Tag: disruption

Maslow for companies

Some first sketches of an idea that sprang to mind during some musings about (the feasibility of) schemes that classify maturity levels for companies, or organisations. The idea being that the common Maslow pyramid that, despite some critique here and there that usually points at critics’ misunderstanding of modeling and this model in particular, is still very much valid for establishment of personal preferences and comfort zones.
* Yes I do know the cultural variance in ‘it’.

But the idea quickly stalled due to lack of progress in the bottom layers of the OrgPsyPyramid – what comes first for e.g., start-ups; is that different for established organisations that are under threat of extinction due to disruptors and/or self-inflicted financial troubles ..? Is it market share (these days, a.k.a. active users), growth for growth sake, immediate positive cash flow (or the opposite; burn rate as a plume à l’honneur), or ..?

Hm, it’s time for:
DSCN5042[Tok’about old (?) and new classics]

The other layers, … will follow in a couple of weeks. Think traditional growth, market share, capitalization (or valuation), profits, foundation for longevity. But as we move up higher, as to be expected we’re entering the harder-to-understand regions, being the harder to define, implement and achieve ones too. If you would have some pointers to science already having been done; yes please I’d be happy to incorporate that. So, looking forward to your comments… (as if anyone would comment…)

Hiding or in plain sight (IoT dev’t)

In IoT development, there seems to be a disconnect between the hype and the underlying developments. By which I mean that of course, the hype will not play out according to itself, but according “We overestimate short-term impacts and underestimate the longer-term ones”. But moreover, I also mean that there’s a variety of development speeds for IoT. Since there is various types, categories of IoT developing.
As in this here one of my previous posts.

Oh right away:
DSCN8649
[Your office ‘life’, Zuid-As again]

So… what we’re seeing, is certain differences in speeds:

  • B-inhouse IoT develops rapidly; after some decades of slow introduction of robot-driven factories, we’re on the verge of a breakthrough at less than light speed where the same factories will be linked up to form semi-small, mid-size ‘local’ 3D printing warehouses. Maybe. But certainly, the factories will go the way of data centers, that can be anywhere around the world with only rump staffing locally and control being … anywhere else around the world. With the premise that in the ‘Western’ world, there will be sufficient sufficiently educated staff to control the factories elsewhere. So that ‘manufacturing’ may ‘return’ to the West its origination (Industrial Revolution and since). Nearness of production cutting the costly transport now that labour costs become less relevant, and leaving the most pollutive production where locals still don’t have the economic power to fight the externalities. Short-changing economic development in many places where it had barely started in earnest (no ‘trickle down’ yet). Unbalancing global power developments. We’ll see… Or not; these ‘secret’ in-house developments (in particular, within large conglomerates that can pilot) may not be too visible before their join-or-die breakthrough.
  • B2B IoT: Same, somewhat. Moving ahead with cutting out the middle men, DACcing all around. Pure economics (power play by big corp’s; ROI et al.) will determine speed(s) here. Join-or-die aspects play here, too; less in outright competition but more in missing out in cooperation, being left in the dust.
  • C2B IoT: Out in the open, where all the hype is. No concern – as for secrecy of developments; heaps of concerns re e.g. privacy ..!! Critical Mass (as defined in Yours Truly’s seminal graduation thesis of, already, 1990 (on office automation incl e-mail, where it played then) yes a great many years before it was to be called) Network Effect, or – Tipping Point may be the key point for development fits and starts in this one; in publicity, actual adoption and fruitful use.
  • C-internal: Same. Slower due to legacy. I.e., houses already out there. Some have been around for centuries. Massive update ..? [Edited to add: this here toytoolset seems helpful in this area]

We’ll see…

Meet no more, continuously, and excel

I posted before on the atrocities of current-day meeting practices. And on the changing role of the Document, here.
The latter, provided some thought towards predicting the demise of the former: When we’re connected (at the information level, not mere technically) constantly and continuously, wouldn’t all the errors of meetings be resolved (resolvable) by not having them anymore, or at least, re-styling them in a wholesale manner?
First, a picture:
[Reflections of – the way life used to be (lyrics)]

I mean, all the meeting errors have been allowed to play out because the in-charge’s liked them, for the display of faux leadership caricature they provided. But with the change towards always-on mesh communications, which is do-or-die, the very reasons to have meetings diminishes. Social advantages of meeting F2F, that were collateral ‘damage’, may still be around but in the form of having drinks. Who’d need more? and now recognize the benefits outright, without the formal hassle and hilarious chair and topper pomp.

Though I treasure the value of the Document, if, very big if, it is in itself an attempt to Masterpiece. Which it sometimes is, in organisations, but then, so desperately few would survive public muster. Yes, there’s a trend towards deployment of Narratives everywhere. But that’s not what I mean here. I mean stuff like Books, nuggets of Culture carried through the ages. Where mere documents, even, let alone casual socmed conversations, will leave no (! storage re-use needs, TLA?) trace of your existence. As the Greek Hell beyond the underworld: In the underworld, even the villains were still known by name. But beyond that, in Hell, wailed the spirits of the Forgotten, the nameless. That truly was as bad as hell could get. And, of course, true heroes would attach to the pantheon, become stars and constellations. Do you strive for that, when filling out the TPS report at Initech? If you had to look that up, you’re on the naïve side of young…

Well then, to summarise: Meeting mania is curable, and Documents sharpen our skills. What a blunt conclusion. But don’t blame me when your greatness takes off.

Clustering the future

Was clustering my themes for the future of this blog. Came up with:
Future trend subjects[Sizes, colours, or text sizes not very reflective of the attention the various subjects will get]
Low sophistication tool, eh? Never mind. Do mind, to comment. On the various things that would need to be added. As yes I know, I have left much out of the picture, for brevity purposes. But will want to hear whether I missed major things before I miss them, in next year’s posts. Thank you!
And, for the latter,
DSCN0924[Bah-t’yó! indeed]

To watch: Firebase

Was tipped via this article. Firebase to be the next thing. Promising, in its a tempo development; seems to be one element of what the world needs right now in terms of moving forward, innovation. Though maybe it may remain out of sight for most consumers, businesses may build a whole new, upgraded set of tools for users on top of this data handling platform.
And be better at using your data than just flat invasive (sic) analysis. The battle field will be compliance with (new) EU privacy regulations. E.g., re transparency of the controllers and processors; that will be a tad more difficult to pull off than now.

Though entirely your opinion on this development now being in the hands of Big G.

Anyway, again from here:
Tarrega[How many tourists would see this ..? Tar’ga Catalunya]

Pulling, and pushing the compliance boundaries

A reblog again, delving into the breath of being the peers that pressure towards conformity or be the Maverisk that wants to prevent stale and mould. Read past the starting stuff, and find the value of nonconformity explained. If you don’t see that… You may be the one most in need …
And,
??????????[Accelerating, not so bad]

Spam (out) of control

How is it that for decades, we had been used to managerial spans of control being in the 5-to-10, optimal (sic) 8 range, whereas what we had in the past couple of decades is spans of control in the 2-3 range mostly ..? [Duh, exceptions and successful organisations aside…]

Because I came across some post on a well-known business site where there’s an early simple statement that a span of control of 10 would not only be normal, but outdated as well, as the span could be at 30.
Well, I doubt the latter, as this would conflict with a lower ‘Dunbar’ number which indeed is about 8, with ramifications for informal control as outlined in this Bruce masterpiece. Oh yes now it springs to mind the 8 figure was taken by the military, the ultimate built-for-survival organization, to be the optimal span of control, and taken over to business for its apparently attractive all-business-is-war metaphor – where the attraction is there only for those not really exposed to the gore of war, I guess.

But whether it’s 8, 10 or 30, the optimal span of control clearly is larger than the common today’s practice.
Which has implications:

  • Too low a number will inevitably lead managers to seek to have something to do. Busywork, in their role leading to excessive micromanagement (yes pleonasm but on purpose) and/or excessive meeting behavior, in particular with their underlings and/or likewise trapped colleagues, like an AA group. Thus burdening the underlings with time taken away from actual content work and the need for Action item lists and reporting blub. Thus burdening colleagues with all sorts of time lost on, what actually is, whining.
  • Too low a number and the micromanagement leads to extreme (far overextended) controls burdens on the ones who’d actually produce anything of value instead of producing negative value with all their externalities like managers may commonly do. This burdening then leads to ‘process’, ‘procedures’ etc., to ‘standardise’ (otherwise, understanding of actual content would be required; the horror to managers!), hollowing out even further the value of any work done. As in the abovementioned / linked Forbes article; the Peter principle will reign.
  • Too low a number and the standardisation will drive out the creativity (in process and in product/service design/production/delivery) that is required ever more than before to counter the ever more changing environment. As I typed this, this article arrived…

So yes, we all need to focus on upping the number. To counter stalemates. To counter bureaucracy heavens. To regain flexibility.
But still, still, this could only work IF, very very big IF, ‘managers’ (not to address actual managers, that I value enormously!) can loosen their frantic, fear-of-death-like Totalitarian Control attitude.
Which I doubt. But then, organisations relying on these (whether already or after they will have crowded-out the actual managers via the Peter principle and acolyte behavior) will loose out to the upstarts that do keep the mold out.

And, finally, of course:
DSCN1138[Was safe, now the highway passes by somewhere down below, leaving the ‘secured’ stranded upon high; Carmona]

A simple explanation of Bitcoin “Sidechains”

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:
000013 (7)[Pre-1998 analog to digital, FLlW @ Bear Run obviously]

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 …?

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord