Noteworthy. In one sense, a dilution. In another, a move to widespread adoption and acceptance. From which, probably, some unforeseeable, maybe even weird, whole new societal developments may spring.
And, for the heck of it:
[Pre-1998 analog to digital, FLlW @ Bear Run obviously]
Blog
In that Case, No.
Is your organization still replying on ‘business’ ‘cases’ to fund projects? Then there’s a special place for you in Dorchester.
When building such business cases – apologies for not mocking that newspeak already –, have you ever come up with one that did not pass the hurdle rate ..? Or come across a case where no business case was needed because the case for investing was so obvious or it wasn’t most clearly but someone of the Board wanted it so whatever dreadful return was expected all still had to be done?
Which made business cases the spider web that catches the little flies when the big ones simply smash on through.
And the insects that game-change and disrupt your feeding/business model and/or market share, don’t even fly near your web or turned inedible.
How many start-ups go through formal business cases for every investment or pivot ..? And only just making the 10% rate ..? With all costs so exactly calculable as you present those (the 100%+ error rates you leave out ’cause band widths are too difficult to understand by the ones with the money bags. You presume that, they deny that vehemently because it would show them to be the emperors in their newest clothes (but with piggy-fat pay checks), but you are certain of not being able to mark the averages for the cost items so you take lowest estimates), and the benefits monetized [my italics, auth.] to fabulously inflated figures. With oh so many unethical rounds of ‘adjustments’. Newspeak for: cooking the books of your business case. By lack of the hardest of scientifically concrete counterevidence you maintain your weakest of kindergarten estimates still hold.
Again, not very much like the start-ups you envy. You envy for their success rate. Ah, you now say the failure rate of start-ups is dismal. How about the failure rate of your projects; if they had been single initiatives, wouldn’t they have gone bankrupt at an even higher rate? Aren’t your successes the panting hanging-in-by-the-thread shrill-shouts of objectives achievement? Where the start-ups are considered successful only after passing the … maybe 500% return rate; reflective of … business value through non-monetary returns you could only dream of.
Don’t feel like I’m just bullying you like all the rest, with the weapon of slight. I’m trying to provide ammo so you can be allowed to move away from the bleak common business case of ‘decks’ full of PPTs where the content would be much, much better presented in Word and the 6 words shoud be per sheet not per half inch; unreadable, not made to understand. [Why!?!? Why use PPT; why are you using a truck to get a dozen of eggs from the Walmart ..!?]
So, what pointer can you provide to beat the business case system; not to game it but to replace it with another that might actually be useful, functional, in (larger) organisations …?
There’s hope
Though hope has never been solid business planning, as it is what’s left after all rational expectations and handles have vanished and only leaving it to fate remains, this move may, may have some impact in one way or another: Ello mutating into a PBC.
And, for the weekend:
[We have a beautiful prize available for the first to locate this!]
Unfreeze, the quest for ~ in business
How do Those In Business that deal with the all-sorts of überbureaucratisation, think the Second Law, of thermodynamics of course, wouldn’t apply to their work as well?
Let’s kick off with:

[Appropriately named the Airplane building. Zuid-As]
Happened to attend a conference last week. And was able to read back a great many days of twitter feed. Due to the utter boredom. Because the presentations were all about … introducing control frameworks, under the guise of governance frameworks, that aren’t (fact).
- Still, all was presented as if there would be little in place already;
- Still, it appeared none looked past ‘first-time’ implementation. Albeit that some (not all…) mentioned the repeat of the PDCA (some, as just an element of a PDCA cycle they, how Ecce Huomo, completely erroneously mixed up with the management control cycle!), none seemed to have had any experience with an actual (hence very shoddy) implementation of ‘GRC’ let alone found the root cause of its continued, law-of-nature certain decline. Law of nature, as the system of control of which we speak, having entropy-aversion as its rationale, will suffer from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The entropy of a closed system never decreases. These systems, leak all the way, and aren’t rigorously consistent and/or stable in the first place. I.e., all these systems tend towards Chaos; no Man, half-god or god(s) has ever been able to (or wanted to!) prevent this.
- As if the concept of Life Cycle wouldn’t apply to the totalitarian system of bureaucratic control that GRC is; the Decline has been set in everywhere as it has set in throughout the Culture Of GRC.
- As if there weren’t already serious errors in the system itself: Trying, repeat ad nauseam, in vain to control the uncontrollable, to capture the thing that is defined by its escape from control, i.e., Risk.
