Comments on: new models of the corporation http://cultureby.com/2005/04/new_models_of_t.html This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:43:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: disinterested party http://cultureby.com/2005/04/new_models_of_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-6508 disinterested party Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:16:44 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=979#comment-6508 <strong>Strategic schizophrenia</strong> Creative destruction has been around forever—consider the demise of gas lamps and telegrams. But what’s new is the near-instantaneous nature of the obliteration. Call it the Googlization of corporate America: at any moment, a disruptive technology ... Strategic schizophrenia

Creative destruction has been around forever—consider the demise of gas lamps and telegrams. But what’s new is the near-instantaneous nature of the obliteration. Call it the Googlization of corporate America: at any moment, a disruptive technology …

]]> By: dal_timgar http://cultureby.com/2005/04/new_models_of_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-6507 dal_timgar Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:31:15 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=979#comment-6507 http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=193761&messageid=1116364652&lp=1117586566 I haven't heard any economists saying how much Americans loose in depreciation on their 200,000,000 cars and saying why it makes sense to ignore it. We are all supposed to just accept the bad algebra that AUTHORITY puts in the books. Like accepting that Europe is a continent even though no water separates it from Asia. Dal Timgar http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=193761&messageid=1116364652&lp=1117586566

I haven’t heard any economists saying how much Americans loose in depreciation on their 200,000,000 cars and saying why it makes sense to ignore it.

We are all supposed to just accept the bad algebra that AUTHORITY puts in the books. Like accepting that Europe is a continent even though no water separates it from Asia.

Dal Timgar

]]> By: Gyro http://cultureby.com/2005/04/new_models_of_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-6506 Gyro Sat, 28 May 2005 16:04:10 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=979#comment-6506 Dal Timgar has been trying to peddle this document through the internet for years now. He has been to every econ web site and has been proven incorrect. On the Dead Economist Society Dal Timgar was basically proven incorrect on every post. What we see with Economic Wargames is an individual with no Economics background attempting to use Macro principles to explain Micro events. Drawing conclusion without basis is the common thread of Dal Timgar analysis of theorems and his constants trivial annoyances of accounting being the holy grail of thought. It you decide to read the text of his argument, you will quickly see that it is not only a waste of time but also a lassitude of a cretin. Dal Timgar has been trying to peddle this document through the internet for years now. He has been to every econ web site and has been proven incorrect. On the Dead Economist Society Dal Timgar was basically proven incorrect on every post. What we see with Economic Wargames is an individual with no Economics background attempting to use Macro principles to explain Micro events. Drawing conclusion without basis is the common thread of Dal Timgar analysis of theorems and his constants trivial annoyances of accounting being the holy grail of thought. It you decide to read the text of his argument, you will quickly see that it is not only a waste of time but also a lassitude of a cretin.

]]> By: GRP http://cultureby.com/2005/04/new_models_of_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-6505 GRP Tue, 24 May 2005 22:06:40 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=979#comment-6505 First lets try the correct term Yin and Yang; fortunately for the rest of us we do not require a degree in Neuro Surgery to understand this conclusions to the argument. Dal Timgar believes that there is no harmony or working together of the mind. He clearly believes that individuals are simple and sheep like in their economies of scale. It is clear that Sun Tzu was the key at his time in the century, however the idea of Timgar to infuse accounting as a mandatory replacement for consumer social skills, clearly is an outlier to thought. Timgar’s approach to using Macroeconomics to explain Microeconomic events is beyond the control the balance of the forces of Yin-Yang. First lets try the correct term Yin and Yang; fortunately for the rest of us we do not require a degree in Neuro Surgery to understand this conclusions to the argument. Dal Timgar believes that there is no harmony or working together of the mind. He clearly believes that individuals are simple and sheep like in their economies of scale. It is clear that Sun Tzu was the key at his time in the century, however the idea of Timgar to infuse accounting as a mandatory replacement for consumer social skills, clearly is an outlier to thought. Timgar’s approach to using Macroeconomics to explain Microeconomic events is beyond the control the balance of the forces of Yin-Yang.

]]> By: Timgar Posse http://cultureby.com/2005/04/new_models_of_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-6504 Timgar Posse Tue, 24 May 2005 22:05:24 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=979#comment-6504 First lets try the correct term Yin and Yang; fortunately for the rest of us we do not require a degree in Neuro Surgery to understand this conclusions to the argument. Dal Timgar believes that there is no harmony or working together of the mind. He clearly believes that individuals are simple and sheep like in their economies of scale. It is clear that Sun Tzu was the key at his time in the century, however the idea of Timgar to infuse accounting as a mandatory replacement for consumer social skills, clearly is an outlier to thought. Timgar’s approach to using Macroeconomics to explain Microeconomic events is beyond the control the balance of the forces of Yin-Yang. First lets try the correct term Yin and Yang; fortunately for the rest of us we do not require a degree in Neuro Surgery to understand this conclusions to the argument. Dal Timgar believes that there is no harmony or working together of the mind. He clearly believes that individuals are simple and sheep like in their economies of scale. It is clear that Sun Tzu was the key at his time in the century, however the idea of Timgar to infuse accounting as a mandatory replacement for consumer social skills, clearly is an outlier to thought. Timgar’s approach to using Macroeconomics to explain Microeconomic events is beyond the control the balance of the forces of Yin-Yang.

]]> By: Dal Timgar http://cultureby.com/2005/04/new_models_of_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-6503 Dal Timgar Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:19:10 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=979#comment-6503 What you are describing isn't new. It is Yang and Yin. Left brain and right brain. Some problems are better solved by the right brain and others by the left. The trouble is most people get stuck in one mode or the other. European culture is very left brained. It is curious that the word sinister is Latin for left but we now know that the left side of the body is controlled by the right side of the brain. check out: The Art of War by Sun Tzu Mastering The Art of War translated and edited by Thomas Cleary We'll have to change the culture to solve the problems. Of course accounting should be mandatory in highschool so consumers know not to buy junk designed to become obsolete from the corporations. What happeened to all that depreciation of durable consumer goods? Dal Timgar What you are describing isn’t new. It is Yang and Yin. Left brain and right brain. Some problems are better solved by the right brain and others by the left. The trouble is most people get stuck in one mode or the other. European culture is very left brained. It is curious that the word sinister is Latin for left but we now know that the left side of the body is controlled by the right side of the brain.

check out:

The Art of War by Sun Tzu
Mastering The Art of War
translated and edited by Thomas Cleary

We’ll have to change the culture to solve the problems. Of course accounting should be mandatory in highschool so consumers know not to buy junk designed to become obsolete from the corporations. What happeened to all that depreciation of durable consumer goods?

Dal Timgar

]]> By: Brian http://cultureby.com/2005/04/new_models_of_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-6502 Brian Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:49:55 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=979#comment-6502 I'm not sure how to phrase this; it is possible I lack the vocabulary but .. This duality is something that the military dances around all the time. Exploitative modality - the work-a-day world. Up at dawn, the organization cranks along in a training routine, or maintennance, or just the day-to-day life of keeping things running. Need to know how to do X? Consult the SOP, work instruction or ALLMAR. Explorative modality - war. And operations other than war. Yes, the military trains exactly for these tasks but when you go to war, nothing is ever quite like you planned. Murphy rules and for all the planning you might find yourself making things up as you go. So, yes, different modes but the same culture. It is possible that the Marines can operate in dual modalities by not making a fine distinction. Mission First goes the saying. So you operate when you can in exploitative modality, but ready at need to break into explorative mode to get the job done. Thinking further; one basic of getting things done in our military is 'Commander's Guidance'. The C.O (at every level) explains what he wants, including operating parameters, and lets his subordinates accomplish the mission as they need. Is this the big secret for making a lot of stuff happen? I’m not sure how to phrase this; it is possible I lack the vocabulary but ..

This duality is something that the military dances around all the time.

Exploitative modality – the work-a-day world. Up at dawn, the organization cranks along in a training routine, or maintennance, or just the day-to-day life of keeping things running. Need to know how to do X? Consult the SOP, work instruction or ALLMAR.

Explorative modality – war. And operations other than war. Yes, the military trains exactly for these tasks but when you go to war, nothing is ever quite like you planned. Murphy rules and for all the planning you might find yourself making things up as you go.

So, yes, different modes but the same culture.

It is possible that the Marines can operate in dual modalities by not making a fine distinction. Mission First goes the saying. So you operate when you can in exploitative modality, but ready at need to break into explorative mode to get the job done.

Thinking further; one basic of getting things done in our military is ‘Commander’s Guidance’. The C.O (at every level) explains what he wants, including operating parameters, and lets his subordinates accomplish the mission as they need. Is this the big secret for making a lot of stuff happen?

]]> By: steve http://cultureby.com/2005/04/new_models_of_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-6501 steve Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:50:48 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=979#comment-6501 Very well put. The problem is as old as the large corporate firm, which was born into a world of transformation and confusion (the post-bellum industrial revolution) that it helped to create, paradoxically, by harnessing productive routinization. For a high-hat reference, Olivier Zunz commented in passing in his book about early middle managers that the corporation needed to have both entrepreneurial responsiveness to the shifting market and bureaucratic discipline over its systems and technology. Ambidexterity, to adopt the vogue term. I think the key issue for innovating firms is attaining "useful continuity." If the exploration process leads to venture proposals for which the existing organization is less well-suited than a brand-new one would be, then there is a strong argument not to do it. There is not enough continuity between the new venture and the firm's capabilities and culture. Start up a new firm instead. On the other hand, if the organization rejects venture proposals whenever they require any new capabilities at all, then there is too much continuity. Excess capacity in existing capabilities will not be fully exploited, and negative shocks to existing lines of business will not be countered. If you're not going to develop any new capabilities, then you probably can't justify having most of the managers you employ--it doesn't take that big of an administrative staff just to maintain homeostasis with a stable process. Very well put. The problem is as old as the large corporate firm, which was born into a world of transformation and confusion (the post-bellum industrial revolution) that it helped to create, paradoxically, by harnessing productive routinization. For a high-hat reference, Olivier Zunz commented in passing in his book about early middle managers that the corporation needed to have both entrepreneurial responsiveness to the shifting market and bureaucratic discipline over its systems and technology. Ambidexterity, to adopt the vogue term.

I think the key issue for innovating firms is attaining “useful continuity.” If the exploration process leads to venture proposals for which the existing organization is less well-suited than a brand-new one would be, then there is a strong argument not to do it. There is not enough continuity between the new venture and the firm’s capabilities and culture. Start up a new firm instead.

On the other hand, if the organization rejects venture proposals whenever they require any new capabilities at all, then there is too much continuity. Excess capacity in existing capabilities will not be fully exploited, and negative shocks to existing lines of business will not be countered. If you’re not going to develop any new capabilities, then you probably can’t justify having most of the managers you employ–it doesn’t take that big of an administrative staff just to maintain homeostasis with a stable process.

]]> By: Tom Guarriello http://cultureby.com/2005/04/new_models_of_t.html/comment-page-1#comment-6500 Tom Guarriello Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:19:04 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=979#comment-6500 Grant, here's a very brief version of a thing that's been rolling around in my head recently (I actually said these words to a guy on a sales call a couple of weeks ago): "I've really had it with either/or thinking. We have to get beyond this, it can't be aesthetics or process rigor anymore; it can't be six sigma or innovation; it can't be quality or quantity." Maybe I went on a little more. But the point is, this damned Cartesian dichotomous mindset will be our downfall if we don't figure out how to transcend it. Right brain, left brain aside, we've got to do better at whole brain. Hard to do, but just about imperative. (I wrote a post about the challenge facing Jeff Immelt on this stuff; take a look if interested at truetalk.typepad.com/truetalk/2005/03/jeff_gets_innov.html) Grant, here’s a very brief version of a thing that’s been rolling around in my head recently (I actually said these words to a guy on a sales call a couple of weeks ago): “I’ve really had it with either/or thinking. We have to get beyond this, it can’t be aesthetics or process rigor anymore; it can’t be six sigma or innovation; it can’t be quality or quantity.” Maybe I went on a little more.

But the point is, this damned Cartesian dichotomous mindset will be our downfall if we don’t figure out how to transcend it.

Right brain, left brain aside, we’ve got to do better at whole brain. Hard to do, but just about imperative. (I wrote a post about the challenge facing Jeff Immelt on this stuff; take a look if interested at truetalk.typepad.com/truetalk/2005/03/jeff_gets_innov.html)

]]>