Yesterday there was IMD alumni club meeting hosted by Fonecta with interesting panel discussion. Panel was chaired by Professor Seán Meehan from International institute for Management Development. The panelists were Kimmo Alkio from Tieto, Timo Hiltunen from Fonecta and Harri Kerminen from Finnpro. They were addressing the topic of creating growth from perspective of their companies.
Just happened to read an older book which is surprisingly well hitting into today’s hot topic: privacy. Continue reading The Quantum Thief: online marketing, NSA and internet privacy – public and private memories exposed
A book from history: beginning of this century. I don’t know if this book is anymore available anywhere. I started to read it out of curiosity: how development and future of internet was seen by this book?
Writer had interesting edge into story as he started to think about internet and its opportunities already during 1993. At that time they were considering if it is possible to monetize this new technology. While considering how, they came to conclusion that they don’t know.
Basically book is pointing out the handicaps of thinking that was common during early 2000. Most of those examples seem amusing ten years after, but if you abstract those though a bit there might be some relevance for today’s business world too. When you try to move your old business model into new environment you are making mistake. You need rethink what you are doind seizing the opportunities created by new environment. Some things might have changed to be mandatory, even they were considered optional earlier. Those companies who figure out new rules fasted, will gain the benefits too.
I don’t know if i would recommend to read the whole book, but rather consider the main thought: think out of the box when entering the new arena with new rules and especially consider your timing. It seem that often first mover advantage is a myth or lucky strike. In many cases second wave hits into more mature market and picks the berries.
This book has introduces nice way to analyze current architecture level of an organization. I find it helpful as with this kind of model you can turn an abstract thing like enterprise architecture more tangible and it also provides means for pointing out the progress while you are seeking higher levels of maturity of architecture. Naturally you may need to adjust some of the measures defined in the model, but basic principles introduced in this book provide clear and good starting point.
We have utilized the ideas from this book successfully at same time also taking benchmark of our architecture maturity level in iCMG’s competition. The category we participated was “New service offering”. Basic story from us was business transformation that is supported by growing enterprise architecture maturity level. Naturally you need also committed and capable people to utlize the framework, it is not working alone.
This book was definitely interesting and useful reading. One open ended though after experiencing this book was: is there another stage after business modularity, which was defined as highest stage here. Also it would be interesting to figure out, if organizations in different industries actually can be happy with some of the earlier stages in this four level model.
Topic is little different compared to the current quarter economy. Collins and Hansen decided to study companies which have successful track record of 15+ years compared to stock market and relative to industry where they operate. Environment of these studied companies was turbulent and they survived from small start to 10x position.
Seeking for maximum growth during good times was seen as bad thing, because it would make company vulnerable during bad times. Writers seem to promote consistency as basis for good long term success.
Fire first bullets then cannonballs approach: low-cost, low risk experiment or testing should be done inorder to validate what will actually work. Resources should be concentrated to effort only after figuring out that goal is reachable and potential return is high enough. Less innovation is enough as long as efforts are directed wisely.
Good companies exercise productive paranoia, obsessing about what can go wrong. This approach will balance their risk taking for better results. Taking time available, before risk profile changes, for careful decision making, seem to produce better outcome, than rushing a decision. SMaC: Specific, Methodical and Consistent. SMaC is giving clear guidance regarding what to do and what not to do.
I think one of the key ideas was that good companies can utilize luck for results, seizing the opportunity. Better companies can even turn bad luck into good results.