Estimating Value
John Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi –
New paper forwarded by David Meggitt and posted in your Value Networks Consortium open site.
Estimating Value in Service Systems: A Case Study of a Repair Service System - Globalization of the world economy has led to an increased ability of companies to outsource the planning, design, manufacturing, and distribution functions of their products and services around the globe. It is leading the deconstruction of formerly vertically organized companies and industries into comprehensive service systems known as value networks. This empirical case research shows the value they deliver, how they deliver it, and how value can be discovered and increased in service systems. IBM Systems Journal (2008)
http://www.value-networks.com/#Estimating
Cheers,
-j
Fran Kelly
Hi, John.
It needs to open in a New Window.
Fran Kelly
Associate, Verna Allee Associates
John Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi Fran –
Thanks, you’re right. Corrected.
As a shared site, 100% sponsored by the Value Networks Consortium, http://www.value-networks.com/, depends entirely on your VN community for content, advice, fixes, etc.
Site comments, content and fixes are not only encouraged and welcome, they’re expected!
VN Consortium: http://www.vncluster.com/VNVAC.htm
-j
style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>
George Koutras
Since I am a co-author on this paper then I would be eager to answer
any questions that you may have.
Kind Regards,
George Koutras
On May 26, 7:35 pm, "John Maloney \(IM: jheuristic\)"
<jheuris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Fran -
> Thanks, you're right. Corrected.
>
>
> Site comments, content and fixes are not only encouraged and welcome,
> they're expected!
>
> VN Consortium:http://www.vncluster.com/VNVAC.htm
>
> -j
>
> From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fran Kelly
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:13 AM
> To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: Estimating Value
>
> Hi, John.
>
> It needs to open in a New Window.
>
> Fran Kelly
>
> <http://www.vernaallee.com/>www.vernaallee.com
> From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Maloney (IM:
> jheuristic)
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:37 AM
> To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Estimating Value
>
> Hi -
> New paper forwarded by David Meggitt and posted in your Value Networks
> Consortium open site.
>
David Meggitt
Good evening and thank you for introducing yourself.
Please convey good wishes and respects to your colleague Prof Christos
Nikolaou at the University of Crete. He kindly supplied me with a link
to a workshop and summer school that is coming up in Palermo in June
2nd in which he will be talking about value network analysis - theory
and tools. http://ssme2008.tsl.gr/
It was good to receive your paper for at least three reasons:
1) It acknowledged the seminal work by Verna Allee in developing a
methodology for analyzing the dynamics of value in value networks,
with an emphasis on visualization and qualitative methods.
2) It formed an underpinning element via the insights of co-author
Nathan Caswell at IBM to the proposition of a "core business
architecture (CBA) for a service-oriented enterprise" published also
in the IBM Systems Journal. In proposing the CBA for use in various
business reasoning situations, this particular article formulated a
seven step approach for introducing a new service offering as a major
event in most large enterprises. Value network analysis was used in
three of these steps.
3) It demonstrated how the value network "lens" can be represented
using the language of mathematics, with its modelling applications.
I do have a question for you. Conventionally, value network analysis
(VNA) deems intangibles as not having a monetary value - otherwise it
becomes tangible. Your paper attempts to put a monetary value to
intangibles and relate that to the intangible assets concept using
links between relationship value, satisfaction indices and utility
functions (referring to other papers). These of course are highly
subjective but do enable you to develop expressions and impute values
for the variables. Presumably there would be no difficulty in
stripping out the valuation of intangibles and leaving us with
"simplified" version that deals only with tangibles.
I would also add the observation that a key contribution of value
network applications is the insight that participants gain in
creating the value network diagram in the first place and developing
co-creatively the alternative models for study in the transformation
options that you describe.
Regards... David Meggitt
George Koutras
Here is the answer from Prof. Christos Nikolaou:
Dear David,
sorry for not responding earlier, have been at the SSME 2008 workshop…
Thanks for including our paper in your literature list, my best
regards to Verna! Thanks also for your comments on our paper to which
I agree.
On your question: In theory yes one could strip down the intangibles
and have simplified expressions of value, as you say. that include
only the tangibles. However, I would think that a significant part of
the value attributed to value networks (and I am sure Verna would
agree with this) is generated through the intangibles – the
“networkness” of the value network, which is essentially the value
that partners attribute to their mutual relationships. We do offer ONE
possible way to quantify these relationships, I am sure there are
other, possibly better. We hope that we can get the discussion going
so that more ideas can be generated.
all the best
christos
On May 28, 2:19 pm, David Meggitt <david.megg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George,
> Good evening and thank you for introducing yourself.
>
> Please convey good wishes and respects to your colleague Prof Christos
> Nikolaou at the University of Crete. He kindly supplied me with a link
> to a workshop and summer school that is coming up in Palermo in June
> 2nd in which he will be talking about value network analysis - theory
John Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Here is a recent comment from Verna in another group that is germane to this
thread on intangible asset management.
-j
---
One of the great strengths of VNA is that it is designed to link
transactions and deliverables to performance indicators and asset
management. Often, corporate CFOs and accounts are not tuned in at all to
the kind of intangible asset management that VNA supports. The performance
indicators as used in VNA also typically are not taken to the corporate
level but are more focused at the transaction and network level. The full
methodology does provide for development of performance indicators. This
capability is critical to Boeing in their Flight Test Operations &
Validation Group, for example. They have used VNA to achieve sharp and
continuous growth in testing productivity vis-à-vis intangible asset
management. This organization of 3500 people uses the methodology to
redefine needed roles and interactions when they are undergoing
organizational change or complex process improvements. Part of their work is
to use the performance indicator feature of VNA in all of their workshops to
negotiate performance requirements at the transaction level.
Another aspect of VNA that does fit into the CFO office is linking role and
network performance to both financial and non-financial asset management.
You may want to take a closer look at the How To Guides on the open site,
especially the Impact Analysis and Value Creation Analysis which shows the
details of how this approach supports intangible asset management. The
Impact Analysis assess every deliverable for its impact on both financial
and non-financial assets. Non financial assets are typically things like
human competence, internal structure and business relationships. On the
Value Creation side every output or deliverable is assessed in terms of
asset utilization, using the same categories as well as the overall value
impact for industry, society and the environment. If a company is tuned into
the importance of intangibles then they value this aspect of VNA highly. 80%
of company value being its intangibles that intangible assets is hard to
ignore. It is very encouraging to see large and diverse organizations begin
to understand intangible asset management using visualization and
optimization applications of VNA. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit for
the early adopters.
http://www.value-networks.com/howToGuides/ImpactAnalysis.pdf
http://www.value-networks.com/howToGuides/ValueCreationAnalysis.pdf
There is more on intangible assets here:
http://www.value-networks.com/howToGuides/IntangibleValueDomains.pdf
In responding to this message I scrolled down to the original question
around intangible asset management. I have been very fortunate to part of
the pioneering group in intangible assets and intellectual capital. (former
member of the Brookings Institution Task Force on Intangibles in 1997). It
was a very tight community in the mid to late 1990s So Tom Stewart was one
of the very early fans of VNA because of the way it honors and links to
intangible assets. Tom is now editor of the Harvard Business Review and you
can see his influence in the frequent inclusion of articles that mention
intangibles. So we are very slowly making some headway against the biases
toward tangibles. Feel free to repost this wherever you feel appropriate
All the best,
Verna
---
Thomas Mathiasen
Interesting discussion indeed.