- As if it were a good thing to consider GRC as necessarily (sic) one-size-fits-all within an organization; all elements should be in all corners. That is not ‘governance’ (which already is nothing in itself) but genocide-by-dehumanization-and-slavery over all involved.
- As if GRC isn’t self-defeating or rather, self-destroying by crushing initiative (that necessarily is over the edge of Control’s allowance; the more perfect GRC the more so!) and hence straightjacketing anything and everyone into tighter and tighter harnases whilst the competition, muddy-ocean to blue ocean whatever, would not overrun and eradicate your organization. ‘The fish starts to rot at the head’, here too.
- As if… as if the step-wise activities approach still depicted, would possibly work anywhere and not fit, as any day at the office (sic) would be swamped with all activities all the time in an insurmountable mix.
- Where the likes of Nassim Taleb did already prove that when one thinks to control better by being displayed less variance in some results variable, that is only a sign of the powers of nature prepping up for the big Bang that kill those very results. Which is the force of nature, demonstrated since the dawn of humanity to having plagued all systems of cooperation and society: The Apollo side may think to triumph, but the Dionysos side in Man will get even no matter what. The more the latter is pushed aside, tha harder it will strike back in unforeseen directions. No doubt; fact of godly nature.
You get it. I hope. Now, go understand Road to Nowhere.
Top 2000 or 2214 of 2014
OK … There it is: The definitive this year’s Top 2000.
Without argument or doubt, herewith…
First, downloadable in plain Excel, for your own tinker and play, in this file; checked and clean (no subversive content).
Next, a few little notes:
- “That’s odd! The usual numbers 1 to 50 aren’t where they’re ‘supposed’ to be by common standards!” Correct. Because I‘m ‘Rekt. The list is mine; why put the Mehhh songs high up there? They’re in there somewhere, but its my list, my preferences..! yes I do like some almost-forgotten songs better, sometimes much, much better, than the expired old hands.
- Especially.. see the notes, when the clip (much) enhances the song(s). Wouldn’t that mean the song in itself isn’t fully complete ..? No, it means in (since) the age of video, songs with clips (‘integrated’) can much surpass mere songs by themselves, for a cubed sensory experience.
- There’s more than 2000 yes. Because, already after the first 500 or so, determining the relative rankings becomes awkward. Hence, the cut-off would be random …! (why not 2048, that would make more sense in this digital (i.e., binary) age).
- If you would still have some (preferably wacky) songs you miss, please do comment them to me. I’ll see whether I’d want to include them still, or not. Hey, it’s my list so I decide, geddid?
- When dabbling with the Excel file yourself, feel free to play around with the ranking mechanism. What worked for me, was to first split the songs into bins of about 250 size (designate some song to be in the first bin that will end up being ranks 1-250, another song to bin 5, which is around the 1000-1250 mark, etc.), then sizing down bin 1 etc. to 8 smaller bins. Then, numbers 1-50 get a personal treatment one by one to their end rank, the rest gets (got) a random allocation within their bracket. After this, sort and re-apply number 1-whatever. Through this, actual intermediate bin sizes aren’t too important.
- Huh waddayakno, before the below is published, I have a Challenge for you: To give Frizzle Sizzle, Luv and Erik Mesie some rightful places. If you’re Dutch otherwise you might just not get it. Others, may include the B52’s somewhere; Love Shack. And DÖF’s Codo. ☺ and oops forgot Thomas Dolby.
- [Edited to add: I’m now working on an extended list, with the How Could I Have Missed These!? so the total keeps rising. For next year’s list.]
