the technologists to actually step away from the confines of the technology and think about, what does this technology produce? It produces a service. What are the end to end services? When the technologists understands the business and the service that's actually being accomplished, their language begins to change. And now the language used becomes the language understood, which is something else I address in the framework. There's a disconnect there. The language that I use may not be the language that you understand, unless I can get to a point of alignment of what a thing is.

Daniel Blaser:

That's very interesting. My background is in marketing and it's a pretty... One of the first rules of marketing is to distinguish speaking about features of a product versus the benefits that it provides. That's kind of like, marketing 101 is focus on the benefits, not the features. And so it's interesting to hear you say the same thing, but having it apply to technologists and that that is something that rings true even in that world, but it definitely makes sense. It was a great analogy about the restaurant as well. That helps illustrate it. You just released this guide around BEST framework, what's next?

Lyron Andrews:

Well, I really am looking forward to... I wish I could produce a clone. I really look forward to developing training around it. My intent is to make it on-demand so that I don't need to be there, and so that folks can consume it. One of the pitch organizations will be Pluralsight, just [inaudible 00:20:21]. I don't know how that will turn out, but I do want to make on-demand training so that people can consume it just in time, people can use it in their environment, according to the structure of their environment, how their environment appears, so that's one thing. The other thing I look forward to doing is actually creating consultation models and possibly certification capabilities based off of the framework. So I'm looking forward to that as the next steps with it.

Daniel Blaser:

Well, I don't think I have much sway in the Pluralsight content department, but if you tell me who I need to email, I will advocate for this. I like that idea. So one more question I had on my list, I know that you've been pretty active in the Pluralsight author community around allyship and what that means and how to be an ally. Can you speak maybe a little bit about those efforts and then how they actually connect with the BEST framework that we've been discussing?

Lyron Andrews:

Thank you. I am quite passionate about anything that is human-centric. So a secret that I probably shouldn't share with the public, but if I had an opportunity to only be involved with human-centric work, I would leave all other types of work behind. So I won't say what all those works are, but you obviously know. I would just be involved in human-centric activities.

So Pluralsight's commitment to and attention to allyship is something that is near and dear to my heart. I've been part of multiple corporations that have at one level or another espoused allyship and to some level of success or not success. I think a lot of what is successful has to do with some learning that I did many years ago in a teacher's college in their doctoral program, on this idea of something called double-loop learning. In double-loop learning, the first loop, you're asking the question, am I doing things correctly? And the analogy that comes to my head for that is, imagine someone driving down the street going the speed limit, abiding by all of the laws of the road, have their seatbelt on, and then you pose the question, are they doing things correctly? The answer would be 'yes'. But then the-double loop says, am I involved in doing the correct things? So am I actually doing the right things? What if that same person was driving the speed limit and following all the laws and regulations, but coming away from a bank robbery.

So I think about organizations and I think about what it is that they are doing. They may be doing things correctly. They may be generating the right amount of revenue. They may be answering to their shareholders and to the stakeholders in the organizations from a material perspective, but are they doing human-centric things that actually contribute to the betterment of humankind. So that's why allyship drives me. That's what I look forward to being part of as I work with a Pluralsight from a facilitation perspective.

And I think the BEST framework, shameless plug, I think it fits quite well within that environment is because even asking the question, what does allyship mean to you, should draw us back to this need for what I term in the book reification. And reification is, basically, taking something that is fairly ethereal and nebulous and turning it into something that is concrete and is manageable and that you can use that's useful. So that's how I'm going to use the framework as I engage with Pluralsight is let's reify an understanding of allyship, which involves everyone, which involves the allies and those who are... People are taking allied steps for. That term is kind of rich in meaning. If you just think of ally and you think of the last time you heard the use of ally and under what historical context you remember ally, maybe I'll just experiment with you. I'll experiment live.

Daniel Blaser:

Well, now I feel like there's a right and wrong answer. But for me, for me personally, I would probably think back to World War II and the concept of the UK being America's ally or something like that.

Lyron Andrews:

100%. 100%.

Daniel Blaser:

Okay, good.

Lyron Andrews:

It's awesome. You get a A plus. It's awesome because that's the way that I want to approach this discussion with allyship. If you don't have skin in the game, if you're not taking risks, can you actually say that you're an ally? If you're doing this cold and you're doing this from a room someplace, how is that an ally? How were allies from remote control storming the beaches of Normandy? Like, that didn't happen. There were risks associated with it. So just a little teaser, that's what I plan to think about and to reflect on with the group of leaders in Pluralsight, which I really enjoy the time I've been connected to this company on their authorship. I've seen the things, I've seen their values. Pluralsight One, I've actually done some work to draw certain companies to them, so I'm enthused that for Pluralsight, it doesn't represent a forklift upgrade that needs to happen. It represents them wishing to do more, and I'm really proud to be part of a company that's doing that.

Daniel Blaser:

Yeah. I mean, that's so great. And you touched on a few different things that stuck out to me, but obviously the term 'ally', like you said, it's been used a lot more, maybe in the last 12 months, or whatever, than it ever has been, or at least it has been since World War II or something like that. But to emphasize the fact that you do have to have some skin in the game, there has to be some sort of threat or some sort of risk that you're working together to overcome. And it's not a one-sided thing. I think that's really important to emphasize, but I'm really excited to hear more about this and I definitely... Like you said, it seems like Pluralsight as a whole, we're hopefully heading in the right direction, but some of these things, like your implementation of the BEST framework, sort of in this direction, like that will hopefully just help us get to the right destination a little bit quicker. So anyway, I look forward to that.

I wanted to give you the opportunity... I'm kind of out of questions on my list, but is there anything else that you wanted to mention before you wrap up our chat today?

Lyron Andrews:

I think just reiterating how happy I am to be hosting a training on this platform and working with folks like you, Daniel, who get below the surface. I think my tagline on LinkedIn, I haven't looked at it in a while, but it's, "Seeking to connect beyond the transactional and below the surface," I believe is how I feel, how I experience things. It gets tiring for me to be at the surface, and I actually get energy from going below the surface of a thing and getting underneath it. So I just want to say, personally, this was one of those rewarding times for me to do this podcast with you. So I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Daniel.

Daniel Blaser:

Yeah, absolutely. It's always a pleasure to chat with you. And I just want to throw out one plug. I worked a little bit with Lyron a few months ago, and he put together a really cool course on the security concerns and realities around the 2020 US Presidential Election and we released that for free. Anyone listening to this podcast can go watch the entirety of that course for free. And I've been surprised. I enjoyed the course when you first finished and I watched it. But to me, it almost seems like more important almost now than it did when... We released it leading up to the election by a month or something and looking back on that, I'm like, actually, this is really important to still watch. It has not fallen out of date even though the election is over, so I'd encourage anyone that hasn't already watched that to do so.

Lyron Andrews:

Awesome. Thank you, Daniel.

Daniel Blaser:

You have a great rest of your day.

Lyron Andrews:

Thanks, you too. Appreciate it.

Daniel Blaser:

Thank you for listening to All Hands On Tech. To see show notes and more information, visit pluralsight.com/podcast. Thanks again, and have a great week.