Joël Van Hoolandt — Fractional CTO | Magma Consulting

In the analysis of the strategic political changes (like "will the USA still lead the world; what do we have to think about the european model etc.), I've been amazed by the wrong opinion they have from the European continent. Being a convinced European myself, I can't understand that American authors still have a such a wrong perception of this political project. They are putting in evidence that European bureaucracy, poor innovative research programmes, local nationalisms and aging population are not helping to transform our economies in a knowledge economy (which is, by the way, the revolutionary wealth). They're right. For some of their points, but not all of them. Not being precise in their descriptions, making parallels in their reflections make that they follow the 'arrogant American' attitude, telling to the planet how goes the world and what to think about it. This is, at least in my point of view, a major mistake. But, of course, it's only a humbl...

I bought in NY the latest opus of Alvin and Heidi Toffler ( Revolutionary wealth ) this summer. The book and deductions are in line of what they produced before ( Future shock and the third wave ) - evaluating the concept of 'prosumer' (all the people doing or performing an act without any monetary counterpart). It has all to do with intangible assets, evaluation methods in practice within institutions (like schools and universities) and about the future of the 'knowledge economy'. A good sociological insight of the new management issues and trends.

Knowing why makes it possible to know earlier and respond faster. When everyone knows why, it is because leaders have become good architects who articulate and propagate their intent as system context, rather than as an action plan. It is because leaders have declared a context that makes unambiguous to everyone the raison d'être of the organization, what roles they play in achieving it, and the boundaries of acceptable behavior in it. It is also because individuals are supported by role-specific technology solutions that help them know earlier the meaning of what is happening now. Then speed and agility can be exploited to produce coherent and profitable bottom-up responses to the opportunities and threats of the present. Then an organization can systematically exhibit the sense and respond behavior that is a survival competence for on demand businesses.

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 ...

The top-down design principle does more than identify poor practice. Accordingly, a system design effort should start by identifying the constituents for which the organization must produce outcomes, and that those outcomes are. It is from this work that the purpose, or design point, of the organization should be determined, not from an analysis of the company's existing capabilities. As a result, the design is "purpose down" rather than "capabilities up". (Haeckel) This assertion from Haeckel is certainly true in project management. When determining what has to be accomplished at the end of the project (like the major deliverable or project result), most of the time, a lot of stakeholders propose some additional features and some 'nice to have' points. This is where the budget gets lost and where the problem are coming from.

One or two pictures of the trip I made in NY last week; the idea was to explore any intiatives and business publications about competitive intelligence and knowledge management. I know the US event of the SCIP organisation will be held in Manhattan at the end of the month, but I'll probably attend the european sessions in October 06. A view of Manhattan (from the Empire State Building - Floor 86) For the ones that like Pop Art, here a famous picture (MoMA) Here left, a small market at Union Square. New Yorkers have still green on their tables ;-)

We arrived in Belgium this night, after seven days business (and leisure ;-) trip to big apple. A good weather, an excellent sightseeing, a lot of shopping and full of good readings about wining the knowledge game . I'll discuss later on what to understand under the expression. For now, I'll explain here a little bit more about the connections and the matrix symptom, still based on Haeckel his article. Matrix management consists of: the lines connecting roles in an organizational matrix are not informed by a systems design. Instead, they are lines of communication connecting people in different silos of authority. These lines almost always increase ambiguity about who is responsible for what. A 1998 study of multidivisional teams in a large multiproduct company quantified the opportunity cost of matrix conflict in terms of deals lost, not pursued, or not closed because of non competitive bids at more than $10 million, and the company had dozens of these teams in operation at an...