Then, as a long, very long list. With a Moar tag otherwise it would be ridiculous… [i.e., for the complete list in the post, follow the link:]
| Rank | Title | Artist | Notes |
| 1 | Hustle | Vann McCoy | Yes, the original |
| 2 | Easy Livin’ | Uriah Heep | To power it up |
| 3 | Heart Of Gold | Neil Young | Hits the heart |
| 4 | Hide and Seek | Howard Jones | Same, if you listen well |
| 5 | Peter Gunn | Emerson Lake & Palmer | Just for the intro alone |
| 6 | She | Elvis Costello | Personal nostaliga |
| 7 | White Room | Cream | Nicely powerful, doesn’t wear out too easily |
| 8 | 74-’75 (+Video) | Connells | The video sublimates the message |
| 9 | Windowlicker (+Video) | Aphex Twins | Incomplete, as a work of art, without the video |
| 10 | Nice ‘n Slow | Jesse Green | Calm down again |
| 11 | One Of These Days | Pink Floyd | Hidden pearl |
| 12 | Smoke On The Water | Deep Purple | Of course |
| 13 | The Man With One Red Shoe (+Video) | Laurent Garnier | Incomplete, as a work of art, without the video |
| 14 | You’re So Vain | Carly Simon | I think this song is about me! |
| 15 | Dancing Barefoot | Patti Smith | Hidden treasure |
| 16 | Right Here Right Now | Fatboy Slim | Oft forgotten, defined an era |
| 17 | The Great Gig In The Sky | Pink Floyd | Appealing complexity |
| 18 | All I Need | Air | Mindfulness in musical form |
| 19 | Dream On | Aerosmith | Heartburn |
| 20 | You Got To Fight For Your Right to Party | Beastie Boys | Appealing. Simply that. |
| 21 | California Dreamin’ | Mamas & The Papas | |
Not so self-driving
Errrm, after reading this Slate article, what is the ‘self-driving’ the car does ..? It’s just fitting into the template of the world laid out, not self-driving with ‘self’ being autonomous and aware.
Though I’m not fully in agreement on the conclusion, I do recognize the comparison in the early paragraphs: The G’s self-driving one as the Newton. But that was handsomely overtaken (intended) by the handhelds of all sizes that are ubiquitous today. As the article already hints, it’ll be a matter of AI creeping into our cars in all sorts of ways, when we suddenly realize how close we are to (or past the point of) true autonomy. But we’re not very close to that, yet; the jumps to be made may be much bigger than the Newton-to-Android-phablet one. Not being able to cope with any but the finest weather … Ugh, if one had known that, no-one would have claimed anything about self of driving, right? Where are the permits to road-legality (CA, probably already, UK 2015/2016 it was?) going to if mere sleet and fog may destroy safety?
By the way, did you notice the similarity with what happened to Glass ..? “Yes indeed, where has that gone!?” Well, it turns out it was a good try for Big G and now has vanished due to the public denouncement, through ridicule and physical backlash. So… next time, the tech will be inobtrusive, secretive, so you’ll not be able to detect or defend against it… Big win, not. So it will go with cars. Till the next round; then: Sneeking up on you, then be inevitable.
OK, I’ll leave you with yesteryears’ gloomy perimeter defences:![20141019_134718[1]](https://maverisk.nl/2014/10/20141019_1347181.jpg)
The two faces of digital transformation
It Happens
It starts with Taoism. But I recognize bureaucracy, software development and economics. In:
| Taoism | Sh.t happens |
| Confucianism | Confucius say: “Sh.t happens” |
| Buddism | If sh.t happens, it is not really sh.t |
| Zen | What is the sound of sh.t happening? |
| Hinduism | This sh.t has happened before |
| Islam | If sh.t happens, it is the will of Allah |
| Protestantism | Let the sh.t happen somewhere else |
| Catholicism | If sh.t happens, you deserve it |
| Judaism | Why does sh.t always happen to us? |
| Mysticism | Just experience sh.t happening |
| Ascetisim | If sh.t happens, renounce it |
| Agnosticism | Nobody knows why sh.t happens |
| Gnosticism | I know why sh.t happens but will not tell you |
| Atheism | Sh.t happens and that is all there is to it |
| Cathesianism | Sh.t happened to me, therefore it exists |
| Platonism | There is ideal sh.t happening somewhere |
| Stoicism | I do not care if sh.t happens |
| Epicureanism | Let us party while sh.t does not happen |
| Cynism | Of course sh.t happens |
| Occultism | Sh.t materializes from other planets of existence |
| Terrorism | Sh.t will happen unless you do as I say |
| Puritanism | S… can happen all day as long as you do not call it that |
| Behaviourism | You are conditioned to having sh.t happen |
| Freudianism | If sh.t happens, it is your mother’s fault |
| Parapsychology | Sh.t happens without material causes |
| Surrealism | Purple sh.t happens near melting clocks |
| Cubism | If sh.t happens, you will not recognise it |
| Optimism | If sh.t happens, we will find a way to use it |
| Pessimism | If sh.t happens, there will not be enough for everybody |
| Tabloid sensationalism | Green sh.t from Mars happens to Elvis clone |
| Biblical creationism | Sh.t happens because God created it |
| Scientific obscurantism | Sh.t happens because it evolved from primitive sh.t |
| Bureaucracy | I do not care if sh.t happens as long as you fill out the forms |
| Feminism | Women demand to have sh.t happen |
| Ecology | If organic sh.t happens, it is OK |
| Capitalism | Let us profit from sh.t happening |
| Socialism | If sh.t happens, let us distribute it evenly |
| Patriotism | Our sh.t is better than your sh.t |
| Conservatism | They don’t make sh.t happen like they used to |
| Liberalism | Sh.t should not happen tomorrow |
| Classical physics | Sh.t does not “happen”, it just moves around |
| Quantum physics | Sh.t happens but you can not say both where and when Sh.t happens in discrete quanta called shitons |
| Holistic physics | If sh.t happens, it happens everywhere at once |
| Software development | If sh.t happens, we will fix it in the next version |
| Applied mathematics | The probability of sh.t happening approaches unity |
| Engineering | When sh.t happens, paint over |
| Medicine | If sh.t happens, take two aspirin and call me in the morning |
| Economics | Sh.t happens because there is a great demand for it |
| Politics | If sh.t happens, make a deal with it |
| Diplomacy | Let us pretend sh.t does not happen |
| To which I can already add: | |
| Accountancy | However bad, sh.t can be left hidden from sight as long as you can ‘prove’ to not have seen the pile of it that you’re drowning in |
If you would have any to add, please do …
IoT starts at the right end
of the products scale. As in #5 of this post.
#1 would be no surprise, by the way.
And, I’d also not be surprised when you(r company) haven’t considered similar changes. Isn’t IoT something that would not touch your business for decades to come, until you’re blown off the market in lees than five years; either by doing something stupid which you could always do, even today, or by some competitor that has dreamt up some game changer in their garage already yesterday ..? Go ahead and sleep ’till you’re no more. Change isn’t painless, sitting still is. Or isn’t it sleep, just being burnt out (as a company) (link in Dutch) ..?
I’ll leave you with this:
![20140917_092605[1]](https://maverisk.nl/wp-content/uploads/20140917_0926051.jpg)
[At The Factory, indeed, Utrecht]
Short note: Büro muss sein
Yet again, there was clarification re the demise of organizational culture … into totalitarian bureaucracy, greenwashed in ‘modernity, coolness and hipness’ with some doublespeak / newspeak and beards.(in Dutch >:-|):
Nederland overwoekert door procesmanagement en eindeloos vergaderen. Ook in provinciehuizen. Wie doet er wat aan? pic.twitter.com/MkCByuqmXo— Jaap Stalenburg (@JaapStalenburg) September 20, 2014
Which would be nothing new for you if only you had been reading up on this blog over the past year…
But you didn’t, and maybe I can’t blame you – despite wanting to.
To add to the above, it seems to have escaped many that in the Netherlands, there is no such thing as ‘working’. Oh well, a few underlings do that, apparently. But the masses, and us the elite (quod non), rather dabble in ‘managing’ and ‘leading’ to the extent feasible without being accountable for anything. Because the anything will be failure, and we know that, but just don’t want it to happen on our watch après nous le Déluge. Whereas worker time is preferably continuous without disturbance in particular not with useless meetings, manager time is meetings. Meetings is ‘work’. Hence, to work really hard, one has to meet really hard. All the time. And since there would be a danger in doing anything useful during those meetings, like having accountability shoved onto one, one would rather just demonstrate to be really good at managing, i.e., meeting. Through not doing anything useful in them… A modern manager’s job description is to have meetings, isn’t it ..?
Alas, this will mean totalitarian bureaucracy will reign, where following procedure is far more importanter than doing any work. Meeting procedure in particular.
Whereas we would want:
waarop deze antwoordde: ‘We hebben hier geen regels, we proberen iets te bereiken.’ (2/2) #olietankers en #speedboten— Menno Lanting(@mlanting) September 1, 2014
But as long as the managers have it, rules will rule and being effective is a threat to the status quo that benefits the ones who can only perfect their being bureacrat also to prevent being found out about incompetence to do anything useful. It is just collateral damage that this blocks you from doing the best you can, and also all new flex work from home (Why? Why not a tropical beach?) schemes can not be made to work (sic), as the ones who would let us (not: lead us..!), lose too much by letting us.
This story to be continued…
[Edited to add:
- BTW 1: Don’t take me for a misanthropist on this issue; I really do expect an Age of Aquarius breakthrough after IoT has delivered the Singularity
- BTW 2: The above, isn’t new. My brain reminded me of this masterpiece of masterpieces, to be read nay studied in its full, 2-part/volume extent.]
[Edited to add, too, two data points in this here blog post that bear out my idea(s), big if you could call them that.]




