Perpetual Innovation
JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi –
My old boss at HP, Lew Platt, like to say, concerning innovation, you need to eat-your-children. HP is famous for consistently having 80% of profits originate from products two years old or less. That requires the courage to kill (eat) products (your children) to allow innovation to flourish. As in nature, this optimizes the ecosystems. It drives profitability, growth and well-being.
Incredibly, in almost 2009, enterprise KM people are still talking about the obsolete notions of sharing, best practices and continuous improvement. (?) Ridiculous. Shameful.
Continuous improvement was important in the 80s as a temporal artifact of the quality revolution. It originated the notion of 'best practices.' Both are now 100% obsolete.
BTW, know
who is a recognized master of both best practices and continuous improvement? Yep,
General Motors, GM. Today, right now, turn on the news and watch the GM
CEO grovel and plead for tax money to fix the mess of US auto manufacturing caused
specifically by excellence in sharing, best practice and continuous
improvement. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. If you hear
these terms in your organization, run, don’t walk, for the exits to
escape (and to save your life/career).
Today organizations must achieve perpetual innovation
(PI). The new Big Three, Toyota, Nissan and Honda get it (and 54% of the
US auto market to boot).
Perpetual innovation inhabits value networks. To achieve
mastery, do not focus on information distribution (?) and incremental
improvements like KM & quality circa 1990. That is a waste of time and
resources. You MUST focus knowledge efforts on value network structures and
patterns: roles, links, exchanges and OUTCOMES. Information, practices
and improvements take care of themselves in well-configured value networks.
See:
http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/219361
Also, please forget about sharing. It too is 100% obsolete.
There is NO time to share anymore. Rather, focus on collective intelligence.
Accept and lead knowledge-based organizations as markets; as the complex
adaptive systems all organizations are. Embrace collective intelligence
networks and markets to achieve perpetual innovation. See:
http://www.pmcluster.com/SFO09.htm
Sadly, KM people and orgs are nostalgic. They struggle badly to let go and to focus on the future. They are on the same slippery slope as corporate IT – preserve the past at all cost. (Fully 80% of today’s IT budget goes to supporting legacy apps. Disgraceful.)
KM, IT and organizations fight hard to keep the past and sabotage innovation. Newsflash: They are very good at it! However, sooner-or-later they always lose, to be subsumed by the natural order of value networks and collective intelligence. (It is happening in Detroit as you read this post…)
To move forward, KM and their kissing-cousin, corporate IT, need to heed Lew’s advice, and kill their sacred children of sharing, best practices and continuous improvement.
-j
Kathleen Marvin
David Peregrine-Jones
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kathleen Marvin
Sent: 04 December 2008 20:29
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Perpetual Innovation
Charles Ehin
----- Original Message -----From: David Peregrine-JonesSent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:12 PMSubject: RE: Perpetual InnovationJohn,You make a great point! Is Washington listening?BestDavid P-J
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kathleen Marvin
Sent: 04 December 2008 20:29
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Perpetual InnovationActually, in this model the children are eating the parents :-)cheers,Kathleen
----- Original Message -----Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:10 AMSubject: Perpetual Innovation
Hi -
My old boss at HP, Lew Platt, like to say, concerning innovation, you need to eat-your-children. HP is famous for consistently having 80% of profits originate from products two years old or less. That requires the courage to kill (eat) products (your children) to allow innovation to flourish. As in nature, this optimizes the ecosystems. It drives profitability, growth and well-being.
Incredibly, in almost 2009, enterprise KM people are still talking about the obsolete notions of sharing, best practices and continuous improvement. (?) Ridiculous. Shameful.
Continuous improvement was important in the 80s as a temporal artifact of the quality revolution. It originated the notion of 'best practices.' Both are now 100% obsolete.
BTW, know who is a recognized master of both best practices and continuous improvement? Yep, General Motors, GM. Today, right now, turn on the news and watch the GM CEO grovel and plead for tax money to fix the mess of US auto manufacturing caused specifically by excellence in sharing, best practice and continuous improvement. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. If you hear these terms in your organization, run, don't walk, for the exits to escape (and to save your life/career).
Today organizations must achieve perpetual innovation (PI). The new Big Three, Toyota, Nissan and Honda get it (and 54% of the US auto market to boot).
Perpetual innovation inhabits value networks. To achieve mastery, do not focus on information distribution (?) and incremental improvements like KM & quality circa 1990. That is a waste of time and resources. You MUST focus knowledge efforts on value network structures and patterns: roles, links, exchanges and OUTCOMES. Information, practices and improvements take care of themselves in well-configured value networks. See:
http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/219361
Also, please forget about sharing. It too is 100% obsolete. There is NO time to share anymore. Rather, focus on collective intelligence. Accept and lead knowledge-based organizations as markets; as the complex adaptive systems all organizations are. Embrace collective intelligence networks and markets to achieve perpetual innovation. See:
http://www.pmcluster.com/SFO09.htm
Sadly, KM people and orgs are nostalgic. They struggle badly to let go and to focus on the future. They are on the same slippery slope as corporate IT - preserve the past at all cost. (Fully 80% of today's IT budget goes to supporting legacy apps. Disgraceful.)
KM, IT and organizations fight hard to keep the past and sabotage innovation. Newsflash: They are very good at it! However, sooner-or-later they always lose, to be subsumed by the natural order of value networks and collective intelligence. (It is happening in Detroit as you read this post.)
JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Actually, in this model the children are eating the parents :-)
Hi – I know it is not a very appetizing metaphor, revolting really, just necessary to get attention. Again, it is only about the discipline and logic necessary to prosper.
Quite on the contrary, in this model, what is “eating the parents” are obsolete brands, failed business models, bygone methods and bizarro capital investment.
Saturn is eating-the-parent GM. 6000 dealerships is eating-the-parent GM. Legacy costs are eating-the-parent GM. $60B (sic) of debt eating-the-parent GM. The world’s largest single purchaser of Viagra, the UAW, is eating-the-parent GM!
Furthermore, Washington can’t, “spend its way to prosperity.” (?) Nothing lives forever. The Dow 30 is not permanent. Seems we are doing fine w/o Woolworths, Victor and the National Lead Company.
BTW, if you are $60B in debt, with a badly failing, obsolete business model, crappy products, avaricious unions, staggering, immovable inventory, losing $38B (sic) a year and with 100% deficient, arrogant, craven, absent management, then why would you ask your Uncle Sam for $30B? It makes NO sense. The GM/auto bailout is an enormous farce.
Letting go is as important as taking hold. Value networks and ecosystems are about flow, renewal, regeneration, resilience, innovation and prosperity. So yes, failure is guaranteed if you let your voracious children devour you by living in your house forever.
For perpetual innovation and growth, in business, nature and life, to love your children, they must move out, move on, find their own life. No exceptions. Don’t worry, if they are really great, innovative products (good kids) in the first place, really creating authentic value, as they become adults, enough genetic material will survive, get through, to perpetuate the species and assure prosperity.
You will find this in every successful company and organization known. You will find the opposite in every failed company, e.g., Pontiac (GM).
Value network companies and organizations are propelled by perpetual innovation.
Let’s hope Congress, err, the taxpayers, do not prop-up the giant, lifeless moldering cadaver and auto museum known as GM. After all, like Obama sez, ‘you can’t put lipstick on a pig.’
