Organisational change

In "Digital Maosim", an original essay written for Edge, computer scientist and digital visionary Jaron Lanier finds fault with what he terms the new online collectivism. He cites as an example the Wikipedia, noting that "reading a Wikipedia entry is like reading the bible closely. There are faint traces of the voices of various anonymous authors and editors, though it is impossible to be sure".

In the mid-1990s, productivity growth accelerated sharply in the U.S. economy. In this paper, we identify several other industry-level changes that have occurred during the same time and argue that they are consistent with an increased use of information technology (IT). We use case studies to illustrate how IT has enabled firms to more rapidly replicate improved business processes throughout an organization, thereby not only increasing productivity but also market share and market value. We then empirically document a substantial increase in turbulence starting in the 1990s, as measured by the average intra-industry rank change in sales, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), and other metrics. In particular, we find that IT-intensive industries account for most of this increase in turbulence, especially after 1995. In addition, we find that IT-intensive industries became more concentrated than non IT-intensive industries after 1995, reversing the previous trend. The combination of increased turbulence and concentration, especially among IT-intensive industries, is consistent with recent theories of hypercompetition as well as Schumpeterian creative destruction. We conclude that the improved ability of firms to replicate business innovations has changed the nature of business competition.

Scenius is like genius, only embedded in a scene rather than in genes. Brian Eno suggested the word to convey the extreme creativity that groups, places or "scenes" can occasionally generate. His actual definition is: "Scenius stands for the intelligence and the intuition of a whole cultural scene. It is the communal form of the concept of the genius."

We barely manage the basic innovation process, but competitive pressure is already pushing us towards the next level. However, are we aiming at the right target?

In a few short years innovation has moved from being the domain of wild-haired creatives into an effective business process that acts as one of the levers for extracting value [1]. At this point it is timely to pause and consider 'what's next?' After all, the global environment continues to get more complex, competition gets tougher and the demands of customers increasingly sophisticated. How can countries, regions, cities, private and public sector organizations respond to this challenge? How can they succeed in a marketplace where innovation is an established technique, widely deployed? How do we reach way beyond what is possible and proceed as though it could be? In short: in order to maintain competitive advantage, what comes after innovation?

Our current economy is highly dynamic and the needs for more flexibility, adaptability and continuous change are continuously increasing. Yet, not all parties have equal strenghts and rights in this game.

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?

Developing an innovative business strategy is difficult. Very difficult. However, the most difficult part awaits you at execution time. Often, you will find that your fantastic idea fails. Not because this idea was unrealistic, but because it was unrealistic for your company.

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?

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?

More innovation is the remedy of the last resort that will save Europe's economic position and welfare. At least, that's what they say. As a result, European corporations are frantically looking for ways to improve the productivity of their knowledge workers, assuming this will increase their innovation ability. Are they looking in the right direction?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

It's like a neon sign blaring: "EXIT." A gigantic global economic meltdown, possibly leading to a second Great Depression, should illustrate with finality: business as usual is no longer the road to riches.\n\nThat's the small answer to the question many of you asked after reading the Great to Good Manifesto: "Wow, cool - but how come going from great to good is, well, profitable?" Here's the big one.\n\nThe real-world case for going great-to-good isn't just compelling. For more and more organizations, it's simply irresistible. Why? The new economics of business.