The “Systems” Business Model
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Fabio Cecin
May 16, 2015, 6:22:46 AM5/16/15
to reinventing-business
The “Systems” Business Model
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/119032069886/the-systems-business-model
"
(...)
A Systems Business Model is designed to improve your odds of success
even as you are failing on individual tasks and projects. Each failure
increases our insight into what works and what does not in our chosen
field. And you decide in advance that you will be taking a deep dive
to find value. You won’t find many diamonds on the surface. Each
failure makes us technically smarter and more insightful. And soon we
will have diversification on our side. If you don’t feel a compelling
need for nine of our solutions, you might get jazzed about the tenth.
(...)
"
What goes on in my head when I read this post:
Next: get rid of that "field" choice (meaning a product family).
Instead, choose an actual field, such as e.g. "software".
If everybody in a company truly participates in it, then they have an
equal say in what the "field" is. The company (capital owners; the
people ultimately responsible for it) defines the field (domain), but
the "field" (application, product, marketing, specific needs met)
should be left to the "body" of the company as a whole.
Instead of having companies built around product families -- these
"fields" -- and looking like warring fiefs, you build companies that
look more like bustling cities, that do whatever its inhabitants want
to. And real cities are actually a bit like that: they tend to focus
around specific economic activities.
This looks better, to a "worker" like me, than an incubator. I'd want
to work a bit on all "companies" (products) of an incubator and be
able to move freely, and that's generally not frictionless (actually,
it's impossible).
A collection of fiefs is not a city. The whole "company" overhead
applies to every incubated "startup". The pressure of success is
greater and you're more directly exposed, as a person that survives or
not based on the "income" you're able to collect, to the vagaries of
the irrational, unpredictable capitalist market.
It would be much better if the company was built around something
that's common around entire families of startups, such as a general
philosophy, a stack of technologies, a preference for a business
paradigm (e.g. co-operativism vs. the hierarchical thing), etc.
Why can't large swaths of people get together in a network-shaped,
capitalism-conforming structure of some sort and just agree to
aggressively share and contribute on each other's stuff, to the best
of everyone's ability, so that the "company" is an outlet of things
that the world actually needs? -- which we know is true, because what
is being done is much closer to what people actually want to do, now
that they can actually have a huge say on what that is.
Natural, effortless entrepreneurship, drama-less, every day, with
almost no accounting, no power-point slides, no selling/pushing. Like
a big open-source hackathon, but every day of your work life. Why not?
Fabio
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/119032069886/the-systems-business-model
"
(...)
A Systems Business Model is designed to improve your odds of success
even as you are failing on individual tasks and projects. Each failure
increases our insight into what works and what does not in our chosen
field. And you decide in advance that you will be taking a deep dive
to find value. You won’t find many diamonds on the surface. Each
failure makes us technically smarter and more insightful. And soon we
will have diversification on our side. If you don’t feel a compelling
need for nine of our solutions, you might get jazzed about the tenth.
(...)
"
What goes on in my head when I read this post:
Next: get rid of that "field" choice (meaning a product family).
Instead, choose an actual field, such as e.g. "software".
If everybody in a company truly participates in it, then they have an
equal say in what the "field" is. The company (capital owners; the
people ultimately responsible for it) defines the field (domain), but
the "field" (application, product, marketing, specific needs met)
should be left to the "body" of the company as a whole.
Instead of having companies built around product families -- these
"fields" -- and looking like warring fiefs, you build companies that
look more like bustling cities, that do whatever its inhabitants want
to. And real cities are actually a bit like that: they tend to focus
around specific economic activities.
This looks better, to a "worker" like me, than an incubator. I'd want
to work a bit on all "companies" (products) of an incubator and be
able to move freely, and that's generally not frictionless (actually,
it's impossible).
A collection of fiefs is not a city. The whole "company" overhead
applies to every incubated "startup". The pressure of success is
greater and you're more directly exposed, as a person that survives or
not based on the "income" you're able to collect, to the vagaries of
the irrational, unpredictable capitalist market.
It would be much better if the company was built around something
that's common around entire families of startups, such as a general
philosophy, a stack of technologies, a preference for a business
paradigm (e.g. co-operativism vs. the hierarchical thing), etc.
Why can't large swaths of people get together in a network-shaped,
capitalism-conforming structure of some sort and just agree to
aggressively share and contribute on each other's stuff, to the best
of everyone's ability, so that the "company" is an outlet of things
that the world actually needs? -- which we know is true, because what
is being done is much closer to what people actually want to do, now
that they can actually have a huge say on what that is.
Natural, effortless entrepreneurship, drama-less, every day, with
almost no accounting, no power-point slides, no selling/pushing. Like
a big open-source hackathon, but every day of your work life. Why not?
Fabio
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages