controls – Page 18 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Ketenregie en legerkorpsvakgrenzen

Tsja en dan denk je terug aan de afgelopen decennia waarin het maar niet lukte om in semi-(quasi-? sub-? nep-?) overheidsland ketenregie op poten te zetten. Nee, nee, nee, er ‘werkt’ misschien hier en daar iets, maar dat komt niet verder dan een operationeel niveau van geen-nucleair-conflict met op tactisch en strategisch niveau een totalitaire koude oorlog.
En ja, in de private sector (op zich al bedroevend, dat er een aparte term bestaat voor wat toch 90+% van de economie zou moeten beslaan maar niet verder komt dan een procent of 30, hóógstens) is er wel iets tot stand gebracht, maar dan met geweld en keiharde afstraffing door failliet bij minder-dan-maximale totale opoffering aan de klant.

Ah, de klant. Van de keten, aan het eind van het productieverhaal.

En oh, er zijn wel modellen. Degenen die nog een kans hebben inzicht te hebben (opgedaan), pakken namelijk hun VS 2-1351 erbij. En lezen vooraf nog even hun IK2-25 ;-] en dan hoofdstuk 8 uit voornoemde. Maar dat terzijde, want de essentie is dat het de lessen terugbrengt inzake de kwetsbaarheid voor aanvallen vanuit het Oosten die zich, van die zijde de intelligentie erkennende die zich zal richten op exploitatie van de zwakke plekken aan onze kant, zal richten op de legerkorpsvakgrenzen.
Omdat daar de coördinatie zwakker zal zijn over de vakgrenzen heen, en de ‘eigen’ suboptimalisatie binnen de vakken tot verminderde aandacht voor de grenzen leidt.

En … dat klinkt bekend ja. En inderdaad, daarin ligt het knelpunt bij regie en toezicht over de hele, van achter, te doen hebbende met een tegenstander (sic) over de hele, tegenover. Die zo is naar interpretatie van de eigen doelen, nog niet in staat is tot tactische nucleaire actie (via de politiek) maar wel de eigen belangen onvoldoende tegemoetgekomen ziet.
En dan? Dan dus de oplossingen uit de door de eeuwen heen ontwikkelde praktijk ter hand genomen. Inzake dwang van hogerhand tot maximale coördinatie tussen de keteneenheden en opoffering van de eigen borstklopperij ten faveure van de totale prestatie, op straffe van degradatie. Zou dat niet boeiend zijn; de holste vaten vanuit de leiding verplicht voor de rest van de carrière in het call center tewerkstellen ..?

Ach, als, áls nou eens de Mexican armies van bureaucraatjes aan de FLOT zouden worden gedumpt… Page en Popla zouden de omzet fors zien stijgen. En het bewust worden van de eigenlijke opdracht zou na catharsis en vervanging door Echte leiders tot zo veel betere overheidsprestaties leiden…

Dromen mag, toch ..? En:

[Geschikt voor de ‘leidinggevenden’; Stockholm]

Rosebud and Cain

So, … Waking up, a deeper layer of the Citizen’s movie surfaced. Unsure whether this was even in the movie, but of course there’s the battle of the same name (note the number of casualties that today would not count for much but then still did ..!), where “Indians” fought on both sides, and probably did it the best, too. And it was the lead-up to that other one. And the land issue remained open (until 1980 no less) and can still not be considered closed…
But apart, or through, all that, I figured: The above is about people of the land protesting the plunder by what was hoped to be passers-by but that turned out to be permanent though (still) roving occupiers (not of the ~[name your city] kind you superficial dumbo — on second thought, might be similar to the here-meant protesters!), in perfect analogy to the biblical story of Abel and his brother. Where in the bible, the story is skewed towards the Traveler side as that’s the side of the victors that wrote the story in the first place.

And that’s why the main movie character is named as, like he is but then his career as the settled, is opposite. Then, his sled’s name refers to his childhood lost (clearly in the plot) which was a time of roaming free, just like the white man’s settler times before the above battles — that lasted till all was conquered and stable, necessarily locked-down by lack of remaining open terrain (well, …), society developed. This of course was also the man’s life: Ever more protecting Xanadu the archetypical dwelling, and the estate at large. Through emergency vent projects, some bits of the core primal power (as here and as reflected in the abovementioned biblical story, and also in e.g., Germanic and Scandinavian lore as close-to the very beginnings of cosmo- and anthropogenesis!) had been able to escape but had been ridiculed. See the pic below; if you get that. And, that in latter-day society, too, there were tribes of the same Culture fighting each other, on both sides.

Then, the life came to an end. And then, the realization of the integrated whole came back, not only the yearning for the lost innocence, but also the ‘misfit’ness of life’s escapes and in the recluse stages the possibility of returning to a more balanced and holistic life, which latter option had now vanished and the cycle was finished. Rosebud…
After which the Order, the cleaning up of the house, of course summarily dismissed the non-Apollo’nian into the fire (back to its origins, one notes) at the hands of the minions of mind, the dull-minded follower housekeepers.
For Dutch readers, this here item may also apply, in somewhat similar, overlapping fashion.

OK, OK, I known, my insights deteriorated throughout he writing-up into the already known. But just wanted to add my by now deeper anchoring of the trope(s)… And:

[Even the model is big. You know why this pic is here. And in DC]

Leaders don’t stand up, but sit on it.

Or even, lay awake.
As real, actual leaders will not aim to please as big a crowd as possible by focusing on the (ever diminishing, as the group size (target) grows, by mathematical rule) average, or even trying to cater for that. Such ‘leaders’ are just ring leaders for mob rule which will in the end not only eat its children but also them_selves.

Leaders who succeed, in becoming Men (F/M/other) of State, elderly statesmen, are the ones that do not follow the outcry but seek solutions and then act on them, without having to revert to words first. Not even walking the talk, as they only walk.
And, equally important, not consult-and-then-dismiss differing views but consider those as they know them already. And ponder about the best solutions, hurting as little of the sea of other-stakeholder needs that suffer from the move towards a Pareto optimum away from the political (def.: ‘choice-related’) meddling, scheming-for-its-own-purpose (much sub-)mediocre compromises that achieve nothing because they fall short of pleasing anyone and come to late to address actuality — to arrive at such lameness of ‘solutions’ (quod non), much time has passed, in which the world has already turned beyond the original problems.

So, … don’t aim for acclaim. Think…

[May be (much) better, but maybe better than usually considered…?]

AnchoringThink

This might be a signal.
When reading up on mr. S. Godin’s blog (hah, does anyone call him that, these days?), I realised when reading this post that not only can anchoring sink you, it may also be a major contribution to groupthink and subservience to bureaucracy, which seems to be two facets of the same thing. Being, that the anchoring that the group process produces either by clinging to the most-anxiety-reducing interpretation of the opinion of the perceived Leader [with all the side notes of the duce only presenting him(sic)self as such, empty barrel and all] or by averaging out all peculiars and hence reaching an anchor point of political position — reminiscent of Ortega y Gasset style Masses.

On the flip side, this points to what it takes to be a great consultant indeed, as Godin pointed out: addressing the groupthink narrow-mindedness by revisiting the vastly wider potential scope of possibilities and options than can be seen by looking back too little. This might have been the edge that e.g., a McKinsey had — haven’t heard too much from them, the last decade; are they still around, shrunk or not?
So, to be a better advisor, by all means search back for the greenfields from which current ‘opinions’ evolved and take a fresh restart of evolution from there. Also, be a maverick. As I am, qua risk consultancy/management/audit. Hence the signal to hire.

And:

[Obvious shape, for a library ..? La Défense again]

New series: Plusquotes

The ballast of your past that you schlepp along, may be what keeps you upright through the turmoil that the future is.

So, inspired by this here Expert, this here post is the first of a somewhat hopefully new series — with my own personal ramblings which I would dare to call motivational soundbites but you would consider to be as typically as this sentence to be my interpretation of brief, not necessarily positively motivational but that’s (yes I do use abbreviations to shorten the sentence even further) because that remains your interpretation but that’s not necessarily the right one being the one I intended.

Capice? And:

[For even plainer sailing: Use ballast not just keel(s), and ships are safe in (Catherine’s Docks) harbor but that not what ships are for.]

New category: Miss Quotes

Quite literally, literally. The quotes, of motivational nature or other, that you meet every time again — but aren’t, since they are garbled versions of the original. And the original had much more profound wisdom, or was even true where the misquote isn’t.

OK. The first one, then. A favorite of mine, since it is so often True and demonstrates the futility of the busybodies’ eager beaver detailed roadmap approaches:
“Even the best strategy does not survive first contact with the enemy.”
As said, this is true.

But as also said, this does not capture the fullness of the original, which is:
“No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.” [Von Moltke the Elder]
Which is a bit more elaborate (though still an extreme shortest of sound bites, for the period and original language), and for one focuses on the plan of Operations, for a second mentions (no) certainty, and for thirds talks about the enemy’s main strength, not just any lost recce squad.
This, to be interpreted as to say that strategy has no place when it comes to operations, execution in the hostile terrain out there (a.k.a. marketplace, blue ocean, or whatever), really, just completely fugeddaboudit — not quite the elucidation you expected, right ..?
And, instead of the original rather absolute (and slightly pessimistic), here we have a true risk-based approach: Scr.w It Let’s Do It (© Richard B.) has quite a probability to work, to result in positives.
Third, indeed, it’s the main strength that should concern you. What comes before, one can ‘control’ quite precise, in a Sun Tsu sense, right? And (in mirror) may or may not have any bearing on the main force.

So, we all agree that the original Quote was the better? Better enough to diss the latter-day shorthand? Or keep both ..?
I welcome your suggestions, by the way, for the next round of Miss Quotes.

Oh, and of course this:

[Here Be silly mistakes. And Pickett’s Line.]

Some quotes, out of context

Indebted to David Graeber’s Debt here, for the following which for a change is just a bunch of quotes completely out of context, even worse on the representativeness point, and to make matters … worse, maybe, … some remarks from Yours Truly…

Rather than seeing himself as human because he could make economic calculations, the hunter insisted that being truly human meant refusing to make such calculations, refusing to measure or remember who had given what to whom, for the precise reason that doing so would inevitably create a world where we began “comparing power with power, measuring, calculating” and reducing each other to slaves or dogs through debt. (p.79) — This may be why so many bureaucrats, and many an auditor behaving within the worst corners of that category, appear to behave as if in debt ..?

If someone fixing a broken water pipe says, “Hand me the wrench,” his co-worker will not, generally speaking, say, “And what do I get for it?” — even if they are working for Exxon Mobile, Burger King, or Goldman Sachs. … One might even say that it’s one of the scandals of capitalism that most capitalist firms, internally, operate communistically. True, they don’t tend to operate very democratically. Most often they are organized around military-style top-down chains of command. But here is often an interesting tension here, because top-down chains of command are not particularly efficient: they tend to promote stupidity among those on top and resentful foot-dragging among those on the bottom. (pp.95-96) — The rest of the discussion over the natural tendencies in corporate internal/external behavior echoes society’s many comments, including mine on this blog…

Exchange, then, requires formal equality — or, at least, the potential for it. This is precisely why kings have so much trouble with it. (p.109)

Rabelais places the encomium in the mouth of one Panurge, a wandering scholar and man of extreme classical erudition who, he observes, “knew sixty-three ways of making money — the most honorable of which was stealing”. (p.124) — I may want to rid my LinkedIn profile of some niceties …

[Comparing Chapter Eight, Credit versus Bullion (p.211–) with ‘Piketty’ might make a great grad+ thesis ..?]
[Similarly, p.383– may be read and viewed, analysed, in light of “blockchain currencies’ ” lofty promises of money without recourse to state fiduciants but to anonymous (and masses of) trustees.]

OK then, as a final one, important for those that still consider Adam Smith’ Wealth to have some modicum of value still:
For Smith, the pursuit of wealth beyond a point where one has achieved such a comfortable position was pointless, even pathological. (p.399)

Which indicates the point I’m still aiming for… And:

[Why you’re looking at the ceiling of my garden shed ..? Palazzo Nicolaci, Noto again]

Your valued info at risk

Ah, just noted: A great many of you may have switched (or, c’mon don’t be a laggard or too late, will soon switch) to self-assessments of risks, even to the level of detail of data security (as part of information security, part of IRM, part of ORM, part of ERM, part of just-freakin’-perfectly-normal-or-are-you-kiddin’-me mundane run-of-the-mill average daily management of which ‘governance’ is the most preposterous windbag label).
Which is all very well, to determine at the shop floor levels, that apparently are the last hold-outs of actual business knowledge beyond the mumbo-jumbo of meddle management (sour joke intended), what the risks, and particularly also, Value of information (data…) processed might be.

But … You’d miss half or more of the picture, then. The value you attach to the info, may very well be what you’d be prepared to fork out to protect it (balancing estimated frequencies of intermittent losses versus continuous costs flying out the window), but you then forget that the attacker isn’t after the value you attach, but the value to the cracker. Which may be completely different. Think, e.g., Sony (and the many others alike): comparatively, there was hardly a nickel value in the ‘stolen’ (exfiltrated, or egressed since it was lying around so obviously) data from the Sony perspective. But the value was enormous from the hacker perspective — whatever the innocuous data was, the mere exposure was of such import that APT’ ing around apparently was worth it.

Now, how’zat (women have deliveries, men have Balls) for all the other info throughout your glocal enterprise/empire ..? Similar to same, I presume.
So, … what about the budgets to be made available to counter data theft/robbery/whatever comparison to physical-world expropriation you’d like to use? And still not trying to overshoot in comparison to the value you yourselves establish for yourselves by yourselves, or you’d run the risk (chance close to 1) of splattering any flexibility and usability under tons of ‘controls’ (quod non, BTW). But then, not protecting ‘regular’ data enough, might expose it too easily — which might be rational but will cost you, e.g., through EU data protection fines … ;-|

So, you’ll not only have to do the multiplication of this and this, but extend in other dimensions as well…
Oh well, the world gets more complicated every day… and:

[Your data protection; Noto]

Bunch of quote’lets

Just a short list of quotes (#2…), from someone after a life-long study:

“Institutions are the enemy of creativity.”

“So Codes are the mental limitations of short men, short of experience, short of imagination, short of courage, short of common sense. … Inevitably a bureaucrat is a short man, however long his legs may be. His is a mind only fit for a bureau. He is undersized in most respects. … Here is the fatal weakness of Democracy: the bureaucrat. The fatal weakness of Democracy does not lie in gangsterism or political chicanery [both more intertwined than visible on the surface in NL these days; ed.] or civil disobedience or anything like them. It lies in this dumb sheep-like submission to Authority, “the drinking of the vanity of office.”

One need not subscribe to all of the man’s ethics or morality, but have anything of non-temerity to see the truth.

Fittingly:

[Again a tossing out of Codes…; Racine WI]

Information does(n’t) Matter

Another consequence of the analysis mentioned before about answers flowing upward through infosystems and command and inquiries/questions flowing down: When the latter get viewed as anti-data or even anti-information, we see Information Theory in action.

Where without the creation of potential (difference) by an inquiry standing ready at, say, a sensor [abstracting for a tiny moment away from the complexity that could be in any sensor, assuming it a math point] to capture some data it may produce, the potential may not pull away the data created by a Heisenbergian creation (-by-measurement ..!?) of the data/anti-data pair. Leaving the anti-data, the uncertainty behind. Is this the creation, the maintenance, or the destruction of a Schrödinger’s measurement ..?

More operationally: In what way does this interpretation induce metaphoric (?) insight into the connection between physical world, ‘signals’ (as in Shannon and other Info Theory), and continuous (!?)/discretised sensor-data streams..?
[For once skipping the bullying of those not understanding the fundamental nature of the continuous/(math-)discrete divide]

Well, there’s also this:

[The gift of far-sightedness. SE Sicily you recognize of course]