I do not totally agree with you on the tangibles / intangibles part. Maybe
it´s only a matter of definitions, but let me clarify my points.
Looking at companies, the value of companies is composed by tangible assets
(buildings, machines) and intangible assets (patents, innovation competency,
networks, customer relations....). The intangible assets comprise app. 80%
of the market value of most companies. Certainly, the tangible assets are
easier to valuate and that is what accountants do.
Now, the value networks comprise part of the intangible assets and thus of
the monetary value of the company. So, I cannot really see how in Value
Network Analysis can "strip out the valuation of intangibles and leaving us
with "simplified" version that deals only with tangibles."
I would argue, that all the intangibles being discussed here add to the
intangible assets as such, however difficult to describe, calculate or
valuate.
Regards,
Thomas
----------------------
Koutras
Sendt: 16. juni 2008 11:22
Til: Value Networks
Emne: Re: Estimating Value
Michael G. Cayley
When similar steps were taken to link brand and corporate valuation in the late 1980s, it touched off broad awareness that brands are a priority requiring special understanding, investment and management methods.
This group can help attract these things to value networks over the next three days at www.changethis.com/proposals. ChangeThis has helped spread ideas by well know authors like Richard Florida, Chris Anderson, Seth Godin, Guy Kawasaki, Tom Peters and Malcolm Gladwell.
Sincerely,
Michael
David Meggitt
intangibles as assets. I agree with what both Thomas and Michael have
posted as regards
their treatment. Verna was also commenting on intangible assets.
However, I have not abandoned as yet another aspect of intangibles
that is possibly more fundamental and was lurking at the back of my
mind when suggesting that it could be useful to consider stripping out
intangibles from the equations that collectively contribute to an
overall valuation of a value network.
Not wanting to reinvent the wheel, I simply refer to Verna Allee's
"The Future of Knowledge" Chs 10 and 11.
In a nutshell:
Let us start with the Question - "How is value really created?"
Answer: Intangible assets are the real source of value in the
knowledge economy."
Question: What is the best way to fully utilize intangibles, and how
do you increase them?"
A: "By creating, sharing, and leveraging knowledge to create economic
value and enhance organisational performance."
Q: " How do intangibles go to market?
A: They work as negotiables in economic exchanges
Q: How do intangible transactions take place?
A: They can be considered as an exchange of deliverables.
Q: What is fundamental about exchanges.
A: There must be reciprocity for exchanges to be sustainable (they can
arrive indirectly)
Q: What types of voluntary (non contractual) exchanges are there?
A: A gift exchange (no thought or expectation of anything coming back,
yet serve to deepen social ties) or an economic exchange (barter - a
once off, or
currency based - money, pigs, beads etc)
Q: How do intangibles go to market?
A: Either converted to monetary value or bartered directly as
intangibles?
Q: Why are tangible products or goods different from intangibles?
A: With intangibles, you can trade it but still retain possession and
extend it to someone else. The resources (for example insights) are
not used up or diminished but
can (there are exceptions) actually increase.
So, intangible deliverables involve knowledge and benefits that make
things work smoothly and help build relationships. They can be either
A) money based or B)non money based (a gift or currency other than
money).
I deduce that in their splendid paper cited in this thread, Christos,
George and other co-authors have followed pathway A). One also assumes
that the effort in developing the maths relies on the value network
remaining unchanged for a while. One can imagine that this condition
is more likely to be met in value networks that model tangible
exchanges associated with formal processes deemed to change slowly. If
this be so, then could the resulting valuation (with intangibles
stripped out) correspond to that of the accountants? Are extra
insights to be drawn from this?
Further, the negotiation of intangibles is a very dynamic affair with
intangible carrying transactions being unlikely to stand still long
enough to warrant mathematical treatment. (In this I am referring to
real life negotiation between people and not agent based modelling
that powers up simulations).
Nevertheless, in real markets, investors do put a value on an
enterprise which, presumably, is a measure of how they rate the
collective behaviour (strategy) and capacity to deliver value
ultimately. Does this mean that we now have a way of evaluating the
market value of an enterprise by simulating (via utility curves et al)
the "molecular unit of economic activity" - which is the exchange
(again quoting Verna). In what way could that lead to new
opportunities for research and development?
These are two possible excuses for allowing me the luxury of indulging
in the pleasurable pursuit of "stripping out intangibles!"
David Meggitt
www.meggittbird.net
On Jun 16, 6:51 pm, "Michael G. Cayley" <mgcay...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas - You are quite right that intangibiles account for most of the value of a contempory corporation. In "Introducing Social Capital Value Add" which I posted here for review a few weeks ago, I argue that corporations can adopt a resource generator (Martin Van Der Gaag, Tom A.B. Snijders, 21st October 2004) approach to arriving at an asset specific discount rate to access for corporations the risks that social media empowered value networks expose their company's future earnings to.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael> From: tho...@tm-innovation.dk> To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com> Subject: SV: Estimating Value> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:40:11 +0200> > > Dear David> > Interesting discussion indeed.> > I do not totally agree with you on the tangibles / intangibles part. Maybe> it´s only a matter of definitions, but let me clarify my points.> > Looking at companies, the value of companies is composed by tangible assets> (buildings, machines) and intangible assets (patents, innovation competency,> networks, customer relations....). The intangible assets comprise app. 80%> of the market value of most companies. Certainly, the tangible assets are> easier to valuate and that is what accountants do. > > Now, the value networks comprise part of the intangible assets and thus of> the monetary value of the company. So, I cannot really see how in Value> Network Analysis can "strip out the valuation of intangibles and leaving us> with "simplified" version that deals only with tangibles."> > I would argue, that all the intangibles being discussed here add to the> intangible assets as such, however difficult to describe, calculate or> valuate.> > Regards,> Thomas> > ----------------------> Koutras> Sendt: 16. juni 2008 11:22> Til: Value Networks> Emne: Re: Estimating Value> > > Good morning,> Here is the answer from Prof. Christos Nikolaou:> > Dear David,> > > > sorry for not responding earlier, have been at the SSME 2008 workshop…> Thanks for including our paper in your literature list, my best> regards to Verna! Thanks also for your comments on our paper to which> I agree.> > > > On your question: In theory yes one could strip down the intangibles> and have simplified expressions of value, as you say. that include> only the tangibles. However, I would think that a significant part of> the value attributed to value networks (and I am sure Verna would> agree with this) is generated through the intangibles – the> “networkness” of the value network, which is essentially the value> that partners attribute to their mutual relationships. We do offer ONE> possible way to quantify these relationships, I am sure there are> other, possibly better. We hope that we can get the discussion going> so that more ideas can be generated.> > > > all the best> > christos> > > > On May 28, 2:19 pm, David Meggitt <david.megg...@gmail.com> wrote:> > George,> > Good evening and thank you for introducing yourself.> >> > Please convey good wishes and respects to your colleague Prof Christos> > Nikolaou at the University of Crete. He kindly supplied me with a link> > to a workshop and summer school that is coming up in Palermo in June> > 2nd in which he will be talking about value network analysis - theory> > and tools.http://ssme2008.tsl.gr/> >> > It was good to receive your paper for at least three reasons:> >> > 1) It acknowledged the seminal work by Verna Allee in developing a> > methodology for analyzing the dynamics of value in value networks,> > with an emphasis on visualization and qualitative methods.> > 2) It formed an underpinning element via the insights of co-author> > Nathan Caswell at IBM to the proposition of a "core business> > architecture (CBA) for a service-oriented enterprise" published also> > in the IBM Systems Journal. In proposing the CBA for use in various> > business reasoning situations, this particular article formulated a> > seven step approach for introducing a new service offering as a major> > event in most large enterprises. Value network analysis was used in> > three of these steps.> > 3) It demonstrated how the value network "lens" can be represented> > using the language of mathematics, with its modelling applications.> >> > I do have a question for you. Conventionally, value network analysis> > (VNA) deems intangibles as not having a monetary value - otherwise it> > becomes tangible. Your paper attempts to put a monetary value to> > intangibles and relate that to the intangible assets concept using> > links between relationship value, satisfaction indices and utility> > functions (referring to other papers). These of course are highly> > subjective but do enable you to develop expressions and impute values> > for the variables. Presumably there would be no difficulty in> > stripping out the valuation of intangibles and leaving us with> > "simplified" version that deals only with tangibles.> >> > I would also add the observation that a key contribution of value> > network applications is the insight that participants gain in> > creating the value network diagram in the first place and developing> > co-creatively the alternative models for study in the transformation> > options that you describe.> >> > Regards... David Meggitt> >> > On May 28, 12:50 am, George Koutras <george.kout...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > > Good evening,> >> > > Since I am a co-author on this paper then I would be eager to answer> > > any questions that you may have.> >> > > Kind Regards,> >> > > George Koutras> >> > > On May 26, 7:35 pm, "John Maloney \(IM: jheuristic\)"> >> > > <jheuris...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > Hi Fran -> >> > > > Thanks, you're right. Corrected.> >> > > > As a shared site, 100% sponsored by the Value Networks> Consortium,http://www.value-networks.com/, depends entirely on your VN> community for> > > > content, advice, fixes, etc.> >> > > > Site comments, content and fixes are not only encouraged and welcome,> > > > they're expected!> >> > > > VN Consortium:http://www.vncluster.com/VNVAC.htm> >> > > > -j> >> > > > From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com> > > > [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fran Kelly> > > > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:13 AM> > > > To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com> > > > Subject: RE:EstimatingValue> >> > > > Hi, John.> >> > > > It needs to open in a New Window.> >> > > > Fran Kelly> >> > > > f...@greatpagesalive.com> >> > > >925-825-2664> >> > > > Associate, Verna Allee Associates> >> > > > <http://www.vernaallee.com/>www.vernaallee.com> >> > > > From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com> > > > [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Maloney> (IM:> > > > jheuristic)> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 25,2008 11:37 AM> > > > To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com> > > > Cc: ncasw...@us.ibm.com> > > > Subject:EstimatingValue> >> > > > Hi -> >> > > > New paper forwarded by David Meggitt and posted in your Value Networks> > > > Consortium open site.> >> > > >> <http://www.value-networks.com/Articles/Estimating%20Value.pdf>Estimating> > > > Value in Service Systems: A Case Study of a Repair Service System -> > > > Globalization of the world economy has led to an increased ability of> > > > companies to outsource the planning, design, manufacturing, and> distribution> > > > functions of their products and services around the globe. It is> leading the> > > > deconstruction of formerly vertically organized companies and> industries> > > > into comprehensive service systems known as value networks. This> empirical> > > > case research shows the value they deliver, how they deliver it, and> how> > > > value can be discovered and increased in service systems. IBM Systems> > > > Journal (2008)> >> > > >http://www.value-networks.com/#Estimating> >> > > > Cheers,> >> > > > -j> >> > > >http://xri.net/=jheuristic> > > > > _________________________________________________________________
>
> Find hidden words, unscramble celebrity names, or try the ultimate crossword puzzle with Live Search Games. Play now!http://g.msn.ca/ca55/212
Wael Al Saad
I am new here and this is my first post.
David title and list of Qs/As are crucial
and sure has been discussed in other forms in different places.
Before it will get discussed I would like to raise following systematic proposal:
On other project we use google-wiki/project-sites, where contributors has the chance to edit the page under discussion, enhance it and co-create it.
It is really productive and I can recommend it.
Setting up such a site takes about 5 minutes. Contributor will be invited by adding there address by site-createre. Every one can activate the subscription to get the changes done on the site ..
Do you use this method under this group?
Best values,
Wael
--
Salam
Wael
In correspondence with
http://internettime.ning.com/profile/Wael
The ultimate video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7KHUbuhgpQ
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. (Voltaire)
Be the change you want to see (Mahatma Gandhi)
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. (Margaret Mead)
"Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together", Goerge Eliot
Don't clap until you see the caravan of refugees moving toward Palestine!
Never ever give up. Do not complain, act constructively!
Charles Ehin
As Doc Searls, Senior Editor of Linux Journal, has said, “Think of markets as three overlapping circles: Transaction, Conversation and Relationship. Our financial system is Transaction run amok. Metastasized. Optimized at all costs. Impoverished in the Conversation department, and dismissive of Relationship entirely. We’ve been systematically eliminating Relationship for decades, excluding, devaluing and controlling human interaction wherever possible, to maximize efficiency and mechanization.”
From my perspective, transactions include monetary attributes such as stocks, tangibles such as machinery, intangibles such as patents or all three of the general factors. Nevertheless, no matter what a transaction includes it’s always explicit whether there’s a signed agreement or not. The same is true for conversations. They are explicit even in informal circumstances.
The major difference that needs to be highlighted between relationships and the other two marketing features is that relationships are “implicit.” Relationships are self-motivated and constantly evolving for better or for worse. It’s a self-organizing process whose outcomes are quite unpredictable. Relationships also have intrinsic value. They can be economic, intellectual, emotional, spiritual or a combination of all four. The key point to remember is that relationships are emergent. They can be influenced but not controlled by third parties or varying environmental contexts. As a result, relationships are the informal social fabric of every organization and network whether we are dealing with a book club or the United Nations.
Charlie
Charles (Kalev)
Ehin, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Management
The Gore School of
Business
Westminster College, Salt Lake City
kal...@msn.com
www.UnManagement.com
Michael G. Cayley
(Note: I hope that Doc Searls is recovering from recent illness. I read that his absence from Supernova was noted.)
I think Brian Uzzi might suggest that there is plenty of evidence of a balance that exists between market based transactions and "the unique logic of exchange" due to relationships or social networks. Relationship based transactions have advantages such as "reducing monitoring costs, quickening decision making, and enhancing organizational learning and adaptation". Balance is key though. Too much towards socially based transactions and you risk corruption. Mei guanxi.
As I wrote about this over the last year, I realized that as individuals increasingly take on broadcast media-like capabilities and carry broadband, GPS enabled mobile phones, we are able to observe the connection between transactions, conversations and social networks in previously unachievable ways. That in fact, corporate transactions (i.e. future earnings) are a function of online conversations and the underlying social networks. Therefore, corporate valuation should be linked to this trifecta, which requires more of a CRM type paradigm than the product centric notion that stable future earnings and high margins come from brand. Stable future earnings come from value networks.
Cheers,
mc
Last day to help me ChangeThis by advancing "Introducing Social Capital Value Add"
Principal, Social Capital Practice
mobile: 647-407-9598
office: 416-972-1439 ext.308
Skype ID: mgcayley
BONUS Link: Check out Teresa Healy's stuff! gasp!
From: kal...@msn.com
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Estimating Value
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:35:13 -0600
> Find hidden words, unscramble celebrity names, or try the ultimate crossword puzzle with Live Search Games. Play now!http://g.msn.ca/ca55/212<BR
Charles Ehin
That's true for “physical restraints/boundaries” but not “mental/motivational states” which are the essence of relationships.
Best,
Charlie
> Michael> From: tho...@tm-innovation.dk> To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com> Subject: SV: Estimating Value> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:40:11 +0200> > > Dear David> > Interesting discussion indeed.> > I do not totally agree with you on the tangibles / intangibles part. Maybe> it´s only a matter of definitions, but let me clarify my points.> > Looking at companies, the value of companies is composed by tangible assets> (buildings, machines) and intangible assets (patents, innovation competency,> networks, customer relations....). The intangible assets comprise app. 80%> of the market value of most companies. Certainly, the tangible assets are> easier to valuate and that is what accountants do. > > Now, the value networks comprise part of the intangible assets and thus of> the monetary value of the company. So, I cannot really see how in Value> Network Analysis can "strip out the valuation of intangibles and leaving us> with "simplified" version that deals only with tangibles."> > I would argue, that all the intangibles being discussed here add to the> intangible assets as such, however difficult to describe, calculate or> valuate.> > Regards,> Thomas> > ----------------------> Koutras> Sendt: 16. juni 2008 11:22> Til: Value Networks> Emne: Re: Estimating Value> > > Good morning,> Here is the answer from Prof. Christos Nikolaou:> > Dear David,> > > > sorry for not responding earlier, have been at the SSME 2008 workshop…> Thanks for including our paper in your literature list, my best> regards to Verna! Thanks also for your comments on our paper to which> I agree.> > > > On your question: In theory yes one could strip down the intangibles> and have simplified expressions of value, as you say. that include> only the tangibles. However, I would think that a significant part of> the value attributed to value networks (and I am sure Verna would> agree with this) is generated through the intangibles – the> “networkness” of the value network, which is essentially the value> that partners attribute to their mutual relationships. We do offer ONE> possible way to quantify these relationships, I am sure there are> other, possibly better. We hope that we can get the discussion going> so that more ideas can be generated.> > > > all the best> > christos> > > > On May 28, 2:19 pm, David Meggitt <david.megg...@gmail.com> wrote:> > George,> > Good evening and thank you for introducing yourself.> >> > Please convey good wishes and respects to your colleague Prof Christos> > Nikolaou at the University of Crete. He kindly supplied me with a link> > to a workshop and summer school that is coming up in Palermo in June> > 2nd in which he will be talking about value network analysis - theory> > and tools.http://ssme2008.tsl.gr/> >> > It was good to receive your paper for at least three reasons:> >> > 1) It acknowledged the seminal work by Verna Allee in developing a> > methodology for analyzing the dynamics of value in value networks,> > with an emphasis on visualization and qualitative methods.> > 2) It formed an underpinning element via the insights of co-author> > Nathan Caswell at IBM to the proposition of a "core business> > architecture (CBA) for a service-oriented enterprise" published also> > in the IBM Systems Journal. In proposing the CBA for use in various> > business reasoning situations, this particular article formulated a> > seven step approach for introducing a new service offering as a major> > event in most large enterprises. Value network analysis was used in> > three of these steps.> > 3) It demonstrated how the value network "lens" can be represented> > using the language of mathematics, with its modelling applications.> >> > I do have a question for you. Conventionally, value network analysis> > (VNA) deems intangibles as not having a monetary value - otherwise it> > becomes tangible. Your paper attempts to put a monetary value to> > intangibles and relate that to the intangible assets concept using> > links between relationship value, satisfaction indices and utility> > functions (referring to other papers). These of course are highly> > subjective but do enable you to develop expressions and impute values> > for the variables. Presumably there would be no difficulty in> > stripping out the valuation of intangibles and leaving us with> > "simplified" version that deals only with tangibles.> >> > I would also add the observation that a key contribution of value> > network applications is the insight that participants gain in> > creating the value network diagram in the first place and developing> > co-creatively the alternative models for study in the transformation> > options that you describe.> >> > Regards... David Meggitt> >> > On May 28, 12:50 am, George Koutras <george.kout...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > > Good evening,> >> > > Since I am a co-author on this paper then I would be eager to answer> > > any questions that you may have.> >> > > Kind Regards,> >> > > George Koutras> >> > > On May 26, 7:35 pm, "John Maloney \(IM: jheuristic\)"> >> > > <jheuris...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > Hi Fran -> >> > > > Thanks, you're right. Corrected.> >> > > > As a shared site, 100% sponsored by the Value Networks> Consortium,http://www.value-networks.com/, depends entirely on your VN> community for> > > > content, advice, fixes, etc.> >> > > > Site comments, content and fixes are not only encouraged and welcome,> > > > they're expected!> >> > > > VN Consortium:http://www.vncluster.com/VNVAC.htm> >> > > > -j> >> > > > From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com> > > > [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fran Kelly> > > > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:13 AM> > > > To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com> > > > Subject: RE:EstimatingValue> >> > > > Hi, John.> >> > > > It needs to open in a New Window.> >> > > > Fran Kelly> >> > > > f...@greatpagesalive.com> >> > > >925-825-2664> >> > > > Associate, Verna Allee Associates> >> > > > <http://www.vernaallee.com/>www.vernaallee.com> >> > > > From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com> > > > [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Maloney> (IM:> > > > jheuristic)> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 25,2008 11:37 AM> > > > To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com> > > > Cc: ncasw...@us.ibm.com> > > > Subject:EstimatingValue> >> > > > Hi -> >> > > > New paper forwarded by David Meggitt and posted in your Value Networks> > > > Consortium open site.> >> > > >> <http://www.value-networks.com/Articles/Estimating%20Valuepdf>Estimating> > > > Value in Service Systems: A Case Study of a Repair Service System -> > > > Globalization of the world economy has led to an increased ability of> > > > companies to outsource the planning, design, manufacturing, and> distribution> > > > functions of their products and services around the globe. It is> leading the> > > > deconstruction of formerly vertically organized companies and> industries> > > > into comprehensive service systems known as value networks. This> empirical> > > > case research shows the value they deliver, how they deliver it, and> how> > > > value can be discovered and increased in service systems. IBM Systems> > > > Journal (2008)> >> > > >http://www.value-networks.com/#Estimating> >> > > > Cheers,> >> > > > -j> >> > > >http://xri.net/=jheuristic> > > > > _________________________________________________________________
David Meggitt
So, we could now have, amongst other possibilities: Relationship
begets a conversation resulting in an explicit transaction which is
either tangible or intangible.
Further, we could have: Intrinsic value in a relationship is
surfaced / manifest through the value of resultant transactions.
As you rightly say and which is emphasised in your book "Hidden
Assets" we need to take into account the characteristic of self-
organisation with outcomes that are quite unpredicatable . This you
link to Relationships. Hence, does this mean that the mathematical
treatment of intangible value would need to accommodate such
unpredictability?
David Meggitt
On Jun 18, 5:35 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com> wrote:
> As Doc Searls, Senior Editor of Linux Journal, has said, “Think of markets as three overlapping circles: Transaction, Conversation and Relationship. Our financial system is Transaction run amok. Metastasized. Optimized at all costs. Impoverished in the Conversation department, and dismissive of Relationship entirely. We’ve been systematically eliminating Relationship for decades, excluding, devaluing and controlling human interaction wherever possible, to maximize efficiency and mechanization.”
>
> From my perspective, transactions include monetary attributes such as stocks, tangibles such as machinery, intangibles such as patents or all three of the general factors. Nevertheless, no matter what a transaction includes it’s always explicit whether there’s a signed agreement or not. The same is true for conversations. They are explicit even in informal circumstances.
>
> The major difference that needs to be highlighted between relationships and the other two marketing features is that relationships are “implicit.” Relationships are self-motivated and constantly evolving for better or for worse. It’s a self-organizing process whose outcomes are quite unpredictable. Relationships also have intrinsic value. They can be economic, intellectual, emotional, spiritual or a combination of all four. The key point to remember is that relationships are emergent. They can be influenced but not controlled by third parties or varying environmental contexts. As a result, relationships are the informal social fabric of every organization and network whether we are dealing with a book club or the United Nations.
>
> Charlie
>
> Charles (Kalev) Ehin, Ph.D.
> Emeritus Professor of Management
> The Gore School of Business
> Westminster College, Salt Lake City
> On Jun 16, 6:51 pm, "Michael G. Cayley" <mgcay...@hotmail.com<mailto:mgcay...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> > Thomas - You are quite right that intangibiles account for most of the value of a contempory corporation. In "Introducing Social Capital Value Add" which I posted here for review a few weeks ago, I argue that corporations can adopt a resource generator (Martin Van Der Gaag, Tom A.B. Snijders, 21st October 2004) approach to arriving at an asset specific discount rate to access for corporations the risks that social media empowered value networks expose their company's future earnings to.
>
> > When similar steps were taken to link brand and corporate valuation in the late 1980s, it touched off broad awareness that brands are a priority requiring special understanding, investment and management methods. This group can help attract these things to value networks over the next three days atwww.changethis.com/proposals. ChangeThis has helped spread ideas by well know authors like Richard Florida, Chris Anderson, Seth Godin, Guy Kawasaki, Tom Peters and Malcolm Gladwell.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> ...
>
> read more »
John Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
John Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi –
I do not want to be a pessimist or grouch, but the consensus and research is that most people still don’t know what a wiki is or how to use one. (Learned that at Super Nova yesterday. No surprise. http://www.supernova2008.com/ )
Before setting up a specific value networks wiki, it might make more sense for those interested to try Wikipedia. It is insanely easy to use. Give it a try. It would be good if the brain trust here could remediate the three Wikipedia entries germane to value networks –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_networks (need to be Wikified)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_network_analysis (pretty good, but could be improved)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verna_Allee (could be improved)
Remember, you can do no harm – it is a wiki! Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Do follow the guidelines though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome
If the response to this is good, then by all means a wiki would be good. Better to see if this Value Networks Google Group can take the baby steps with Wikipedia first.
-j
Charles Ehin
Good question, David. "...does this mean that the mathematical treatment of intangible value would need to accommodate such unpredictability?" Offhand I would say, yes. However, as Jeffrey Kluger in Simplexiy suggest, "Still the trick for people studying complexity and simplicity remains a question of focal point--knowing when you're looking too closely and when you're not."
Cheers,
Charlie
Charles Ehin
----- Original Message -----Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:36 PMSubject: RE: Estimating ValueHi -
You can keep up with Doc Searls here -
Cindy Gordon
Well said John
I must admit when I first saw wikis I did not understand the value. Martin Cleaver was the change champion in helping convince us these are really great toolkits. So we just finished our first major customized implementation for a marketing organization for competitive intelligence and it has been a tremendous success with the pilot group – but now going mainstream -- The hardest part is getting users to stop using email – some behaviors are very hard to change as we all know.
We have some good material on best practices on Web 2.0 on our website now – and a list of toolkits on best practises that I will send out shortly to John and those in the KM cluster. I usually don’t want to assume this may be of interest to everyone on this group – but if you are interested, just ping me and if I can too many pings I will send back on this message on Friday.
Kindest
Cindy Gordon Ph.D.
CEO
Helix Commerce
From:
Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008
7:50 PM
To:
Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Estimating Value
Hi –
Thomas Mathiasen
on "on real markets, investors do put a value on.." make me tell the
following on valuation of companies by investors. I am presently engaged in
a series of meetings with Corporate Finance advisors on intangible values
and valuation. The short version is that investors want and understand
numbers, nothing else. Valuation of companies is made relatively simple,
namely by multiplying the net-turnover by a s.c. multiple. This number is
taken from experience, comparing the company with others in the same
business.
As expressed by Warren Buffet in a recent discussion at IMD, Lausanne: "If I
trust that the owners run a smooth business I invest. I do not make a Due
Dilligence to look for IP (and other intangibles)"
The reason for my saying all this is, that in this modern world where
knowledge / intangible make the value of companies, we have an obligation to
demonstrate, uncover, convince,... the financical world of the opportunities
of looking into the value of networks and knowledge.
This is my quest. :-)
Thomas
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] På vegne af David Meggitt
Sendt: 18. juni 2008 14:52
Verna Allee
is hard to pick which one to respond to. David, you are waxing
particularly eloquent these days. I decided to pick up on the Searls
quote below of markets as three overlapping circles: Transaction,
Conversation and Relationships." Charles, your observation that our
Financial system is Transaction run amok is right on target. I debated
a very long time before using the term Transaction at all in value
network analysis but eventually decided it was the right term,. My
goal however is to expand our perspective of of Transactions to
include intangible transactions, not just those that are financial.
(The same "madness in my method" applies to using the terms Cost/
Benefit, Impact, and Asset Management with an definitions that include
intangibles.)
The risk in taking this approach is of course that people will take
their traditional transactional mindset into value networks. That is a
mindset that tends to confuse "transaction" with "extraction." Then
people use a transactional logic to try to "extract" value from the
networks. (Ouch!) We all want to optimize our gain from the networks
we participate in but trying to squeeze out or extract value is not
only the wrong metaphor but as a practice will most certainly destroy
the sustainability of the network. Case in point is when AOL tried to
"extract" more profit from its content providers only to see the
network drift off to other communities, losing what at the time was a
Google level dominance in the online economy. If they had been
applying value network insights and indicators they might have made
very different decisions. There are many wrong headed conversations
going on now about how to extract financial value or "monetize" social
networking sites that have missed the lessons in the AOL experience.
Appreciating that transactions can be either financial or non
financial allows us to consider interactions such as conversation in a
new light - as supporting transactions for more formal or contractual
transactions. The purpose of VNA is not to try to quantify those
interactions in financial terms but to understand them as indicators
of stability, reciprocity and agility in the network.
Michael when you suggest that corporate valuation should be linked to
this trifecta (transactions, conversations and the underlying social
networks) you are walking a very delicate line between traditional
economic thinking (which continually tries to drive intangibles to a
financial valuation) and the newer understanding of value as an
emergent property of network interactions.
Network indicators for value networks are concerned with the overall
health of the network and the appropriateness of its roles, structure
and interactions to achieve a particular network effect. Just as it is
possible to identify network patterns and indicators that show strong
social networks, there are very different and purpose specific network
patterns for different kinds of value outcomes. (Michael you are
intuitively remarking on just such a pattern when you suggest that too
many informal interactions might indicate corruption. But there are a
number of other possible interpretations depending on context so full
understanding would require benchmarking effective and ineffective
networks in the area of focus).
The financial health of the network is actually a lagging indicator
when it comes to value creation. So value network analysis includes
financial indicators but they not hold the same level of importance as
in most business analysis methods. They are just one of many different
indicators that tell us about the performance of the network. Value
network analysis is designed to understand the capacity of the network
itself to create both current and future social or economic goods.
(A whole 'nother topic is how financial value is really just a set of
social agreements: - nothing has value until people agree it has value
- not even money.)
Cheers,
Verna
On Jun 18, 9:35 am, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com> wrote:
> As Doc Searls, Senior Editor of Linux Journal, has said, “Think of markets as three overlapping circles: Transaction, Conversation and Relationship. Our financial system is Transaction run amok. Metastasized. Optimized at all costs. Impoverished in the Conversation department, and dismissive of Relationship entirely. We’ve been systematically eliminating Relationship for decades, excluding, devaluing and controlling human interaction wherever possible, to maximize efficiency and mechanization.”
>
> From my perspective, transactions include monetary attributes such as stocks, tangibles such as machinery, intangibles such as patents or all three of the general factors. Nevertheless, no matter what a transaction includes it’s always explicit whether there’s a signed agreement or not. The same is true for conversations. They are explicit even in informal circumstances.
>
> The major difference that needs to be highlighted between relationships and the other two marketing features is that relationships are “implicit.” Relationships are self-motivated and constantly evolving for better or for worse. It’s a self-organizing process whose outcomes are quite unpredictable. Relationships also have intrinsic value. They can be economic, intellectual, emotional, spiritual or a combination of all four. The key point to remember is that relationships are emergent. They can be influenced but not controlled by third parties or varying environmental contexts. As a result, relationships are the informal social fabric of every organization and network whether we are dealing with a book club or the United Nations.
>
> Charlie
>
> Charles (Kalev) Ehin, Ph.D.
> Emeritus Professor of Management
> The Gore School of Business
> Westminster College, Salt Lake City
> From: David Meggitt<mailto:m...@davidmeggitt.com>
> To: Value Networks<mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com>
> On Jun 16, 6:51 pm, "Michael G. Cayley" <mgcay...@hotmail.com<mailto:mgcay...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> > Thomas - You are quite right that intangibiles account for most of the value of a contempory corporation. In "Introducing Social Capital Value Add" which I posted here for review a few weeks ago, I argue that corporations can adopt a resource generator (Martin Van Der Gaag, Tom A.B. Snijders, 21st October 2004) approach to arriving at an asset specific discount rate to access for corporations the risks that social media empowered value networks expose their company's future earnings to.
>
> > When similar steps were taken to link brand and corporate valuation in the late 1980s, it touched off broad awareness that brands are a priority requiring special understanding, investment and management methods. This group can help attract these things to value networks over the next three days atwww.changethis.com/proposals. ChangeThis has helped spread ideas by well know authors like Richard Florida, Chris Anderson, Seth Godin, Guy Kawasaki, Tom Peters and Malcolm Gladwell.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Michael G. Cayley
David Meggitt
Key point noted on "simplexity." Einstein also had the dictum that
everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Here is a thought if one is applying maths to value networks. Co
develop a value network for an enterprise (extended enterprise /
business ecosystem). Identify the tangibles (tangible deliverables)
and associated processes (within the nodes) that receive, enhance,
send off such tangibles. Assume that these embody the knowledge of
prior workers and can be automated like a machine. Do the maths as in
process control etc.
So far, the enterprise will fail after a period of time because it
cannot adapt sufficiently etc. Now introduce the informal networks
(harness their power as you, Charlie, have exhorted). Assume that we
are now dealing with intangibles, and the associated unpredictability
(we are dealing with real people). Now add the maths. But this time,
we recognise the non linear dynamics and possible lessons from Sync
(Refer Steven Strogatz's (SS) work "Sync The emerging science of
spontaneous order").
Also the following quote is poignant. "Chaos theory revealed that
simple non linear systems could behave in extremely complicated ways,
and showed us how to understand them with pictures instead of
equations. Complexity theory taught us that many simple units
interacting according to simple rules could generate unexpected order.
But where complexity theory has largely failed is in explaining WHERE
the order comes from, in a deep mathematical sense, and in tying the
theory to real phenomena in a convincing way. For these reasons, it
has had little impact on the thinking of most mathematicians and
scientists" Op cit SS p 286.
Perhaps another reason for stripping out intangibles and treating them
with respect! I think the Paper that started this thread which applies
maths to value networks is a great step forward and really look
forward to further developments.
David
www.meggittbird.net
On Jun 19, 3:18 am, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com> wrote:
> Good question, David. "...does this mean that the mathematical treatment of intangible value would need to accommodate such unpredictability?" Offhand I would say, yes. However, as Jeffrey Kluger in Simplexiy suggest, "Still the trick for people studying complexity and simplicity remains a question of focal point--knowing when you're looking too closely and when you're not."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Charlie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Meggitt<mailto:m...@davidmeggitt.com>
> To: Value Networks<mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Estimating Value
>
> Very helpful, Charlie.
>
> So, we could now have, amongst other possibilities: Relationship
> begets a conversation resulting in an explicit transaction which is
> either tangible or intangible.
> Further, we could have: Intrinsic value in a relationship is
> surfaced / manifest through the value of resultant transactions.
>
> As you rightly say and which is emphasised in your book "Hidden
> Assets" we need to take into account the characteristic of self-
> organisation with outcomes that are quite unpredicatable . This you
> link to Relationships. Hence, does this mean that the mathematical
> treatment of intangible value would need to accommodate such
> unpredictability?
>
> David Meggitt
>
> > As Doc Searls, Senior Editor of Linux Journal, has said, “Think of markets as three overlapping circles: Transaction, Conversation and Relationship. Our financial system is Transaction run amok. Metastasized. Optimized at all costs. Impoverished in the Conversation department, and dismissive of Relationship entirely. We’ve been systematically eliminating Relationship for decades, excluding, devaluing and controlling human interaction wherever possible, to maximize efficiency and mechanization.”
>
> > From my perspective, transactions include monetary attributes such as stocks, tangibles such as machinery, intangibles such as patents or all three of the general factors. Nevertheless, no matter what a transaction includes it’s always explicit whether there’s a signed agreement or not. The same is true for conversations. They are explicit even in informal circumstances.
>
> > The major difference that needs to be highlighted between relationships and the other two marketing features is that relationships are “implicit.” Relationships are self-motivated and constantly evolving for better or for worse. It’s a self-organizing process whose outcomes are quite unpredictable. Relationships also have intrinsic value. They can be economic, intellectual, emotional, spiritual or a combination of all four. The key point to remember is that relationships are emergent. They can be influenced but not controlled by third parties or varying environmental contexts. As a result, relationships are the informal social fabric of every organization and network whether we are dealing with a book club or the United Nations.
>
> > Charlie
>
> > Charles (Kalev) Ehin, Ph.D.
> > Emeritus Professor of Management
> > The Gore School of Business
> > Westminster College, Salt Lake City
> > On Jun 16, 6:51 pm, "Michael G. Cayley" <mgcay...@hotmail.com<mailto:mgcay...@hotmail.com<mailto:mgcay...@hotmailcom%3Cmailto:mgcay...@hotmail.com>>> wrote:
> > > Thomas - You are quite right that intangibiles account for most of the value of a contempory corporation. In "Introducing Social Capital Value Add" which I posted here for review a few weeks ago, I argue that corporations can adopt a resource generator (Martin Van Der Gaag, Tom A.B. Snijders, 21st October 2004) approach to arriving at an asset specific discount rate to access for corporations the risks that social media empowered value networks expose their company's future earnings to.
>
> > > When similar steps were taken to link brand and corporate valuation in the late 1980s, it touched off broad awareness that brands are a priority requiring special understanding, investment and management methods. This group can help attract these things to value networks over the next three days atwww.changethis.com/proposals. ChangeThis has helped spread ideas by well know authors like Richard Florida, Chris Anderson, Seth Godin, Guy Kawasaki, Tom Peters and Malcolm Gladwell.
>
> > > Sincerely,
>
> ...
>
> read more »
David Meggitt
develop best practice in the way you suggest, but certainly feel that
Non Executive Directors have an obligation to keep up with best
practice. I would also assume that analysts should do likewise and
advisors similarly.
But leading the charge is good fun and I'd be happy to share a paper
that is relevant to your quest with you - a value network on grooming
a company for sale.
(Drop me a line).
Interestingly, hedge funds are stuffed full of mathematical expertise
and if so directed could tackle some of the challenges posed in this
thread.
David Meggitt
www.meggittbird.net
On Jun 19, 10:03 am, "Thomas Mathiasen" <tho...@tm-innovation.dk>
wrote:
>
> read more »
Charles Ehin
Verna,
you sure know how to put things into a sensible perspective. I wish I had some
of your talent. You state, "The purpose of VNA is not to try to quantify
those interactions in financial terms but to understand them as indicators of
stability, reciprocity and agility in the network...Value network analysis is
designed to understand the capacity of the network
itself to create both
current and future social or economic goods." Well put. Unfortunately, many
people still want to deal/focus exclusively on the bottom line which really
isn't the bottom line but only part of it.
Experience and research of people like you, Verna, is slowly beginning to peel back the facade and show how social systems really function. Social systems are organic. They are composed of very vibrant constantly evolving self-regulating networks. They don’t look or perform like “machines.” In fact, social systems work around mechanical structures whether devised by heads of prison administrators or managers set on running very “strictly disciplined” organizations. Some sage individuals have known that for ages. Only recently, however, have we begun to accurately recognize how our social systems actually function.
Best,
Charlie
----- Original Message -----From: Verna AlleeTo: Value NetworksSent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:23 PMSubject: Re: Estimating Value
Verna Allee
"As expressed by Warren Buffet in a recent discussion at IMD,
Lausanne: "If I
trust that the owners run a smooth business I invest. I do not make a
Due
Dilligence to look for IP (and other intangibles)"
a smooth business he would be describing intangibles such as the
quality of the leadership team (intangible), consistent and
responsible financial management (tangible), competent people and
normal turnover rates (intangible), reliable supply chain partners
(intangible), solid customer base (intangible), reputation
(intangible) and so forth. He would actually be naming intangible
assets. Double irony is his reference to IP as an intangible. IP
actually is a tangible asset because people can and do frequently
place a financial valuation on IP and it is then listed as an asset in
the traditional balance sheet.
I suggest that investors who would never use the term intangible
assets do in actuality factor those assets into their decision making.
However, they are doing it intuitively and subjectively rather than
taking a systematic look (a "due diligence.") The power of any
management practice lies in the way it takes the things we do
intuitively and helps us do them deliberately and therefore more
effectively. Processes didn't suddenly show up in business in the late
1980s. Business processes have been around for thousands of years.
What was different is they were made visible and negotiable.
Intangible assets, value networks, KM, social networks, communities of
practice. There is nothing "new" happening. What is happening is our
capacity to make all of these visible, negotiable and more manageable
(not controlled.)
Regards,
Verna
Webster, Andrew
Great observation. I find that the inconsistent ontology around intangibles is one of the greatest challenges in introducing the concept of VNA.
Andrew
Andrew Webster
Meeting Design Manager
Kingbridge: Conference Centre & Institute
Phone: 905-833-6534 Fax: 905-833-0762
Now blogging at www.togetherworking.blogspot.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Verna Allee
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:22 AM
To: Value Networks
Subject: Re: Estimating Value
Regards,
Verna
> > responding earlier, have been at the SSME 2008 workshop...> Thanks for
> > including our paper in your literature list, my best> regards to Verna!
> > Thanks also for your comments on our paper to which> I agree.> > > > On your
> > question: In theory yes one could strip down the intangibles> and have
> > simplified expressions of value, as you say. that include> only the
> > tangibles. However, I would think that a significant part of> the value
> > attributed to value networks (and I am sure Verna would> agree with this) is
> > generated through the intangibles - the> "networkness" of the value network,
> > which is essentially the value> that partners attribute to their mutual
> > relationships. We do offer ONE> possible way to quantify these
> > relationships, I am sure there are> other, possibly better. We hope that we
> > can get the discussion going> so that more ideas can be generated.> > > >
> > all the best> > christos> > > > On May 28, 2:19 pm, David Meggitt<david.megg...@gmail.com> wrote:> > George,> > Good evening and thank you
>
> > for introducing yourself.> >> > Please convey good wishes and respects to
> > your colleague Prof Christos> > Nikolaou at the University of Crete. He
> > kindly supplied me with a link> > to a workshop and summer school that is
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kingbridge Conference Centre:
Professional business conferencing services:
For Packages, please call Sales at (905) 833-6512.
Kingbridge Institute:
Explore the Kingbridge Approach to great meetings:
Contact a Meeting Designer (905) 833-6523.
Thomas Mathiasen
I do agree with you, particularly on the last paragraph, that the
intangibles are now visible, indeed manageable.
My point is, without irony, that from my experience financial management
does not take into consideration the large share of the commercial value
that lies in intangibles. That in "new economy" the major value of companies
lie within the intangibles.
That indeed the discussions within this forum should be on the syllabus on
Business Schools.
Regards, Thomas
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] På vegne af Verna Allee
Sendt: 20. juni 2008 16:22
Benoit Couture
Thomas wrote:
"That indeed the discussions within this forum should be on the syllabus on
|
Here is a discussion in which the MBA is talked about from an economist's point of view: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learningfromeachother/message/2038
Benoit |
Charles Ehin
Benoit,
That's why I finally quit teaching in our MBA program two years ago. It's so much easier for the administrators and faculty to keep on teaching the same old stuff, with only minor variations, rather than to shift to a new paradigm. The few deans and professors who want to make significant changes eventually give up or leave out of frustration. As the dean of the business school I encountered similar disappointments. Unfortunately, it usually takes a major catastrophic event for an academic institution to meaningfully shift gears. By then it may be too late.
Cheers,
Charlie
Benoit Couture
Charles,
Thanks for sharing such life experience.
Since 9/11's attack, I was hoping that we had globally reached the point in history for the powers that be to search for the wisdom to massively move away from a present and a future that keep our collective back up against the wall of terror-anti-terror dynamics. Approaching 7 years latter, so much of the economies and their securities depend on building the war machines, that the horizon looks very stormy for most of the speicies.
On the other hand, the tools for paradigm shifts are available to reach far, wide and deep enough for inspiration to spark up the lead and to deploy the following that's awaiting to be brought on by the spiritual law of personal and communal conversion, transformation, renewal and regeneration
Best regards, Benoit |
Michael G. Cayley
Can anyone recommend any links, papers or further references about the memetic qualities of relationships?
From: kal...@msn.com
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Estimating Value
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:42:40 -0600
</HTML<BR
Charles Ehin
Good question, Michael. I don't have a definitive answer because when you're dealing with relationships you're faced with some very complex emergent interrelationships between individuals, networks and cultures. The article by White and Godart below might answer part of your question.
Matt Moore
Michael G. Cayley
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:14:30 -0600
</HTML<BR
Charles Ehin
John Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi Charles –
“Goals to do with competitive survival and profit are then seen to be subservient to this overriding need. This departs from dominant management views understanding performance as an all-important motivating force."
See:
http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project.cfm?id=599
A conclusion is that in normal, thriving and legitimate orgs, yes, “…survival and profit are then seen to be subservient to relationships.” In the patently dysfunctional, criminal enterprise, monstrous govt, and overreaching orgs like Enron, Arthur Andersen, Soviet Union, statism, UN, etc. ad nauseum, the reverse is manifest, e.g., survival trumps relationships. It is why they always fail with confidence. The outcome is scandal, disasters, war, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_scandal
Trust belongs to people; it’s not for governments, the enterprise or organizations.
Intangibles inhabit the domain of relationships. Value networks and VNA make them visible and negotiable.
-j
P.S. Also see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413845/
From:
Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Charles Ehin
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: relationships are memetic?
Michael,
Here is something else to ponder from Stacey, Griffin and Shaw's Complexity and Management: "…an organization becomes what it is because of the intrinsic need human beings have, individually and collectively, to express their identities and thereby their differences. Identities and differences emerge, becoming what they are through the transformative cause of self-organization, that is, relationships. What an organization becomes emerges from the relationships of its members rather than being determined by the choices of individuals…Goals to do with competitive survival and profit are then seen to be subservient to this overriding need. This departs from dominant management views understanding performance as an all-important motivating force."
Best,
Charlie
-~----~------~----~------~--~---
Charles Ehin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 6:09 AMSubject: RE: relationships are memetic?
Hi Charles -
"Goals to do with competitive survival and profit are then seen to be subservient to this overriding need. This departs from dominant management views understanding performance as an all-important motivating force."
See:
http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project.cfm?id=599
A conclusion is that in normal, thriving and legitimate orgs, yes, ".survival and profit are then seen to be subservient to relationships." In the patently dysfunctional, criminal enterprise, monstrous govt, and overreaching orgs like Enron, Arthur Andersen, Soviet Union, statism, UN, etc. ad nauseum, the reverse is manifest, e.g., survival trumps relationships. It is why they always fail with confidence. The outcome is scandal, disasters, war, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_scandal
Trust belongs to people; it's not for governments, the enterprise or organizations.
Intangibles inhabit the domain of relationships. Value networks and VNA make them visible and negotiable.
-j
P.S. Also see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413845/
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles Ehin
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: relationships are memetic?
Michael,
Here is something else to ponder from Stacey, Griffin and Shaw's Complexity and Management: ".an organization becomes what it is because of the intrinsic need human beings have, individually and collectively, to express their identities and thereby their differences. Identities and differences emerge, becoming what they are through the transformative cause of self-organization, that is, relationships. What an organization becomes emerges from the relationships of its members rather than being determined by the choices of individuals.Goals to do with competitive survival and profit are then seen to be subservient to this overriding need. This departs from dominant management views understanding performance as an all-important motivating force."
Best,
Charlie
-~----~------~----~------~--~---
Michael G. Cayley
<BR