« knowledge, manage or enhance? | Main | Swiss private bank »



Yeah, drawers full of processes almost impossible to be captured by ANY so-called "structured" system...
Because, as far as we know, reality is a lot nearer to chaos than to any "structure" or "paradigm" that (guess what?) will need to be "shifted" to be realistic. Does it ring any bell?

Throw away the structure and follow the ball!

Thank you, Sig.

Arnie McKinnis

There's a company called Bluewolf that has specialized in "planning and integrating" Salesforce.com - Basically a SI for SaaS. I read an article by the President of Bluewolf and he drives the message that it's about "departmental implementation" not "enterprise implementation". If you follow his logic, it's about making it work "out there", where the rubber meets the road, where the customers are - not back at the "hive". The question may be - where does business actually happen? and how do you support that?


Arnie, precisely - "where does business actually happen?"

As strategy requires "a value delivered" - who but the end user could decide what is a value? None I guess.

In London these days and when going to all kind of gatherings one is bowled over by the amount of web 2.0 ideas being tried out, most probably not ever going to survive but it is in fact the market who decides.
In that case the support is hidden inside the fact that it costs close to nothing to try, if it sticks then fine, if not no disaster. Extreme business modeling - no try shall ever equal being "painted into a corner" - just do it, do it more, then do it again!

Arnie McKinnis

It really comes down to "risk vs reward" right now in business. There is huge risk for a melgacorp to try something out (even if there is no or limited cost) but smaller companies (even those of good size) can take advantage of a new "idea" - with the risk and cost being nothing more than a little time. If it works, then great, if not, you try the next thing.

In most businesses, MASS is a greater problem than SIZE (Sig I'm just going to let that one hang out there and see what happends!!)



SAP says all their customers says "no changes, no upgrades, do not touch my core ERP system, except for once every five years (I think it was)" - and I can certainly sympathise with that.

So what to do when trying to apply something really radical? First of all let it be able to sneak in under the radar nor really replacing anything with the ability to expand from there when concept has proven itself without risk.
Then obviously, be able to mimic the old ways or structures, but still using the radical approach - like in thingamy where titles and departments can be represented by tags, and hopefully after a while nobody bothers with them any more as they're of no real use..:)

Heh Mass vs Size... lemme try: Mass implies coherence and that means strong forces to keep stuff together - while size is volume and needs only definition on the outer boundary.
The forces is the core of the problem as they take the form of rules, structures and other rigid glue - always a problem that when you want any change!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo


  • Phone: +33 6 8887 9944
    Skype: sigurd.rinde
    iChat/AIM: sigrind52

Tweet this

Thingamy sites

  • Main site
  • Concept site

Tittin's blog


Enterprise Irregulars


Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter


    • Alltop, all the cool kids (and me)


    Blog powered by Typepad
    Member since 01/2005