Mostly on wine. Also: IRM/InfoSec/I-Advisory and -Audit services. Positive contrarian, inspirator, loosen-upper.
a.k.a. the accountants’ version, Dutch style:
Yup, if you understand what it says here, it would be something like:
“If you recognize the modernity and innovation and state-of-the-artness of all this, you understand how terribly boring all the news surrounding accountancy in NL is; if you can’t even fill out this card on a single day of news you take in, you’re lagging even these developments, you ultra-laggerd!”
Any words you miss ..?
![20130211_144900[1]](https://maverisk.nl/wp-content/uploads/20130211_1449001.jpg)
[Slippery world, trying to balance on stelts, as long as that goes]
… Suddenly, I realized that the approach towards balanced capital requirements calculations through the combination of four quadrants of external vs. internal, data-driven versus ‘fuzzy’ scenario analysis, is flawed when depicted as a blot around the centre of the said four quadrants or axes.
What is needed, is in fact a donut. As in:
Where the ideal is a combination indeed of all sides of the picture, to a quality and coverage as far out as possibly one can get, but one wouldn’t want to lose all that is gained by getting away from the centre when reverting to it to combine the conclusions. One will want to have a donut, capturing all the peculiarities and ground covered. Into one multi-multi-faceted capital requirements calculation.
If that leads to an overall picture so fuzzy and risky that no-one would be able to conclude anything from it … then you’ll have succeeded.
In capturing the future, to a level of reliability that’s still very close to, but off from zero.
The fuzzier it gets, the more demonstration you get it, in commensurate degree.
That would be an achievement!
Hence as a token of appreciation, get yourself a donut!
Is this management, or control?
[Hospital St. Pau, Barça]
Just a note, on errors (not minor omissions) that I see over and over again:
‘Management’ ≠ ‘Control’
Rather, Management >> Control. Control is not allowing exceptions or deviations of predetermined values beyond a predetermined bandwidth. Management is dealing with whatever value comes out of your measuring system, whether one can steer the inputs to and operations of the production system so the outcomes come back into the fold or not.
Control, one does out of fear. The fear of not being in control (sic) over one’s own destiny, as if that is completely tied up with the workings of the ‘managed’ system, as if systems Compliance were the ultimate you can achieve in life. If so, one should discuss suicide; that shows utter control as well as categorical prevention of any future mishap to one’s plans. Control is about the fear of not being able to deal with deviations for which there is no rule, i.e., for which one as a drone following set detailed orders only (less than a robot, like an inhumane not really thinking let alone ethically operating machine); showing one’s incapacity for dealing with the real world. Admitting one would be happier as the subject in the Truman Show. Not wanting to escape.
Management, as above, is about being capable of understanding the system(s), and being able to see the innate instable nature of life (as a system, too), and dealing with all that comes at you through insight. Having ‘control’ and the rules for the set pieces, but having that, too, for the petty little uninteresting parts of life. The rest, is an adventure. Bring it on!
So, management is so much more than just mere simple control. If one would look down on those that desperately vie for control over … in their ‘management’ positions, a wry smile will do. Avoid them. Spiritual death by crushing bureaucracy is what they spread.
Which, by the way (?), clarifies also our message, in many a previous post, that ‘risk management’ gets to be more and more what ‘first line’ ‘management’ is about in these times of knowledge workers / professionals. The latter, know very well what to do and how to do it; probably better than you (because you apparently were/are more valuable not doing it yourself…). Hence, they require you to defend them against the outside world, starting with the other departments around them. And, your job as manager is to just grind off the rough edges of what your teammates (sic) do as the knowledge workers are managing their work not controlling it – the uninteresting controllable part they leave to machines (and indistinguishable AI ever more).
Facilitate, grind off the rough edges, and defend against ‘asteroid’ impacts from all around. [Actual decisions, cutting through dilemmas (if none, than it’s mere logic), is Leadership work, not for shop-attending managers.]
The latter, of course, is risk management. NOT to be done in separate ‘second line’ departments; if so, they’ll be useless overhead burdens (and much cost!), only to be facilitated, coordinated there – when not if first-line managers think they can do it better via their own methodology and practices, they are right…
Borne out, after writing this, by Seth’s blog again.
So, since they started, are hospitals about management or control ..? Well, control what they can, i.e., the taking away the negative impacts of outside air as at St. Pau by bringing the hospital under ground (yes in the picture, it’s the roof that appears to be street level ..!) and also enabling fresh air to be enjoyed by those who’d want to wander around on-site, both functions in one place not spread out. But not controlling (here in the picture!!) the health of their patients, managing that. Apart from postponing (sometimes for quite a while) the inevitable, do doctors heal, or do they create the right setting (incl. medicine and surgical changes) for their ’employees’/systems/patients to do their thing, the healing they want to ..?
[Edited to add:]
Oh by the way, yes I do realize there’s more to management of course, in particular middle management, on the side of ‘defending’ one’s department and getting sufficient and right resources, and stuff. Reporting, less so. As if that were the goal… Etc.
Upper management (sometimes dubbed ‘governance’, wrongly, as in this post) has more coordinating tasks, and more leadership to display, and a more mint picture to present to the outside – which includes showing the dirty bits ..! (think that one through)
Ah, finally, some depth shows up to have been developed in the field of infonomics. Very, very happy to see that; as you may recall from many previous posts of mine (and from before the very idea of posts, or blogging, or the Internet as such, did exist) I had an urge to find, or (help) develop, methodology in this direction. So there you have it, and there.
I’m happy for today. But will post much more on all sorts of bits and pieces that may spring to mind, in the near future. May even want to create a new category for this.
Anyone out there that already has more on the, say, more hardcore accounting side of this? Much needed!
And oh, of course:
[Bridge, over as yet untroubled waters, Calatrava of course yes indeed, at Valencia]
..it’s getting real. A CEO has to take personal responsibility for an incidental security miss.
So, after all the talk about ‘top management being accountable, and you can’t just delegate that’, we see that the buck indeed stops where it should. Or, well, it stops there, too; probably, down the line some others may receive a slight dent in their bonuses (up high) or get fired on the spot (lower down). But, for once, the blame doesn’t run downstream all too cleanly until it reaches the bottom.
Oh how wonderful it would be if, if this would become the standard. Then finally those in InfoSec and ITSec would get the appropriate (!) budgets…
Oh my! I forgot to mention Cyber …! Just sprinkle it around in the above piece, to make it hip and modern as if I understand everything new in the world – or it proves I don’t, par excellence…
#ditchcyber / #wegmetcyber you know.
So, here’s your picture:
[Hi, Ludwig!]
Accountants of the certifying kind are still searching for their purpose. In life but moreover, in business reality.
Which isn’t too strange. They exist only for a couple of centuries, so at the speed of thinking they do, now is about the right time to do a second round of thought about their role.
First, a picture to freshen the mind:
[Memento for outdatedness..?]
To start off, accountants [from here, I presume them to refer to the external auditors of the annual financial statements] were involved in checking all detailed financial data as well as seeing these represented in a standardised form into the annual statements. These annual statements had not very, very much flexibility, (so / because) any statement’s line item had a quite limited interpretation space. Sort of XBRL avant la lettre, in practice.
But since, data representation standards have complexified so much that there is no ‘standard’ anymore; interpretations mushroomed. Which is why exactitude of the summaries in the annual figures isn’t anything important per se anymore, and the fuzzy representation of performance is.
Along came many more types of accountants, of auditors even. Though some may narrowmindedly think all ‘auditors’ are actually the external certifying accountant type, they are dead wrong.
Continue reading “Account your blessings, or not.”
Would any of you be interested to help me start a competition to find, and have voted, the Edsel App of 2014 ..? Or have an award ceremony every quarter, or so ..?
This would be about the app, or application, or system, or any invention in general, where all that see it at its publication go like what were they even thinking!?
To be clear, this will be called the Edsel App for a reason, being it is the high water mark of an idea smash-bombed into oblivion by its utter ugliness.
Which brings us to all sorts of criteria and competition requirements.
Re eligibility; there are gazillions of apps that never gain any traction. There are even more, that are ugly and/or operationally/practically disfunctional as @#$%&*. But I aim for the ones that were designed by serious, large teams of developers, designers, etc., in reputable large companies with reasonable track records.
