The political changes that are sweeping our nation are also affecting the future of enterprise. And while the “old guard” of society seems to be desperately seeking evidence of a return to common ideals and shared experiences, what is instead emerging are demands for change that seem to be grounded in a diffusion of concepts and cultures, but which appear nonetheless to be adaptively converging into a tidal wave that is enveloping enterprise and governments alike. The integrating vectors of this new wave of constituent thinking are calling on the future of enterprise to be inclusive, transparent, and inventive:
Be inclusive. Pluralism requires that every stakeholder be a supportive party to the solution. The days of elitism (where a few decide what is best for everyone) and populism (where a simple and often slim majority imposes its will on the remainder) are waning in favor of a new yearning for super-majorities of hyperactive constituents.
Be transparent. Stakeholder confidence in enterprise management regimes can only “reset” if the financial state of the firm is reported in real-time, and the underlying assumptions of financial projections are fully disclosed. Indeed, all future paths for enterprise management (including governance) should be paved in disclosure.
Be inventive. Effective enterprise will require new concepts and technologies that transcend monopolization and commoditization in order to achieve more authentic and genuine forms of competitive advantage that respect the community, environment, and security challenges of our time. Moreover, while past solutions have most often focused on ways to mitigate risk, the time has arrived for inventive thinking that actually reduces the risks our society fears most, both natural and manmade.
As a businessperson, I have begun looking for new projects that are “real,” by which I mean projects that require inclusive teamwork, non-proprietary transparency, and an inventive spirit that seeks to address business problems in ways never before considered. The future of enterprise is upon us – and it is real.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Spreadsheets Are Back
A recent poll of over one thousand LinkedIn members returned some interesting insights into spreadsheet usage patterns in companies. Respondents were posed with the following statement, and were then asked to provide a single response as follows:
The other interesting finding was that spreadsheet ubiquity was at its greatest in enterprise and large firms where a full 85% of resondents reported using spreadsheets on a daily basis, while another 10% reporting weekly usage.
One respondent left a comment claiming to have selected "daily" only because "constantly" and "hourly" were not offered as options. Still another respondent voiced surprise that "daily" users were less than 95%. One apparent critic of spreadsheets commented that the poll was "a waste of time."
Results were generally even across age groups. However, males reported somewhat higher daily spreadsheet usage than females. The survey was open to all LinkedIn users between April 24 and May 19, 2009. There were 1,094 voluntary participants in the survey.
More
I use spreadsheets _____ in my work.The results found that 80% of respondents use spreadsheets on a daily basis, while another 11% use spreadsheets weekly. In all, over 90% of respondents are apparently using spreadsheets at least weekly in their jobs.
· Never
· Rarely
· Monthly
· Weekly
· Daily
The other interesting finding was that spreadsheet ubiquity was at its greatest in enterprise and large firms where a full 85% of resondents reported using spreadsheets on a daily basis, while another 10% reporting weekly usage.
One respondent left a comment claiming to have selected "daily" only because "constantly" and "hourly" were not offered as options. Still another respondent voiced surprise that "daily" users were less than 95%. One apparent critic of spreadsheets commented that the poll was "a waste of time."
Results were generally even across age groups. However, males reported somewhat higher daily spreadsheet usage than females. The survey was open to all LinkedIn users between April 24 and May 19, 2009. There were 1,094 voluntary participants in the survey.
More
Monday, May 18, 2009
Challenging Commoditization and Monopolization
I recently responded to an article by Max J Pucher entitled, “The End of Capitalism," and I wanted to share that response here in order to introduce my views about how economic reform must subordinate to political reform in order to resolve our society’s economic woes:
I have to agree that “capitalism” is not what I see operating the new economy. In fact, governments long ago rallied in support of two opposing themes that are rank with proximity to the economic crisis. These two contradictory themes are monopolization and commoditization. Everyone knows what a monopoly is, and it is evident that enterprise-scale monopolies such as government and healthcare are thriving in the new economy. The second theme of the new economy has been the rampage of commoditization through major industries, whereby goods and services become undifferentiated resulting in loss of pricing flexibility. Lower prices is good news for consumers, but often results in lower wages for workers. Two industries that have been ravaged by commoditization are financial services and automobile production. That these industries would become the leading scapegoats of the expanding economic crisis is of little surprise.
The global economic system has become a corrupt choice of supporting either “big government” or “big business,” making the real losers the people and society. This polarization of the political economy is untenable. Society’s only hope is that the electorate reframe the debate from “economic” to “political” reform, whereby we the people accept that elitism (which advocates extreme commoditization of industries) and populism (with its relentless and expanding commitment to government sponsored monopolies, including national security and healthcare) should now yield to pluralism, and devote instead the energies and resources of government toward the broader needs of a more active and relevant citizenry, albeit at the expense of “enterprise” scale designs. Indeed, it may be time to relook the notions of republicanism and federalism as the political systems upon which to ground capitalist society. We, the people, have much work ahead of us in order to reinvent our world into pluralism in our time. Let’s hope it’s not too late.
I have to agree that “capitalism” is not what I see operating the new economy. In fact, governments long ago rallied in support of two opposing themes that are rank with proximity to the economic crisis. These two contradictory themes are monopolization and commoditization. Everyone knows what a monopoly is, and it is evident that enterprise-scale monopolies such as government and healthcare are thriving in the new economy. The second theme of the new economy has been the rampage of commoditization through major industries, whereby goods and services become undifferentiated resulting in loss of pricing flexibility. Lower prices is good news for consumers, but often results in lower wages for workers. Two industries that have been ravaged by commoditization are financial services and automobile production. That these industries would become the leading scapegoats of the expanding economic crisis is of little surprise.
The global economic system has become a corrupt choice of supporting either “big government” or “big business,” making the real losers the people and society. This polarization of the political economy is untenable. Society’s only hope is that the electorate reframe the debate from “economic” to “political” reform, whereby we the people accept that elitism (which advocates extreme commoditization of industries) and populism (with its relentless and expanding commitment to government sponsored monopolies, including national security and healthcare) should now yield to pluralism, and devote instead the energies and resources of government toward the broader needs of a more active and relevant citizenry, albeit at the expense of “enterprise” scale designs. Indeed, it may be time to relook the notions of republicanism and federalism as the political systems upon which to ground capitalist society. We, the people, have much work ahead of us in order to reinvent our world into pluralism in our time. Let’s hope it’s not too late.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Limited Purpose Banking
Prof Laurence Kotlikoff and Dr John Goodman make an interesting case for so-called, "limited purpose banking," the essence of which is that "banks would let people gamble, but they would not themselves gamble." Their modest proposal has intriguing potential. Check it out...
Back to Basics
Back to Basics
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Analytical Forecasters Needed
The ability to forecast results is now the top concern of US, Asian, and European chief financial officers according to a recent survey of nearly 1,300 senior finance executives by CFO Europe, Tilburg University, and Duke University (CFO, April 2009). That finance chiefs now rank their ability to forecast effectively as their top internal concern is instructive for the future of enterprise management. Other issues, such as working capital management, maintaining morale, and counterparty risk, stood behind forecasting as the top concern. As the global economic crisis continues its onslaught across the enterprise landscape, there appears to be a crying need for experts (and expert systems) in analytical forecasting around the world.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Risk Management in Demand
As the global financial disaster continues unabated, research is beginning to percolate findings about some of the causes of the storm, as well as the precautionary measures that might avert future crises of this nature. In a recent survey of over 500 key financial executives conducted by MPI Europe (April 2009), several important views prevailed. One of the survey's strongest findings was the perceived need to develop a “risk management culture” in today’s financial institutions, including bolstering the relative power of risk management functions vis-à-vis its trading counterparts. Now, as good as that sounds, I am skeptical as to whether our financial services industry has it within itself to embed a new risk-aware culture without demonstrable intermediate measures to lead the way (after all, our world is inspired by capitalism). The good news is that several other findings were more specific and actionable. Over 75 percent of the respondents saw a shortage of sufficiently and appropriately trained personnel as having a “high impact” on creating the crisis. Additionally, a significant majority of respondents wanted to see an improvement in their “risk management applications,” to include a shift from predominantly quantitative measures toward qualitative methodologies (e.g., internal controls). Both of these latter measures are fully actionable through increased investment in risk management technologies and training. Moreover, implementing stronger spreadsheet control regimes, coupled with stricter guidelines for spreadsheet checking and auditing, are another immediate requirement. Finally, I would argue that by funding and initiating improved risk management technologies and training, executives will be taking the first vital steps toward creating the risk management culture that they seek. The recognized need for effective risk management is gaining traction in today’s financial services industry. The real question remains whether the industry’s leaders will have the courage to recognize the deficiencies of their existing risk management structures, and respond by investing in the technologies and training that can address these shortcomings.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Valuing Business Intelligence
