Haeckel (VIII) and procedures (coded knowledge)
What is interesting in Haeckel his article is the application he makes from the theory in a real (financial) world. Let's read it further:
Procedures, in contrast, codify know-how. Their design necessarily entails predictions about inputs, contigencies, and the best way of doing something. Their ability to deal with the unexpected is limited by the imagination of the designer, rather than by an on-the-spot interpretation of current reality. When something unanticipated does arise, the best a procedure can do is deliver an exception report - the designer's way of saying, "I hope there is a Marshall Faulk out there to deal with this".
Now, let's have a look at how Haeckel uses his definitions (or vision) in a real business life case: a merge and acquisition (M&A in the financial jargon)operation:
Unless leaders are good architects - wich means they can be clear about organizational purpose an how the parts of the business relate to the purpose and to each other - how could anyone else in the organization know these things? Integrating two separately conceived business models requires the development of a new and different business model, with a newly defined purpose.
[...]The practice of expressing the rationale for any merger or acquisition as a new business systems design should be a required element in the due dilligence phase of decisions on mergers and acquisitions (M&A): Unless it is known from the start how the capabilities of the organizations in question will interact with one another, the expected benefits of lower cost and greater revenue will be at best short-lived, and the acquired capabilities will rapidely become under-performing assets.
Procedures, in contrast, codify know-how. Their design necessarily entails predictions about inputs, contigencies, and the best way of doing something. Their ability to deal with the unexpected is limited by the imagination of the designer, rather than by an on-the-spot interpretation of current reality. When something unanticipated does arise, the best a procedure can do is deliver an exception report - the designer's way of saying, "I hope there is a Marshall Faulk out there to deal with this".
Now, let's have a look at how Haeckel uses his definitions (or vision) in a real business life case: a merge and acquisition (M&A in the financial jargon)operation:
Unless leaders are good architects - wich means they can be clear about organizational purpose an how the parts of the business relate to the purpose and to each other - how could anyone else in the organization know these things? Integrating two separately conceived business models requires the development of a new and different business model, with a newly defined purpose.
[...]The practice of expressing the rationale for any merger or acquisition as a new business systems design should be a required element in the due dilligence phase of decisions on mergers and acquisitions (M&A): Unless it is known from the start how the capabilities of the organizations in question will interact with one another, the expected benefits of lower cost and greater revenue will be at best short-lived, and the acquired capabilities will rapidely become under-performing assets.
Comments