Small. ish.    Nope.

On several occasions it struck me that, adviseconsulting on subjects like AI deployment and information risk management [usually not in one go], nowadays the relation between company ‘size’ and headcount seems to have gone less strictly linear. Like, there’s still a lot of big org’s out there that do have large numbers of fte’s

[Skipping for a moment the subject of their productivity towards the bottom line; drilling down one often finds that ‘profit’ or even turnover is more of an emergent property than specifically allocatable to individual KPIs (don’t claim that executives meet their KPIs and are the money makers – that claim is a delirious scam), thus calling into question the idea that there’s tons of dead wood around that could be weeded out. That is against one of my previous hobby horse by the way; thanks for noticing, but I’m not above giving in to nuance, on the contrary huh]

but now, there’s also a fair number of clients with quite limited colleague/’member’ numbers that still have huge turnover — in terms of what counts [ever more]: data processing. Got’ya; I didn’t write ‘information’ for a reason. As in: When impact on clients/customers is the Value rigœur of the latter day [oh not that again], these scale-ups make a splash waaayy beyond their size. Or turnover or profitability even; those become less and less tending to zero relevant anymore. It seems. And it explains valuations better than said three measures of ‘size’ or ‘impact’.

So, shouldn’t we start to compare the soon-to-meet-Schumpeter’ian organisations to similarly-sized-data-processing organisations of any kind, and then conclude which ones are more efficient? Turnover, profits, headcounts don’t count anymore.

Uhm. Now what.

Oh, at least, this:

[Sending data to once a mighty empire …? Coincidence: The Empire Home truck; London]

One thought on “Small. ish.    Nope.”

Leave a Reply