Cheers, -j
From:
Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Kathleen Marvin
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:29 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Perpetual Innovation
Actually, in this model the children are eating the parents :-)
cheers,
Kathleen
<BR
Snowden Dave
Actually, in this model the children are eating the parents :-)Hi – I know it is not a very appetizing metaphor, revolting really, just necessary to get attention. Again, it is only about the discipline and logic necessary to prosper.Quite on the contrary, in this model, what is “eating the parents” are obsolete brands, failed business models, bygone methods and bizarro capital investment.Saturn is eating-the-parent GM. 6000 dealerships is eating-the-parent GM. Legacy costs are eating-the-parent GM. $60B (sic) of debt eating-the-parent GM. The world’s largest single purchaser of Viagra, the UAW, is eating-the-parent GM!Furthermore, Washington can’t, “spend its way to prosperity.” (?) Nothing lives forever. The Dow 30 is not permanent. Seems we are doing fine w/o Woolworths, Victor and the National Lead Company.BTW, if you are $60B in debt, with a badly failing, obsolete business model, crappy products, avaricious unions, staggering, immovable inventory, losing $38B (sic) a year and with 100% deficient, arrogant, craven, absent management, then why would you ask your Uncle Sam for $30B? It makes NO sense. The GM/auto bailout is an enormous farce.Letting go is as important as taking hold. Value networks and ecosystems are about flow, renewal, regeneration, resilience, innovation and prosperity. So yes, failure is guaranteed if you let your voracious children devour you by living in your house forever.For perpetual innovation and growth, in business, nature and life, to love your children, they must move out, move on, find their own life. No exceptions. Don’t worry, if they are really great, innovative products (good kids) in the first place, really creating authentic value, as they become adults, enough genetic material will survive, get through, to perpetuate the species and assure prosperity.You will find this in every successful company and organization known. You will find the opposite in every failed company, e.g., Pontiac (GM).Value network companies and organizations are propelled by perpetual innovation.Let’s hope Congress, err, the taxpayers, do not prop-up the giant, lifeless moldering cadaver and auto museum known as GM. After all, like Obama sez, ‘you can’t put lipstick on a pig.’Cheers, -j
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf OfKathleen Marvin
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:29 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Perpetual InnovationActually, in this model the children are eating the parents :-)cheers,Kathleen
----- Original Message -----Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:10 AMSubject: Perpetual InnovationHi –My old boss at HP, Lew Platt, like to say, concerning innovation, you need to eat-your-children. HP is famous for consistently having 80% of profits originate from products two years old or less. That requires the courage to kill (eat) products (your children) to allow innovation to flourish. As in nature, this optimizes the ecosystems. It drives profitability, growth and well-being.Incredibly, in almost 2009, enterprise KM people are still talking about the obsolete notions of sharing, best practices and continuous improvement. (?) Ridiculous. Shameful.Continuous improvement was important in the 80s as a temporal artifact of the quality revolution. It originated the notion of 'best practices.' Both are now 100% obsolete.
BTW, know who is a recognized master of both best practices and continuous improvement? Yep, General Motors, GM. Today, right now, turn on the news and watch the GM CEO grovel and plead for tax money to fix the mess of US auto manufacturing caused specifically by excellence in sharing, best practice and continuous improvement. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. If you hear these terms in your organization, run, don’t walk, for the exits to escape (and to save your life/career).
Today organizations must achieve perpetual innovation (PI). The new Big Three,Toyota, Nissan and Honda get it (and 54% of the US auto market to boot).
Perpetual innovation inhabits value networks. To achieve mastery, do not focus on information distribution (?) and incremental improvements like KM & quality circa 1990. That is a waste of time and resources. You MUST focus knowledge efforts on value network structures and patterns: roles, links, exchanges and OUTCOMES. Information, practices and improvements take care of themselves in well-configured value networks. See:
http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/219361
Also, please forget about sharing. It too is 100% obsolete. There is NO time to share anymore. Rather, focus on collective intelligence. Accept and lead knowledge-based organizations as markets; as the complex adaptive systems all organizations are. Embrace collective intelligence networks and markets to achieve perpetual innovation. See:
http://www.pmcluster.com/SFO09.htm
Cory Banks
the success and failures you talk about than either a nostalgic hold
on old models or a switch to new ones. There are many more ecosystems
in organisations that interact and relate to each other beyond
quality, improvement and org design.
Having worked through bpm, crm and km practices i see things moving
forward to evolve and merge with value networks (you are always
sharing stories of mashups with us) rather than be overtaken.
I'm not sure what has prompted this outlash. It would be good to have
some context.
For my liking, the major changes that need to take place relate to
changing the markets perception of value.
I believe most of the problems we face are based on short term greed
rather than long term sustainability. The financial markets, half
yearly and yearly results, annual performance reviews all push for
short term gain. In my limited experience the only long term change
initiatives undertaken (more than 1 or 2 years duration) were all
compliance related. The rest were 'low hanging fruit' that had to show
short term return.
In short i disagree and see more innovative mashups than replacements.
Thanks
Cory
On 12/5/08, JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic) <jheur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi -
> lic%2Fitem%2F219361&urlhash=xawS&_t=tracking_disc>
> Also, please forget about sharing. It too is 100% obsolete. There is NO time
> to share anymore. Rather, focus on collective intelligence. Accept and lead
> knowledge-based organizations as markets; as the complex adaptive systems
> all organizations are. Embrace collective intelligence networks and markets
> to achieve perpetual innovation. See:
>
> http://www.pmcluster.com/SFO09.htm
> FO09%2Ehtm&urlhash=oFPS&_t=tracking_disc>
>
>
>
>
> Sadly, KM people and orgs are nostalgic. They struggle badly to let go and
> to focus on the future. They are on the same slippery slope as corporate IT
>
>
>
> KM, IT and organizations fight hard to keep the past and sabotage
> innovation. Newsflash: They are very good at it! However, sooner-or-later
> they always lose, to be subsumed by the natural order of value networks and
>
>
> To move forward, KM and their kissing-cousin, corporate IT, need to heed
> Lew's advice, and kill their sacred children of sharing, best practices and
> continuous improvement.
>
>
>
> -j
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Thanks
Cory Banks
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/corza/
Blog: http://corzandeffect.blogspot.com/
Shelley Hayduk
Dave you mentioned Ayn Rand as a negative, however, I think that her book, Atlas Shrugged, has never been more relevant. It is a story about how absurd government incentives create economic catastrophes and when these catastrophes occur, the solution becomes more government regulations and spending… until finally the whole system breaks. Sound familiar?
At a time when both major parties have jumped in to “rescue” our economy with trillions of tax dollars on top of a huge national debt, a libertarian approach should be further explored as a moral solution to a problem created by collective stupidity and wrongly directed government incentives, not condemned.
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were encouraged by the government to back the mortgages of high risk borrowers. Government policies (loose Monetary Policy… GreenSpan) also created a culture of debt and living beyond our means. Any taxpayer, including myself is encouraged to borrow money by the very tax code created by government. After all, what’s the point of paying off my mortgage or getting a house I can afford when Uncle Sam lets me write off the interest as a deduction? Now Detroit is lagging behind, hey let’s bail them out too….
Government involvement has a tendency to create artificial market networks that break because the organic exchange between innovation and need is interrupted.
We must explore the cardinal virtue that the libertarian perspective brings, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and free exchange, the freedom to succeed and FAIL which ultimately drives innovation as a direct response to the markets we serve and interact with, these networks are the ultimate arbitrators of what we create and produce.
Cheers,
Shelley
|
|
|
| |
See, Share, and Find Information Faster.
Read what we have to say at http://blog.thebrain.com
|
|
Benoit Couture
So then, where is the road to get the tax-payers and their investment from self-destruction to self-control and community self-government, without repeating the past mistakes of greed and fast-food power hunger?
Is democracy and the market forces go on pretending to justify nearly 800 military bases around the world, in the name of protecting the advancement of freedom and human rights?
Here is how I posted my answer yesterrday, from my local point of view of the crisis:
Which comes first?
-Socio-cultural reality?
or
Econo-political reality?
Benoit Couture
Edmonton, Alberta,
|
tom abeles
If one were to take Ayn Rand at face, in the most reductionist mode, this would hold true. But Rand's thinking is a bit more subtle and had advanced over her metaphor in Atlas Shrugged. Ayn waxed philosophical and, in the essays in "On the Virtue of Selfishness" outlines a very carefully constructed ethical model Remember she splits philosophy into 3 compartments, metaphysics, ethics and epistemology. It seems evident that she needed a moral compass to temper her free market advocacy.
This would seem to tip her into the edge area between the conventional wisdom of neo-classical economics and the now emerging arena of heterodox economics which does have a moral compass. It is not clear but the struggle to envision it is part of the heterodoxy.
It is interesting that the model under consideration is the US automobile industry. One has to look beyond the "business" to realize it is the stockholders, including the management as benefiting as a stock holder that, in many senses is controlling the company while the players, like Roman gladiators are in the center of the collisium with the public looking on, realizing only vaguely that the games are controlled at the whimsy of the promoters and the emperor's amusement and profit. In the end, it is both the gladiators and the public that suffer.
thoughts?
tom
tom abeles
From: dave.s...@cognitive-edge.com
You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. Learn more about Windows Live
Snowden Dave
JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi –
“Randian free market extremism” is a passing concern and we need to be vigilant. Not the case here. Greenspans remarks lately are world-class, sanctimonious CYA (cover your a**).
The big problem in Detroit is management has no, zero, nada, downside risk to failure. The GM CEO gets his $57,000/hour, win or loss. Line workers get $15/hr and face eternal layoff threat. This is what they teach in b-school; manage upside benefit with little or no downside risk. Detroit mgmt has mastered it!
