Business value over technical strategy
Strategic goals over project-specific benefits
Intrinsic interoperability over custom integration
Shared services over specific-purpose implementations
Flexibility over optimization
Evolutionary refinement over pursuit of initial perfection
Great references to keep in our pocket as we design a tool to measure Responsive Operating System maturity levels. And a reminder that Process is ultimately nested under the CGO, if it exists.
A Google spreadsheet full of tools, categorized and sorted for ease of use. Some focus on SEO but broadly applicable for those doing 2° research.
- Accelerated product-development cycles: “Shit gets to market quicker”
- New manufacturing strategies and footprints: “New choices…what shit you make, and where you make it”
- Shifting sources of profit: “When shit is made in new ways, the value companies add to products changes”
- New capabilities: “Shit’s hard, people are working on it”
- Disruptive competitors: “Shit gets cheaper, so it gets less good to be big”
- Sponsor periodic reviews of technology’s long-term role in the industry
- Establish board reviews of the IT portfolio and major projects
- Leverage technology-savvy board members.
Forgive me, but don’t these steps essentially amount to “pay attention”?
Find a part of your organization that’s led by somebody who’s a little bit more comfortable working with data, who’s got a team of geeks that are part of her team, and do an experiment about becoming more data driven in forecasting, in market analysis, in product design, in human-capital management, in some of these areas. Do an experiment. It’s not going to ruin the company. It’s not going to break the bank. And then learn from it.
See? Even McKinsey agrees.
The networked, comparatively low-cost, and digitized nature of the future of manufacturing mean it’ll be possible to put factories next to customers (next-shoring, in the parlance of our times). Victory is proximity + speed.
At my first UCU (our trimesterly retreat), I said that the lack of a formal hierarchy at Undercurrent led to a hierarchy of knowledge. Some individuals hoarded information, giving them leverage in our implicit economy. This article points to interesting tensions that are driven by human behavior, and a core issue: that there are very few companies of notable size and reach that are operating in a new way.
There have been others in the past that have tried this and failed notably, but those were implementations in the 1980s (without sophisticated, open digital tools), in manufacturing contexts with deep command/control histories, and at companies with a vague sense of purpose (at least, in my estimation). My belief: all of this change is driven by a core shift in the way we work – within and without institutions – as a result of the consumerization of The Internet. And because companies don’t need hundreds of thousands of people to be influential anymore. < / ramble >
Some of my favorite nuggets:
Companies will have to maintain a portfolio of new business model initiatives, not unlike a venture capital firm, and they will have to accept that maybe only 1 out 10 initiatives might succeed.
In building capability, the company should look for “starters,” not “scalers.”
But it’s not only about creating new revenue streams—creating new behaviors across the company’s culture is key.
1. Social Business will be a way of business not a stand alone, bolt-on or isolated functional strategy.
2. The role and importance of Customer Experience (CX) will escalate to the C-Suite and create new roles in the process.
3. Digital transformation is going to be driven by the desire to integrate and enhance the evolving customer experience.
4. To expedite adaptation, companies will need to create a culture of innovation, which is core to the future of work and competition.
Good answers to What. And we all agree on Why. The winners will be the ones who know How.
Passion drives us to learn faster in our never-ending quest to achieve higher levels of impact within our chosen domain. But our institutions today are driven by scalable efficiency, not scalable learning. In fact, scalable efficiency (at least as traditionally defined) is profoundly hostile to scalable learning – how could anyone really learn in an environment that is highly risk averse, standardizes all activity and tightly specifies every step that must be taken?
What would institutions look like if their core rationale were scalable learning? What if the reason we’ll come together in institutions in the future is that we’ll learn faster as participants in these institutions than we ever could on our own? These are the questions that should focus and drive our efforts to craft a new set of institutional arrangements.
Scalable learning requires passion. If we’re not truly driven to achieve more of our potential, we’ll never learn as rapidly as those who are. Rather than being optional, or worse, something to be viewed with suspicion, passion of all the participants becomes a pre-requisite for the success of the institution.
A book I plan to buy.