collaborative economy – Page 5 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

For members, useful insights

I’d suggest making this available widely; beyond membership only. Because it ties in so well with, e.g., this and many other issues at this.

Yes, I may be biased; just like everyone if only for having been member of this. Which (subject) plays a much more prominent role in your lives than you think, certainly in the nearest of futures. Beware.

And be aware of:

[Your ethics reasoning: All corners, leading nowhere, abandoned; Fabrique Utrecht]

Move; to Canadaya ..?

While discussing the options for those in developed countries that would not necessarily agree with the outcomes of recent or pending elections, of course Canada was on the table. Not quite in the Tim Horton / Hudson’s Bay / Blue Jays style, but rather as evac site. Not the Thinking Class leaving, but the retreat of the Others [needless to say, the 1%-and-up aren’t anywhere anymore already; they escape no matter which way the wind blows] is what we have seen with/before/at the Elections in this case; back into the countryside as if the cities aren’t the major country elements these days (‘states’ and electoral colleges as artifacts, makeshift solutions to early-days haphazard nationwide (then, more height than width) comms).

Or still, nevertheless, this here old (Spring) post may provide an option.
Which is perfectly possible; aren’t they where they’d retreat in the first place? But that would bring the ‘risk’ [ P(X)=1 ] that it turns out that the ones not retreating into the billyhills, can perfectly do without the retreaters [many letters in common with traitors], or even fare better.
Calling into question whether the pres that will ‘represent’ all, does, for all or doesn’t, for a majority (!) thus undermining the very idea of validity of the representer in that position and the systems/schemata of elections that brought him there despite the majority not wanting him.

Interesting.

May still bring the near-(sic) Yucatan arrangement closer.

Oh well, plus:

[Defensible against those so utterly bluntly lied to, but also my next / client offices; Breda]

When it comes to Risk, Appetite is Tolerance

Previously, with many others I believed that Risk Appetite would have to be the starting point of discussion for anything Risk within organisatons. The appetite, following from discussions on Strategy being the choices of directions and subsequent steps that would need to be taken to achieve strategic objectives, i.e., where one sees the organisation ending up in the future. Very clearly elucidated here. Backtracking, one will find the risks associated with these possibly multiple directions and steps — in qualitative terms, as NO valid data exists (logically necessarily, since these concern the future and hence are determined by all information in the universe which, logically, cannot be captured in any model since then, the model would have to be part of itself, incurring circularities ad infinitum and already, the organisational actions will impact the context and vice versa, in as yet (for the same reason) unpredictable ways.
And then … This risk appetite, automatically equated with the risk tolerance by the Board for risks incurred bottom-up by the mundane actions of all the underlings (i.e., including ‘managers’, see yesterday’s post), then suddenly would have to be in quantitative terms… [Yes, bypassing tolerance-as-organisational-resilience-capacity]
As all that goes around in organisations, through the first 99.9% of Operational / Operations Risk, and then some 10% industry-specific risks (e.g., market- and credit- for the finanical industry), not measured but guesstimated by hitherto outstandingly some that have least clue and experience [otherwise, they would have been much better employed in the first line of business themselves… The picture changes favorably (!) where we see some organisations shift to first-line do-it-yourself risk management… finally!] with what the chance and impact figures would be. As if those were the two only quantities to be estimated per ‘event’… As if any data from anywhere would be sufficiently reliable benchmarking material — If you believe that nevertheless, you should be locked up in a treatment facility… Yes sometimes it’s taken to be this moronic… No need to flame bigger here, as that was already done here.

But wait where was I. Oh, yeah, with the bypassing of tolerance defined as what the organisation could bear. The bare fact being, that no-one can establish a reliable figure for that. What the Board can and want to bear … Considering that the Board would have to be all-in, i.e., not only all of their bonuses since ever under clawback threat, but also all of their earned income incl salaries and personal wealth — if any of the Board would not want to risk all they ever had and have, bugger off this is what you signed up to. Considering also that strategic decisions are about wagering the existence of the company on choosing right or else, this wagering the well-being and wealth of all employees however unable to bear loss by mere fact of never had the ability to create some reserves, the previous consideration isn’t exaggerated. You wager others’ very existence, you wager your own ‘first’.

Summa summarum:
Risk Appetite is what the Board lets happen as Risk Tolerated Already.

Plus:

[And away goes your grand hallway down the drain; [non-related] Haarzuilens, Utrecht]

Positive Performance Plans — Done That, part I

Regarding the latest spat on dumping personal performance plans, P-KPIs et al.

Which one shouldn’t. Even at the most negative end of What Gets Measured Gets Done, there is some truth like, some grains. Where no measurement and reward (sic I) for performance, may not entice too many to be worth their salt (sic II). In today’s total-information society, it’s the free riders, the freeloaders, that escape unharmed with their booty. ‘Hedge fund manager’ like. Possibly to be villified by history as the worst atrocities of humanity ever, but that remains to be seen as history commnly is written by the winners and forward-looking one is not (can not be) sure who that will be.

But change is in the wngs, and is needed indeed. Too many are still driven by assembly line (i.e., geriatric) target setting and (micro)management. Don’t get me started on the latter or I spam you into oblivion with bold 80 point [Expletive starting with an F] You’s.

From the Other Side, there’s renewed talk of personal development through not To Do lists but Have Done lists.

Now, can these be deployed to structure human activities’ objectives ..? Having biweekly open discussions about ‘production’ even when the employee is somewhat free to decide what to work on as long as it’s slightly related to a long-term organisational goal that everyone shares — the Original idea why people banded together in companies, taking that label from the military where already it denoted comradeship and protection towards a common achievement.
Even where proxies are needed, as e.g., project-style work with deliverables only after some time, at milestones and deadlines. Even where managers’ understanding needs to be raised through the (their) roof to capture the content innovation and disruption of the Knowledge Workers doing the creation of work/deliverables/-content and actually understanding how that ties into the total achievement – / required. Even when those ‘managers’ need to grasp the idea that much time is spent very maybe not being worth the salt, to in a blink of an eye arrive at some final nugget worth all the salary previously invested (‘thrown overboard on useless loafing’ which is required for the nugget to materialise). Enabling work at home for many; much more efficiently and with the very same productivity if not much more in the end (when all have become accustomed to the idea(s as here before)).

Yes, this leaves overall performance to ‘managers’, to integrate and achieve, and to report, and to translate downwards to personalised (individualised and adapted to individuals’ personal capabilities and development goals) general work directions. No more forty hours sitting in a cubicle — brains dying of boredom all around but “you don’t get paid for not being bodily present less than forty hours (plus/plusplus) even if you aren’t in the least productive overall”. Such is life. The organisation doesn’t give a [expletive starting with an s] about how you get [same] done, as long as your group delivers… Managers are of the work force, not above it ..!

I’ll work on this topic later, to develop the organisational structures to support this…
Oh, and:

[Where Museum is splendid form and function; Teylers’ Haarlem]

Fuzzy Vocabulary (Cross-)Boundaries

When discussing Risk …
There will always at some stage turn up a discussion (or multiple, if you’re Lucky; not) about the meaning of certain key words. Which is a pity, because … no, not because it distracts. Though it does, the main issue is that the secondary, meta, discussion about vocabularies is never / rarely resolved.
At strategic levels, talk is about risk appetite and risk tolerance, and foremost about business opportunities (of which the exitement is) spoiled by “risk managers” that point out the world might not be perfect and hence one is all but certain not to achieve the objectives. Smart business leaders push forward anyway, at best keeping the risks in the back of their heads while sanding off the rough edges of progress at that goes along all quite well. When strategies turn out to fail: Well, such is life as it has been since the dawn of humanity.
At tactical levels, talk is about risk portfolios and … not much, really; mostly project and program risks. Of the Boy Cried Wolf kind.
At operational levels, quasi-(sic!) quants do their stuff and come with all sorts of fabulous fables of formulas that wouldn’t stand scrutiny at the most basic of math levels. What idi.t would translate ‘High’ to ‘5’ and then multiply it with some other ‘4.5’ to arrive at a ‘22.5’ “risk” ..!? Heat maps are the reflection of the own moronic brain functioning onto what are supposed to be Managers’ levels of understanding. Though the outcome is correct, the origin of the reflection should be kept in mind instead of forgotten.

And all talk about ‘risk’ (‘operational risk’, even worse), ‘impact’, ‘High’, as though these were somewhat the same thing for all involved, disregarding most of time- and situation-variance or rather completely -determination. Right. Wrong. Just regurgitating definitions from ISO standards demonstrates to not understand the nature of the problem…

Any theoretical science logical-AND linguistics specialists that can help? And:

[Tinguley in a picture is quite different from the message of it …; Stedelijk Amsterdam]

Peak Gulden

I’ve been dabbling in this pure-fiat money (sic) Gulden that is an attempt to indeed bring back the Dutch florin wink.
So far, I only put a toe into that water, and ’twas a profitable ride indeed. Should’ve moved all-in and retire…

Yes there’s all sorts of payment functionality but haven’t found a place to put that to use yet. Which made me think: Is there some sort of metric by which one can determine how ‘mature’ respective blockchain currencies are ..?

Like, some ratio that includes available volume, traded volume (exchange for (much longer) pre-existing traditional currencies), actual payments made for goods/services transactions, et al.
Or would anyone already have some (pointers to sufficiently secure-not-clickbait) sites that have such info and mdash; surely better factors and ratios than the above…?

TIA. And:

[Here, another mix of (not ‘chain but brick-‘n-mortar) architecture and finance; Troyes]

Classic plusquote: Progress

You can watch it, but you can’t stop it. As you’re only a looker-on, unable to halt progress.
Like, this here classic from 1987 already.
[Explains the less than stellar graphics quality but hey, from analog to digital vid…]

And:

[In the church of inevitable Dutch waterworks; Lijnden]

Tugging on with Thoreau

It’s not enough to be industrious; so are the ants. What are you industrious about?

As a warning to the many that just continue to be ‘compliant’, letting their best, and next in line their mehhh, drain and be crowded out by meek submission. Which is what some Others live off, totally.

Hey, don’t just point out this all sounds rather negative: It’s Monday, right ..?
Switch to the Useful, creative, productive life! Yes, sirmadam, so can you! And you and you! And:

[If only life were always like this Valencia …]

Being busy bodies doing busy work

… Anyone noticed that the ‘trend’ (development) where everyone claims to be oh so busy with, basically busywork, started with the demise of the secretarial profession ..?
Where secreataries (either a pool of or a single personal, or in a pool altogether for sharing i.e. load balancing) and like support staff were (sic) there to alleviate all the chores that now, all underlings/specialists, ‘managers’ and even up, are supposed to do now, in stead of the work they were hired for and be productive in the thing that labour specialisation had made them best, most productive, in, like a Ricardo trade deal within the organisation.

Yes, the secretaries were doing much of, superficially!, uninteresting work but were so labour-specialised in that, that they were more productive, effective, than any heap of managers ever could dream to be … Where the specialists as well as the managers once were specialised folk, with suitable spans of control, but now, no more…

That has been chucked out of the window. Despecialisation resulted indeed, and has included the tons of changeover time involved. Making everyone miserable with having to fill out dumb forms (dumbed-down to the max because now even managers needed to understand, not only the understand-experts that the secretaries were) in stead of the interesting work that one came over to the organisation for.

The hyperbolic extension to socmed addiction and FOMO, and a prefix Impostor Syndrome, of course leading to a neat total burn-out. Thta prefix thing, I’ll elucidate later in some seperate post, if you don’t git it.

The solution also being Obvious: Bring Back The Secretaries! And give them proper status and reward (in all ways; monetary, too, since they raise productivity and morale so handsomely — the latter not literally meant, btw).

Let’s all admit that productivity increase by firing lowest-level staff first, doesn’t work as far as we (???) have done that over the past four decades, and revert that trend. Plus:

[Wide, high, mighty, needs no tower; Metz cathedral and yes, that’s part of another building on the right not a pic error … (?)]

Golden Oldie Pic of the Day

Again, for ol’times sake: