Group items tagged

In the present Xpragmatic View, we further explore the concept of organisational change as a management instrument triggering innovation and process improvement. Assuming the basic promise of this concept is correct, what type of organisational change do we have to look for?

The talk of heterarchy is taking me back to Gerard Fairtlough's book on The Three Ways of Getting Things Done (hierarchy, heterarchy and responsible autonomy) - but this mention of systemic organisations leads neatly to Bill Tate's new book on systemic leadership in the systemic organisation.

In the current economic reality of margin erosion and rapid commoditisation of products and services, innovation is often seen as the last competitive differentiator. As a result, organisations are desperately looking for ways to improve their -ability to innovate-. Over the past years, some common thinking and sound practices have emerged that focus on a number of key requirements to enable the innovative enterprise. One of these requirements is the development of a working environment that facilitates and stimulates innovation. However, is this thinking radical enough or do we have to go one step further and question the very nature of the organisation itself?

There are numerous examples of organisations that succeeded transforming their business model to a new or higher level of success after being forced by external conditions to adjust their existing organisational structure. Knowing this, is there a viable approach that allows us to uncover this hidden potential?

The economy is doing rather well over here in Europe, but organisations are facing growing problems while looking for additional resources. Are people no longer interested in work?

In a competitive business environment, safeguarding the continuity of the company often requires starting initiatives that will result in a fundamental discontinuity for the social structure of the organisation. Do we have a choice?

Over the past years, better and more cost effective communication capabilities have been the main drivers for evolutions such as internationalisation, globalisation and outsourcing. Indeed, this improved communication capability has been an enabler for various new and more complex forms of collaboration. At the same time, organisational structures are growing thinner. Is there still room for the traditional company?

A future of project-based work does call for the emergence of new organisational structures to support the activities of the individual contributors. How will this be done and by whom?

At Tianjin, I was delighted to come across the thought provoking ideas of Tim Brown, CEO, IDEO. I'd like to share with you here a brief video in which Tim explores why enabling intrapreneurship is often considered the Holy Grail of large organisations and offers some thoughts on what they need to do to encourage a higher level of new ideas.

Collaboration is the mantra of the Enterprise 2.0 movement, but organisational boundaries complicate adoption and progress. Therefore, we need someone who takes a holistic view of what is needed to get employees to work across silos. Good idea?

Implementing change in an organisation is difficult, very difficult. There are numerous reasons or excuses for failure. However, the primary reason for failure is choosing the wrong destination.

Every organisation is continuously confronted with the dilemma of conflicting interests. Some initiative might help us progress in a given direction, yet it complicates things for other plans that we have. As in life, it is a matter of finding a balance. However, sometimes, we have to accept that certain things simply cannot go together.

If the human race wants to survive on this planet, it will have to change its behaviour, its institutions, its government structures and its way of doing business. The chaordic theory carries the promise of the better organisational approach that will support this. Can it really work that way?

With Enterprise 2.0, we are trying to solve some of the problems of today's business organisations. However, we must not forget that our business environment is rapidly evolving and therefore, we might be solving the problems of the past instead of those of the future.

Recent evolutions in our understanding of physics and biology indicate that our environment, including ourselves, is the result of a far-reaching process of interaction and complementarity. Apparently, something makes that matter and organisms -automatically- collaborate growing to larger and more complex entities. Is there a place for business in the universe?

We live in a networked economy. The Internet, e-mail, mobile telephony, they all make our way of communication easier, faster and independent of time and location. But is it also getting any better?

Over the past couple of years, business agility has become one of the more interesting new paradigms of the Internet economy. Unfortunately, it remains a very hyped subject with very little practical applications. The IT vendors are claiming to bring us the solutions that will enable the agile enterprise, but is business agility really something you can buy and install?

Cooperation, despite being now considered the third force of evolution, just behind mutation and natural selection, is difficult to explain in the context of an evolutionary process based on competition between individuals and selfish behaviour. But this puzzle, that has haunted scientists for decades, is now a little closer to be solved by research about to be published on the journal Physical Review Letters.