I have a theory I am pondering based on my reading of the emerging business intelligence literature. My hypothesis is that the more efficient and simple the analytical framework between the data and the decision, the more valuable the intelligence becomes. Said another way, if intelligence is what connects data to decisions, then the value of the intelligence increases as the analytical framework that supports and generates the intelligence is simplified. A related research question would be whether decision-makers who do their own analytical work make better decisions than those who rely on intermediaries. If I ever test the theory, I suppose the results could have implications for existing and emerging enterprise resource and risk management regimes, as well as management science in general. If you are contemplating a future research topic, this might provide you with a starting point.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
The Ten Commandments of Risk Analysis
The Ten Commandments of risk analysis according to Prof Granger Morgan and Prof Max Henrion (1990):
- Do your homework with literature, experts, and users
- Let the problem drive the analysis
- Make the analysis as simple as possible, but no simpler
- Identify all significant assumptions
- Be explicit about decision criteria and policy strategy
- Be explicit about uncertainties
- Perform systematic sensitivity and uncertainty analysis
- Iteratively refine the problem statement and analysis
- Document clearly and completely
- Expose to peer review
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Elevating the Roles of Risk Analysts and Managers
The ongoing economic crisis has brought with it a heightened interest in risk analysis and management. Yet, something seems awry at the risk management desks of our nation’s largest banks and financial institutions. Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd C Blankfein was recently quoted as saying, “too many financial institutions and investors simply outsourced their risk management -- rather than undertake their own analysis, they relied on the rating agencies to do the essential work of risk analysis for them.” Mr Blankfein contended that banks and financial institutions must elevate the status of risk analysis in order to alleviate the “systemic lack of skepticism” that he alleged was precursor to the ongoing economic crisis. Mr Blankfein suggested that banks and financial institutions redefine the roles of risk managers, including giving them equal stature “with their counterparts in revenue producing divisions.” This redefinition of roles includes delegating greater responsibilities and authority onto risk managers, whereby “if there is a question about a mark or a disagreement about a risk limit, the risk manager's view should prevail” (WSJ, April 7, 2009). My personal interpretation of Mr Blankfein’s statements is that those trained and charged with risk analysis and management were apparently left standing outside the boardroom as our nation’s banking and financial “executives” undertook investment policy-making in isolation. Let us hope that the regulatory changes to come might at least mandate that risk managers and analysts get a seat at the table.
Monday, March 30, 2009
It's All About Skills...
I was recently asked the following question about higher business education: "Does an MBA breed authenticity and humility or arrogance in the name of leadership?" Well, if we can first transcend experience and degrees, and ask instead about skills (both hard and soft), then we begin to ask better questions, such as, "Who has the skills to get the job done?" Of course, skills can be acquired through both experience and higher education (or not). For this reason, I always ask management applicants about their skills, rather than their education or experience. "What skills do you bring to the table?" Responses such as, "I have years of experience," or "I have years of college," evade the question. My advice to everyone is make your experience and higher education translate into more and more skills, and do not assume that simply being "present" in experience or education is the same thing. As for where a person acquires their skills, who cares. If we can all focus on skills, rather than experience and education, then we can be best assured the right people are in leadership.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Working on Wall Street
In some ways, the financial services industry is overdue for a good house-cleaning. And no doubt, the culture of the money management business will change accordingly. Whereas excesses in staffing have been common at many financial services firms in recent years, the reality is that only those who produce value will have a place in the reworked financial services industry. Creating value in financial services is not easy. Which leads to one of my favorite interview questions for job applicants, "Explain how one creates value through finance..." Those who can respond effectively to that question have a future in financial services.
Friday, February 06, 2009
On Management "Style"
The matter of "baby-boomers" remaining in control of their destiny has significant implications for management, particularly since society has yet to send the "Bob Hope" generation packing. For example, the US Congress is still dominated by members born prior to World War II. For this reason, there may actually be a generation "skipping" tendency in favor of younger leaders from diverse backgrounds -- witness Barack Obama's rise to power. My sensing is that there is a large segment of our society that views "change" as the replacement of anyone born prior to 1955 with much younger leaders. The impact of these views on management selection could be significant in the coming years. The second issue confronting management is the continuing demise of elitism, the entrenchment of populism, and the rise of pluralism. The net result could be a generation of leaders who insist on securing more than a simple majority in support of their decisions, but rather require a plurality of support closer to two-thirds majority. Imagine if the US President vetoed legislation because it did not come with two-thirds support of Congress. If the same approach took hold in corporations, it would require boards to listen carefully to all of their stakeholders in depth. In summary, I believe that generational issues coupled with society's move toward pluralist thinking will require mangement to change its "style" of decision-making in the coming years -- probably for the best.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Risk Management in Review
I recently responded to a question in a public forum regarding the limitations of risk management. The specific question posed was, “What limits our ability to effectively manage risk?” This is an interesting question given the financial crisis still underway. My response follows:
Risk management continues to be a misunderstood discipline. The truth is we do have the analytics to understand and manage most kinds of risk (at least to some extent). The more serious problem confronting our society is our apparent inability to apply that knowledge. I'm reminded of the story of a civil war soldier who was listening to one of his officers read from a newspaper. The story goes that the officer quoted from a story by commenting, "...it says here there were fifty percent casualties at the battle of..." The soldier who was listening to the officer's comment responded by asking, "...wow, is that a lot?"
The point is that having the analytics to describe risk, and having the knowledge and training to understand the analytics are two different things. My impression is that many (if not most) business leaders are poorly trained at understanding risk analytics beyond what might be described as layman's terms. What is most needed today is for our business leaders to become more knowledgeable of how to understand and use risk analytics in an effective and meaningful manner. The days of making guesses based on institutions are long gone, especially when those decisions can result in losses of billions of dollars, as well as suffering amongst the ranks of employees and other stakeholders who are ultimately victimized by those decisions.
My advice to business leaders at all levels is to make risk analysis a centerpiece of their training in graduate school. If you puzzle over terms such as variance, standard deviation, stochastic, optimization, and so forth, then it may be time to schedule some training in these skills as part of your lifetime learning plan.
Risk management continues to be a misunderstood discipline. The truth is we do have the analytics to understand and manage most kinds of risk (at least to some extent). The more serious problem confronting our society is our apparent inability to apply that knowledge. I'm reminded of the story of a civil war soldier who was listening to one of his officers read from a newspaper. The story goes that the officer quoted from a story by commenting, "...it says here there were fifty percent casualties at the battle of..." The soldier who was listening to the officer's comment responded by asking, "...wow, is that a lot?"
The point is that having the analytics to describe risk, and having the knowledge and training to understand the analytics are two different things. My impression is that many (if not most) business leaders are poorly trained at understanding risk analytics beyond what might be described as layman's terms. What is most needed today is for our business leaders to become more knowledgeable of how to understand and use risk analytics in an effective and meaningful manner. The days of making guesses based on institutions are long gone, especially when those decisions can result in losses of billions of dollars, as well as suffering amongst the ranks of employees and other stakeholders who are ultimately victimized by those decisions.
My advice to business leaders at all levels is to make risk analysis a centerpiece of their training in graduate school. If you puzzle over terms such as variance, standard deviation, stochastic, optimization, and so forth, then it may be time to schedule some training in these skills as part of your lifetime learning plan.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Implications of the Financial Crisis
Recently, I was awaiting a flight from Singapore to New York City and was looking for a good book that might occupy my time during the 22-hour journey. What caught my eye was Dr George Cooper’s, “The Origin of Financial Crises” (2008, Vintage).
In his book, Dr Cooper makes an interesting case for markets being more inefficient than efficient, and further argues that the origins of the current financial crisis stem from the delusionary concepts of economic equilibrium, monetary stability, and rational behavior. Of course, this is not the first book to argue these points.
However, it was the book’s conclusions regarding the near-term monetary and fiscal policy options for responding to the ongoing crisis that struck me. Dr Cooper outlines three options for confronting the crisis, all of them dismally painful:
1. The “free market route,” which entails allowing the credit contraction and underlying asset deflation to play out. In other words, we allow Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to handle the details of the crisis, while keeping faith with the a priori assertion that “prosperity is just around the corner,” as argued by Herbert Hoover during the 1930’s. Of course, Franklin Roosevelt and his “New Deal” program soon defeated Hoover as support for a new economic approach became a political imperative under the weight of the human suffering and hardships that accompanied the depression. The recent election of Barrack Obama holds parallel implications.
2. “When in trouble, double,” which means continuing to apply fiscal and monetary stimulus in an effort to trigger a new economic expansion that would have the power and momentum to negate the current credit contraction. While this option appears more palatable than the “free market route” at least in the short-term, the long-term implications for debt-fueled spending may only amplify the crisis for future generations. Whether this approach will or can work remains to be seen. However, when one adds significant new spending for universal health care, the imminent social security bailout, and the continuing war on terror into the equation, it seems unlikely that fiscal and monetary stimulus alone can be sufficient.
3. “Unleash the inflation monster,” which is simply “printing money” in order to negate debt through either state-funded handouts or deliberate inflationary spending policies. Despite the fact that this gives today’s borrowers a “get out of jail free card” at the expense of savers, the political implications of this approach may well be the least unpalatable of the three options outlined. Recent increases in the prices for food, energy, and certain commodities provide initial evidence that this approach may already be underway.
After considering Dr Cooper's policy options, I concluded that we are probably already committed to “unleash the inflation monster.” Moreover, I realized that the implications of the crisis are more important than the causes at this point. My advice is that we all prepare ourselves for double-digit inflation within the next 3-7 years and quite possibly sooner. For consumers holding fixed-rate debt, the future looks bright, assuming they can stay employed. For pensioners and those living on fixed incomes, get ready to reduce your lifestyle. As for the government and corporate debt-holders, good luck!
In his book, Dr Cooper makes an interesting case for markets being more inefficient than efficient, and further argues that the origins of the current financial crisis stem from the delusionary concepts of economic equilibrium, monetary stability, and rational behavior. Of course, this is not the first book to argue these points.
However, it was the book’s conclusions regarding the near-term monetary and fiscal policy options for responding to the ongoing crisis that struck me. Dr Cooper outlines three options for confronting the crisis, all of them dismally painful:
1. The “free market route,” which entails allowing the credit contraction and underlying asset deflation to play out. In other words, we allow Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to handle the details of the crisis, while keeping faith with the a priori assertion that “prosperity is just around the corner,” as argued by Herbert Hoover during the 1930’s. Of course, Franklin Roosevelt and his “New Deal” program soon defeated Hoover as support for a new economic approach became a political imperative under the weight of the human suffering and hardships that accompanied the depression. The recent election of Barrack Obama holds parallel implications.
2. “When in trouble, double,” which means continuing to apply fiscal and monetary stimulus in an effort to trigger a new economic expansion that would have the power and momentum to negate the current credit contraction. While this option appears more palatable than the “free market route” at least in the short-term, the long-term implications for debt-fueled spending may only amplify the crisis for future generations. Whether this approach will or can work remains to be seen. However, when one adds significant new spending for universal health care, the imminent social security bailout, and the continuing war on terror into the equation, it seems unlikely that fiscal and monetary stimulus alone can be sufficient.
3. “Unleash the inflation monster,” which is simply “printing money” in order to negate debt through either state-funded handouts or deliberate inflationary spending policies. Despite the fact that this gives today’s borrowers a “get out of jail free card” at the expense of savers, the political implications of this approach may well be the least unpalatable of the three options outlined. Recent increases in the prices for food, energy, and certain commodities provide initial evidence that this approach may already be underway.
After considering Dr Cooper's policy options, I concluded that we are probably already committed to “unleash the inflation monster.” Moreover, I realized that the implications of the crisis are more important than the causes at this point. My advice is that we all prepare ourselves for double-digit inflation within the next 3-7 years and quite possibly sooner. For consumers holding fixed-rate debt, the future looks bright, assuming they can stay employed. For pensioners and those living on fixed incomes, get ready to reduce your lifestyle. As for the government and corporate debt-holders, good luck!
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Chaos, Order, and Music
One of my favorite quotes about the epistemology of music comes from Dr Anthony Storr’s book, Music and the Mind (1992, p. 64):
Language does not emanate from the Earth, but from the human brain. So does music. The universality of music depends upon basic characteristics of the human mind; especially upon the need to impose order upon our experience… Languages are ways of ordering words; political systems are ways of ordering society; musical systems are ways of ordering sounds. What is universal is the human propensity to create order out of chaos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