Sorry, but there is not self-interest. Atlas can’t shrug, he doesn’t have to!
Warren Buffet offered the simple solution yesterday. Before making the loans to the Big Three, simply have the Feds levy 75% of personal wealth of all management. That’s liens on homes, vacation homes, cars, boats, bank accounts, college tuitions, savings, retirement…everything. Release would be contingent on meeting milestones and benchmarks. Simple. Effective. Precise. Just like normal business people that put at-risk everything to start a business.
You would see more wingtips and heels heading for the Big Three exits faster than if they were passing out free cases of vintage claret.
The other enormous problem is the UAW consistently rejects Lean and the Toyota Production System (TPS). Specifically, here is what the UAW rejects:
· Use the "pull" system to avoid overproduction
· Level out the workload. (Work like the tortoise, not the hare.)
· Build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right the first time
· Use visual control so no problems are hidden
· Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology
· Add value to the organization by developing your people and partners
· Grow leaders who thoroughly understand the work, live the philosophy, and teach it to others
· Develop exceptional people and teams who follow your company's philosophy
· Respect your extended network of partners and suppliers by challenging them and helping them improve
· Continuously solving root problems drives organizational learning
· Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation
· Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering all options; implement decisions rapidly;
· Become a learning organization through relentless reflection
Hmmmn, sound familiar? Value networks and VNA share the a lot of TPS/Lean DNA.
For the REAL Big Three, Toyota, Nissan and Honda, the free market is booming!
Note the current UAW contract with the Big Three is 2,700 pages (sic). For Toyota, non-union, it is 30 pages. Go figure. Do the math.
Charles Wilson’s declaration, 50ya, which read exactly, “What is good for America is good for General Motors, and vice versa” is right on the money: Chapter 11.
-j
John Maloney
Sarah Jones, Administration
sarah...@valuenetworks.com
Tel: 978-468-0267
Fax: 206-984-2429
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Snowden Dave
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:19 AM
Michael G. Cayley
Is that question philosophical? In an era where inputs (including financial capital), technology, IP and brand become commodities in very short cycles, I think the problem must be addressed in very practical terms and it is concerning far beyond GM.
In this context, human resources become the source of competitive advantage more than ever. So is it a race to the bottom or the top? Ultimately comparative advantage from cheaper labour is a no win, so we can probably agree that innovation is the key. John is bang on.
Is there anyone in this group that does not recognize that the new consideration is that broadband connectivity is scaling up and making visible the value networks in corporations that Verna has been drawing attention to for years?
Tom, here are a couple of blog posts in response to your call below for additional thoughts:
http://socialcapitalvalueadd.com/2008/11/20/iam-or-social-media-man
http://memeticbrand.com/2008/12/01/memetic-brand-social-capital-value-add-start-socializing
Everyone here already knows this stuff, but help me tighten/harden my thinking please ...
Self interest is undeniable. The news is that as broadband and social software application adoption march on, the balance of power, in terms of how to shape common perception and derive value is shifting from the folks who own/control the collisium (i.e. the broadcast channel) to the public watching on, the gladiators and the people outside the collisium (maybe what is staged at the centre of the collisium isn't as valuable as what is happening at the edge of town?).
The emporers want to continue to wear clothes (or they will be supplanted by others who want & understand how to grasp the robes), so as soon as they realize that access to the new channels that focus common perception (i.e. broadband empowered individuals) can not be bought with hard power or financial capital like the methods that they used to build & operate the collisium (or in modern corporate terms the brand), they quickly start to explore how to exploit the new channels.
In my view, this means that they are learning to gain access to these new channels by earning social capital and that is changing business priorities. It means that realizing innovation must be achieved through value networks powered by social capital.
It is a happy economic coincidence that optimizing social networks requires hope & empowerment over fear & ignorance because in a hopeful environment informed individuals take risks. Publishing distinguishes emitters. When they discover better ways, their peers emulate across the network. If fear & ignorance reins, productivity suffers.
The corporation is motivated to behave differently but it all seems very orthodox to me. Not good or evil, it just is.
mc
Follow me on Twitter: memeticbrand
Principal, Social Capital Practice
mic...@socialcapitalvalueadd.com
mobile: 647-407-9598
office: 416-462-1859, ext. 2
Skype ID: mgcayley
BONUS Link: Check out Teresa Healy's stuff! gasp!
This e-mail message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not an addressee or otherwise authorized to receive this message,
you should not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this e-mail or
any information contained in the message. If you have received this material
in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message. Thank you.From: tab...@hotmail.com
To: value-n...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Perpetual Innovation
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:20:18 -0600
Win a trip with your 3 best buddies. Enter today.
Scott McFarland
Hi –
"Randian free market extremism" is a passing concern and we need to be vigilant. Not the case here. Greenspans remarks lately are world-class, sanctimonious CYA (cover your a**).
The big problem in Detroit is management has no, zero, nada, downside risk to failure. The GM CEO gets his $57,000/hour, win or loss. Line workers get $15/hr and face eternal layoff threat. This is what they teach in b-school; manage upside benefit with little or no downside risk. Detroit mgmt has mastered it!
Sorry, but there is not self-interest. Atlas can't shrug, he doesn't have to!
Warren Buffet offered the simple solution yesterday. Before making the loans to the Big Three, simply have the Feds levy 75% of personal wealth of all management. That's liens on homes, vacation homes, cars, boats, bank accounts, college tuitions, savings, retirement…everything. Release would be contingent on meeting milestones and benchmarks. Simple. Effective. Precise. Just like normal business people that put at-risk everything to start a business.
You would see more wingtips and heels heading for the Big Three exits faster than if they were passing out free cases of vintage claret.
Yes, they would definitely head for the exits. Note: In some respects we have witnessed similar exodus's in certain government realms - where vacancies of high-level exec positions have not been filled - for months or years. Why do you suppose that is? The reasons (system defects) are similar to that stated above.
Re: UAW or most any other large equivalent fiefdom-infrastructure - they act in ways (their mental / perceptually-condensed value-network) they believe will empower them most effectively, even to the demise of the symbiotic host to which they are bonded. Simple. Unsurprising.
· Use the "pull" system to avoid overproduction
· Level out the workload. (Work like the tortoise, not the hare.)
· Build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right the first time
· Use visual control so no problems are hidden
· Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology
· Add value to the organization by developing your people and partners
· Grow leaders who thoroughly understand the work, live the philosophy, and teach it to others
· Develop exceptional people and teams who follow your company's philosophy
· Respect your extended network of partners and suppliers by challenging them and helping them improve
· Continuously solving root problems drives organizational learning
· Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation
· Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering all options; implement decisions rapidly;
· Become a learning organization through relentless reflection
Hmmmn, sound familiar? Value networks and VNA share the a lot of TPS/Lean DNA.
For the REAL Big Three, Toyota, Nissan and Honda, the free market is booming!
Note the current UAW contract with the Big Three is 2,700 pages (sic). For Toyota, non-union, it is 30 pages. Go figure. Do the math.
Charles Wilson's declaration, 50ya, which read exactly, "What is good for America is good for General Motors, and vice versa" is right on the money: Chapter 11.
-j
John Maloney
Sarah Jones, Administration
sarah...@valuenetworks.com
Tel: 978-468-0267
Fax: 206-984-2429
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Snowden Dave
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:19 AMTo: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Perpetual Innovation
Isn't all this a bit close to the sort of Randian free market extremism that even Greenspan rejected recently?
Dave Snowden
Founder & Chief Scientific Officer
Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd
Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com
On 4 Dec 2008, at 22:58, JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic) wrote:
Actually, in this model the children are eating the parents :-)
Hi – I know it is not a very appetizing metaphor, revolting really, just necessary to get attention. Again, it is only about the discipline and logic necessary to prosper.
Quite on the contrary, in this model, what is "eating the parents" are obsolete brands, failed business models, bygone methods and bizarro capital investment.
Saturn is eating-the-parent GM. 6000 dealerships is eating-the-parent GM. Legacy costs are eating-the-parent GM. $60B (sic) of debt eating-the-parent GM. The world's largest single purchaser of Viagra, the UAW, is eating-the-parent GM!
Furthermore, Washington can't, "spend its way to prosperity." (?) Nothing lives forever. The Dow 30 is not permanent. Seems we are doing fine w/o Woolworths, Victor and the National Lead Company.
BTW, if you are $60B in debt, with a badly failing, obsolete business model, crappy products, avaricious unions, staggering, immovable inventory, losing $38B (sic) a year and with 100% deficient, arrogant, craven, absent management, then why would you ask your Uncle Sam for $30B? It makes NO sense. The GM/auto bailout is an enormous farce.
Letting go is as important as taking hold. Value networks and ecosystems are about flow, renewal, regeneration, resilience, innovation and prosperity. So yes, failure is guaranteed if you let your voracious children devour you by living in your house forever.
For perpetual innovation and growth, in business, nature and life, to love your children, they must move out, move on, find their own life. No exceptions. Don't worry, if they are really great, innovative products (good kids) in the first place, really creating authentic value, as they become adults, enough genetic material will survive, get through, to perpetuate the species and assure prosperity.
You will find this in every successful company and organization known. You will find the opposite in every failed company, e.g., Pontiac (GM).
Value network companies and organizations are propelled by perpetual innovation.
Verna Allee
winding down. This has been such a lively discussion that I decided to
jump in here and prove to those who have been wondering that I am
still very much alive and kicking. :)
ON MODELING FREE MARKETS,etc: I will submit my comments on that topic
to the other thread that is unfolding.
ON CEOS
Conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of
directors to maximize shareholder wealth. Actually U.S. corporate law
does not and never has imposed a legal obligation on directors to
maximize shareholder wealth. However, they are also not required to
invest in future capacity, be good citizens or be environmentally
responsible. I am not an expert on corporate law, but agree that
general statements about CEOs and Directors need carefully considered
in the context in which they have been and are operating. When we
point fingers at any one role in a complex system as "the problem" it
is like holding one tree responsible for the health of the forest.
ON RISK
Scott notes that externalities, intangibles are hard to quantify and
it is difficult to predict events or performance. This not only lowers
the willingness of CEOs to place personal positions and assets at
risk, but also leads them to request special protection from risk in
the form of golden parachutes. In government the personal risk for
failed leadership is also low as given honest effort, termination
being the major risk - the same economic risk as most employees. For
entrepreneurs and non public companies failed leadership carries
perhaps the largest punishments proportionately and these are the most
accountable forms. Indeed what is often overlooked is that small
companies are the real life blood of the economy. Large corporations
attract the most attention, however because their failures are
concentrated in a very visible way, while the small companies that
fail, entrepreneurs that are working for less than optimal pay and
even those who are "underemployed" at jobs below their skill level are
not as visible. Second generation CEOs are definitely not
entrepreneurs.
ON MAKING INTANGIBLES TANGIBLE
I am not sure I was following you on all this. The goal of VNA is not
to make intangibles tangible. The goal is to make them visible and
manageable. That is very different than trying to turn relationship
building intangible exchanges into financially driven transactions. We
need to understand intangibles AS intangibles, not turn them into
something else unless there is a darn good reason to do so. For more
on this you can find an article here:
http://www.vernaallee.com/value_networks/Value_Conversion_JIC_online_version.pdf
ON THE QUALITY OF VNA MAPS
I agree with you completely that there are some very poor value
network maps floating around. Even some of my old ones could be
considerably improved. The reason of course is that people have yet to
appreciate that Value Network Analysis (VNA) is actually a very robust
methodology, that requires conformance to certain principals and
standards that need to be mastered. We have made it as friendly as
possible but it is still a professional level tool that is worth
learning properly. Business consultants and managers go through
extensive training to become quality, Lean, and Six Sigma
practitioners. Academics go through extensive training to become
experts in social or organizational network analysis (SNA/ONA). VNA is
much friendlier than SNA/ONA but as yet there is little pressure for
training or coaching. People assume they know how to work in networks
because we all do it intuitively. The modeling language is simple and
easy to learn - true - but the tools and methods can do some very
sophisticated parlor tricks when used the right way. Once people start
putting more pressure on their companies for training in value
networks things will move quickly. We have the trainers and the talent
lined up to support that and some universities are making small moves
toward offering VNA in coursework. In the meantime quality suffers so
of course is the opportunity for more significant business gains.
ON GM OR UAW CREATING VN FRAMEWORKS: That would be something to see!
Actually timing is perfect to model the US auto industry compared to
the "real big three" as someone put it, and even more interesting to
compare both of those to the emerging "alternative vehicle" industry
that is emerging in the structural holes all around them. But of
course GM and UAW would not embrace VNA willingly. Even with massive
layoffs they would still not get it because the operate so solidly
within the two dominant forms of business modeling: org chart and
process.
Yeah VNA shares DNA with TPS/Lean/Process engineering. (I cut my teeth
on value networks by working with complex reengineering projects at
global corporations back in the hey day of quality in the late 1980s
and early 1990s). However, we didn't extract, isolate and eventuall
destroy that DNA by removing it from the living system it comes from,
which is basically what the reengineering crowd did!
ON RECONFIGURING GOVERNMENT and VALUE NETWORK ARCHITECTURE
Nope no significant examples yet. Hopefully there will be more
receptivity to VNA in the coming administration. The idea of a value
network architecture is fascinating and would require a whole 'nother
thread to explore. Have had many conversations on this topi the last
couple of years. it is significant that the ITIL Handbook, the
guidebook for the IT industry has now included value networks. More on
that here: http://www.openvna.com/Articles/VNA%20and%20ITIL.pdf. It
also relates to the combination of the value network data model with
XBRL (Enhanced business reporting language) as an auditable business
language to support compliance requirements. We are moving well along
that path with some of our private customers, I am most happy to
report. If you have suggestions on how to gain traction for such an
effort in government we are all ears!!!
Verna
Benoit Couture
Verna, John and all, |
|
I wish to take a shot to engage VNA from when Verna wrote:
ON RECONFIGURING GOVERNMENT and VALUE NETWORK ARCHITECTURE
Nope no significant examples yet. Hopefully there will be more receptivity to VNA in the coming administration. The idea of a value network architecture is fascinating and would require a whole 'nother thread to explore. Have had many conversations on this topi the last couple of years. it is significant that the ITIL Handbook, the guidebook for the IT industry has now included value networks. More on that here: http://www.openvna.com/Articles/VNA%20and%20ITIL.pdf. It also relates to the combination of the value network data model with XBRL (Enhanced business reporting language) as an auditable business language to support compliance requirements. We are moving well along that path with some of our private customers, I am most happy to report. If you have suggestions on how to gain traction for such an effort in government we are all ears!!! |
The initial premice of my stance is that in a democracy, "We, the people" are the government;
VNA's implementation with governemt is to lead the movement to grow the people's decision-making from out of the official secrecy of the public sector and from out of the codes of silence of the private sector, into the "Personal Sector", zone of transparency and clarity of governance.
I think that the driving force of such a task is in what John said with:
I tried to raise my point here:
Attempt to develop a power point:
Problem--
Be it for government, business or any activity of human decision-making, when it comes to intangibles, the personal and corporate enemy is the complusive nature of human DNA and the stress that grows under its rule.
Solution--
Following the lead going from the spiritual division of human DNA to the organic wxperience of spiritual unity.
The Lead I refer to is the healing of the meaning of Chrismas and Easter, released all year around.
Problem--
Indifference and ignorance consolidated into top-down architechture of decision-making, forcing military framework and the management of all the consequences of enforcement as opposed to governing within the inspirational leadership of "serving and protecting".
Slution--
Patient-client-partner implemention throughout the social safety nets, within the framework of the Ministry of Reconciliation, which will work to eliminate charletant leadership at all levels, freeing the emergence of good will, where good will is dying or already living dead, deploying all of its disonest grab from getthos' dishonor to dignity, from slum to sandtity and from failed social programs to the dedication in the re-investment personal and collective self-estime.
Context to light up this pilot project:
Canada and the ripeness of its current political conditions. All is ready to go from top-down management to grass root's emergence of sovereignty where it becomes:
"The ability to make decision in serene maturity and the capacity to implement these decisions in all understanding, wisdom and responsibility."
I view such sovereignty as being the personal and communal extention of John's post regarding Intangible Confidence.
When it comes to macro economics, I dearly trust the Norman and Chris Macrae's vision, along with the practice of Dr. Yunnus in Bangladesh.
I wonder what does Bangalore, where IT thrives from India, think of Dr. Yunnus? What about China and the Muslim world?
I see the emrgence of VNA's vision and practice as a logical partner to such demand of reconciliation democracy.
Benoit Couture
Edmonton,
|
From: Verna Allee <ve...@vernaallee.com> |