Where do we find them; who brings them to us?
How do we ‘ test’ them?
Etc., to be continued. I’ll leave it here for now, with a picture for your viewing delight (??):
[The Hague parliament, dreadful design outside, same in its operations…]
Simply putting it here for you, snapped from Fortune (no less).
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
The organizations that survive in the coming decades will be those that are capable of change as fast as change itself.
Today, few organizations seem to be able to out-run change for more than a few years at a time. To build organizations that are adaptable at their core, we will need to rework every management process so it enables, rather than frustrates, breakthrough thinking and relentless experimentation. Innovation will need to become instinctual and intrinsic. The notion of the economically dependent, easily biddable “employee” will have to be ditched.
The goal: a workplace where initiative, creativity, and passion flourish, and where the line separating vocation and avocation disappear.
For any of this to happen, bureaucracy must die. Why? Because bureaucracy …
•Adds overhead — by creating multi-tiered structures where hundreds of managers spend their time managing other managers.
•Creates friction — by forcing new ideas to run a multi-level gauntlet of approval that creates significant lag time.
•Distorts decisions — by giving too much power to senior executives who often have an investment in older processes.
•Misallocates power — by rewarding those who are the most politically adept rather than those who are the most capable leaders.
•Discourages dissent — by creating asymmetric power relationships that make it difficult for subordinates to speak up.
•Misdirects competition — by encouraging individuals to compete for promotion and political advantage.
•Thwarts innovation — by over-weighting experience and under-weighting unconventional thinking.
•Hobbles initiative — by throwing up barriers to risk-taking.
•Obliterates nuance — by centralizing too many decisions and demanding compliance with uniform rules and procedures.In all these ways, bureaucracy imposes a “management tax.” Like arterial plaque, it is mostly invisible, but no less dangerous because of that. To avoid the management tax, we need to find ways of acquiring control, coordination, and consistency “duty free.” Thankfully, information technology can help us do that.
Modern bureaucracy emerged at a time when information was mostly paper-based and expensive to move. The traditional hierarchy, with its narrow span of control, was a response to this problem. Ten or so subordinates would channel information up to a manager who would then summarize the data and push it further up the chain of command. In this model of “consolidate and escalate,” those at the top really did know more.
When challenged, they could defend their decisions on the basis of superior knowledge (whether or not their decisions were really based on facts.) And those at the top typically had long tenures and could claim to be more experienced than their subordinates — another justification for top-down decision-making. But today, thanks to IT, information can be easily stored, shared, and customized, and with each new advance in communications and information technology, the rationale for bureaucracy dwindles further.
Yet when it comes to killing bureaucracy, most leaders are still fiddling at the margins. They have flattened the formal hierarchy, but haven’t eliminated it. They have celebrated empowerment, but haven’t surrendered their own prerogatives. They have encouraged employees to speak up, but have balked at the idea of letting them choose their own leaders. They have deployed collaboration tools across the enterprise, but haven’t given staffers the right to hack outdated strategies or sclerotic processes. In other words, many firms have denounced bureaucracy, but they haven’t actually dethroned it.
Why? First, like all of us, they are prisoners of precedent. Most of us grew up in and around organizations that fit a common template, where …
•Big leaders appointed little leaders
•Power was a function of position
•Senior executives set strategy
•Everyone reported to a boss
•Tasks were assigned
•Managers doled out rewards
•Compensation correlated with rank
•Promotion was the measure of achievement
•Autonomy was tightly proscribed.This is the management model at most schools, religious organizations, government agencies, and businesses. No wonder it’s hard to imagine a company like WL Gore, a leader in advanced materials, where associates choose their own leaders; or Morning Star, the world’s largest tomato processor, where you won’t find a single vestige of formal hierarchy; or Haier, the Chinese home appliance maker that recently divided itself into 2,000 highly autonomous profit centers; or Red Hat, the enterprise software company where everyone gets to shape strategy through an open innovation process.
We’re actively working not only to imagine alternatives to the bureaucratic management model, but to invent them as well. Join the “Busting Bureaucracy Hackathon” over at the MIX and help us eradicate the management tax.
Gary Hamel is the co-founder of the MIX (Management Innovation eXchange) and author of The Future of Management and What Matters Now. He’s a visiting professor at London Business School.
And the picture you expected:
[Somewhere in a corner, there’s Occupy B]
Oh how I do <heart> Dan Pontefract’s post on dreaming.
First, as you expected, a picture:
![20140324_131129[1]](https://maverisk.nl/wp-content/uploads/20140324_1311291.jpg)
[How short do real creative ideas blossom]
Or, maybe go further and strengthen some, most often even virtually absent, actual praxis of rewarding the dreamer. For bringing the ideas that the future your organisation needs. Continuing along the trodden path will, for certain, as you know, bring about your downfall. Your downfall, as progressively, you will be less and less able to run away before the blame buck stops at your desk.
Which leaves the question: How to rate the performance of dreamers? As their dreams have varying, varying future values. What value to attach to ‘avoid extinction’..?
To be continued.
Ah, so true; music over mechanics. Same in business, same gross lack of capabilities (including lack of (self)awareness about this).
Seth's Blog: Not even one note.
And a picture for the effort:
[Walk in the vintage park]
Voor sigaren bepalen we het profiel aan de hand van de criteria Smaak, Balans, Body, Sterkte, Aroma en Finish.
Voor Smaak pakken we het aromawiel erbij. Let wel I; wat u proeft of verwacht, kan gedurende de diverse fasen van het roken nog variëren... En let wel II; er zijn ook aspecten die nog niet zozeer als aroma staan aangegeven in het wiel, we denken aan termen als (ja de sigarenwereld is langzamerhand, helaashelaas US-, Engels geworden) zesty, tangy, floral, en earthy, of soms zelfs metallic. Lijkende termen die een combi zouden kunnen zijn van diverse aromas en papillaire en olfactorische/nasale sensaties en -tactiele invloeden. Hierbij komen termen als 'complex' uiteraard ook bijgepakt, om in dit geval te beschrijven dat er vele aromas herkenbaar zijn. Rustig roken, dat is niet alleen beschaafder en allerlei sigarenrokeneffecten-versterkend maar biedt ook meer kans om aromas te onderscheiden.
Balans is voor de hand liggend; of de zoete, zure, zoute en bittere tonen (OK, en 'umami'...) in balans zijn. Ja, ook bij een sigaar – al zal het meestal gaan over de balans tussen 'creamy' en 'spicy' en gaat het meestal mis door te veel bitter of te veel spiciness.
Body gaat over de volheid, in dit geval vooral te bepalen aan de volheid, dikte, dichtheid van de rook. Die ook een gevoel geeft; 'light' is als een licht bier, 'full-bodied' is als een rechttoe-rechtaan whisky of cognac.
Overigens hoort bij Body ook textuur, 'leathery', 'meaty', 'silky', 'creamy', 'soft', 'succulent', 'woody', 'chalky', 'dry', 'oily' en 'spicy'. Die dus net niet hetzelfde zijn als de aroma-indicatoren uit het wiel; soms overlappend. Niet handig maar zo is het nu eenmaal.
Sterkte is een wat eenvoudiger maat voor het nicotinegehalte van de sigaar. De topbladeren van een tabaksplant heeft meer nicotine dan de lagere bladeren – me(n) dunkt dat de topbladeren zijn waar de plant verder wil groeien en dus betere bescherming nodig heeft van de nico; lager is het wat ouder en 'expendible' dus ga je daar als plant niet je nico op concentreren ..? Waar de sigaar van gemaakt is, heeft dus invloed. Kan je meestal niet kiezen, maar wel proeven. Rustig roken is ook hier handig; om een nico-klap/duizel te voorkomen bij het opstaan.
Aroma dan, vervolgens. Ook hier kan het aromawiel worden ingezet. Vreemd genoeg is het moeilijk de aromas te bepalen als we zelf roken; iemand anders' rook kunnen we beter analyseren. Of we blazen de rook door de neus uit ('retrohaleren'), dan hebben we wel de volle verfijning (ga ik vanuit, lezer!) van onze neus ter beschikking. Bedenk bij het 'benoemen' overigens dat we veel meer uit ons geheugen putten, qua eten en drinken!, dan we wellicht zelf(s) denken. Dus rare smaken herkennen is niet raar.
De Finish ten slotte is kort of lang, naargelang de aromas lang op de tong (sic) blijven hangen. Milde sigaren zijn nogal eens kort – hetgeen niks zegt over de complexiteit, overigens. Hierin zit ook de reden om een zwaar (sterkte)kanon na een milde te nemen, niet andersom.
Als het gaat over de champagnes en hun profielen, pakken we er de (echte en semi-)klassieke wijn-analyses bij die we allemaal wel kennen; onderscheidend in [Hier verder. In ieder geval https://www.wijnwinewein.nl/hoe-proef-je-wijn/ en aromawiel + zuurgraad/tannines/body(viscositeit/alcohol/tannines/smaakintensiteit/mondgevoel)/afdronk + Aanzet/Zuren/Zachtheid/Tannine/Body en alcohol/Afdronk/Smaken dus de aromas bijna-los van structurele criteria. Dan de smaken matchen met die van sigaren, of niet; Klosse's overlap/contrasten erbij halen en dan verder. En toespitsen op champagnes... pak het smaak-plaatje van het CIVC erbij!]
Dear reader; bij deze dus de waarschuwing dat u vanaf hier (?, inderdaad, echt niet alleen hier) serieus te lange zinnen tegenkomt.
Ach, daar ben ik me prima van bewust, mijn hele blog is immers ook een poging tot schrijfoefening in alle facetten. Sommige posts daar blinken uit door korte zinnen en ellipsis; ook deze pagina is opgesteld als tegenwicht. En ik vertrouw erop dat u dat gewoon doorlezend aankunt.
Als voorbeeld: Oplettende lezers zullen opmerken dat onderstaande waar het uitweidingen achter links naar andere pagina's betreft wellicht beter met behulp van OnMouseOver's, alt-tekstblokken of andere tags per pop-uppable item zou kunnen zijn geïmplementeerd maar ik heb het zo gekozen en ik kan best komma's toevoegen in deze zin maar ook dat heb ik achterwege gelaten zonder de leesbaarheid of de begrijpbaarheid in het gedrang te brengen.
Inderdaad, het ontwikkelde, ik schreef, een en ander vanuit een voortdurende, voortgaande research. Na zoeken in het wilde weg algemeen, navraag bij het Comité (iv) Champagne, een aanvullend zelfzoeken met Google Satellite én Street View zowel rond de officiële als in het algemeen, kwam ik tot de Lijst Van (uiteindelijk) 78. De en passant gevonden kaarten leidden tot enige aanvulling. Toen kwam ik Weinlagen.de tegen en tsja dan ben ik niet meer te houden qua sys-te-matisch alle streken én plaatsjes af! Hoewel, ... in onderstaande tabel heb ik maar niet meer voor ieder stuks de Street View erop losgelaten of onderstaand ingevuld. Terwijl ik er vanuit ga dat dit alles nog aanvulling kan krijgen ... Les Clos Inconnus zijn uiteraard zichzelf.
De gangen kwamen al zeer onregelmatig door, en met andere tafels die uitliepen en/of (weer) bijtrokken, tot zeer ver inhalen zelfs, tot gang 6 van de 7 tachtig (schrijve: 80) minuten op zich liet wachten, ondanks diverse malen navraag. Waarna het nauwelijks-opgewarmde pompoen met koude polenta bleek te zijn; "dat hoort zo" ammehoela. Nee, het niet-koude nagerecht erna hebben we niet gehaald; we zijn opgestaan en weggegaan. Die zien ons nooit meer, zeker omdat de bediening ook Zwak was (gangen aan verkeerde tafeltjes serveren want die waren al twee gangen verder), etc. En balsimaco-saus dus, 'et al.'...
Huh, da's écht voor de Insiders..? Inmiddels wel toegestaan als aanplant, maar nog zo'n drie tot tien jaar onderweg voor er de eerste re-de-lijke wijnen van kunnen worden gemaakt en dan is het nog maar afwachten. En dan had je Floreal, Artaban en Vidoc nog niet gezien. Die mogen (in de toekomst) ook... En dan is het Comité Champagne ook nog bezig met kruisingen van de Top 3, Arbane, Meslier, en Gouais. #feest