tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22377662711426046142024-03-20T11:14:43.562+00:00The Art of...davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-73363128760262591402011-09-21T14:43:00.003+01:002011-09-21T14:54:43.884+01:00A Last Post...Well, after a break from posting on this site for some time, I have decided to move all my blogging activity to my new web site:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.davidsartof.com/">DAVIDSARTOF.COM </a><br /><br />I have transferred all the posts from here and other locations under a single posts page.<br /><br />There you can find a miscellany of writing associated with my real name David Atkinson and my pseudo name (for fiction writing) David Sartof.<br /><br />I write at the cross-over between fiction and non fiction, across a number of subject areas, including management and leadership.<br /><br />I look forward to your joining me at my new web site. Please do drop by!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.davidsartof.com/">DAVIDSARTOF.COM </a><br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />DavidUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-35479778919468632922009-11-11T14:07:00.003+00:002009-11-11T14:29:02.177+00:00Innovation: Publishing in the modern world! Post IIA short essay that stated as a single blog post!<br /><br />The book is dead? Long live the book? Really! As I bring my first novel to market (I decided, with the impatience and petulance of spoilt teenager, that I was not going to wait for some kind Agent to introduce me to a Publisher – I’ve run a business before!), I thought I’d try a blog post on my take of the landscape before me. Or, at least that part of it that I can see, for the moment, through my limited field of vision. And one post became two! <a href="http://davidsartof.blogspot.com/2009/11/innovation-publishing-in-modern-world.html">Haven’t read Post I yet?</a> <br /><br />A short essay in two posts… Post II – Long live the book…<br /><br />The book is dead? Long live the book? Yes! Most definitely! Launching any new product into a market, and new novels are no exception, is a question of innovation. Put the hash-tag #innovation into Twitter and follow just how many people discuss this topic, and, importantly, what is being said. <br /><br />Innovation is the word on the lips of politicians, businesses and consumers looking forward. And, the biggest tool in the innovator’s toolbox is the opportunity presented by technology as it continues its rampant charge down the battle fields of commerce. The battlefield that is Publishing bears the mark of technology’s stampede! And if we fight on that battlefield we must be mindful of the terrain.<br /><br />A question of risk? Really? Of course it is. And what do we do about risk, as a budding novelist. Launching a new product into a market is an investment. It costs. It costs to produce a book. Not just in the time to write it, but in the post-writing production process. If launching a book is to be considered as a business (i.e. authors – as well as Agents and Publishers – need to put bread into their mouths) then what strategies are available to de-risk the enterprise?<br /><br />Become a celebrity? Short of (accidentally?) launching one’s child, in a balloon, into the airspace over a major international airport, or entering some mindless get-rich-quick game show, genuine opportunities for gaining instant celebrity status are few and far between. Such a strategy is as useful to the budding author as is hope! And hope is no strategy!<br /><br />In the risk-reward equation of a product launch, what is at stake is the investment in bringing that product to market. If the product is untried, untested – with an unknown pedigree, it is highly rational to consider only a limited investment at first. But here lies the difficulty faced by the budding new author! The investment required to produce such a seemingly small thing as a new paperback book – that can compete on cost and quality in the market of other paperback books – is out of all proportion to its size. That is, of course, unless a sufficiently large enough quantity can be produced, marketed and SOLD! This is an economic fact of life! It should not be a surprise to any new, budding author – the economics of starting a writing career just do not add up! <br /><br />…Unless, of course, you decide to enter the battle!! And this is the point of my blog and my mention of Smashwords. <br /><br />The stampede of technology has done one critical thing – it has lowered the cost of production of the book! And I am not talking, here, about the capability of digital, print-on-demand, or the use of software to layout and design books at home. No, the biggest single factor in levelling the battlefield – in reducing the costs of production – which is the real boon to the individual budding new novelist, is that technology has redefined what a book is! Long live the (E)book!<br /><br />So, lest I be accused of varying from the theme, or at least diverting from the suggestion that I might have something to say about Smashwords… back to focus! Any budding new author that does not consider the opportunity to reduce the level of investment in book production that is represented by the e-book, is missing the point. <br /><br />As I launch my own first novel, <a href="http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/5823" target+"_new">RIVER OF JUDGEMENT</a>, on <a href="http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/5823" target="_new">Smashwords</a>, I am thankful that evolution is our constant companion. As our society becomes increasingly risk averse, as investment in capital-intensive product launches (as a book most certainly is) becomes reserved for “sure-fire” bets (celebrity) and sexy, high-tech panaceas (which a book most certainly is not), evolution provides its own solution. We adapt and survive. <br /><br />The low cost of producing an e-book (you can publish it for free on sites like Smashwords) now, at last, provides a new author with the economic possibility to launch a new product into a real market place that has the potential to generate income and put a few crumbs on the table. It is an opportunity not to be missed, especially if you consider the “interconnectedness of things” these days! <br /><br />Smashwords has formed a business alliance with <a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/ebooks/" target="_new">Barnes & Noble</a>. If you take care in the production of an e-book – in business you need to deliver a quality product after all – Smashwords will offer its inclusion in their Premium Catalogue, and thus its availability to <a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/ebooks/" target="_new">B&N</a>. The books of budding new authors can exist alongside those of the established greats, and on the same terms!! No vanity press exits in cyberspace – just good quality and bad quality. Democracy rules, perhaps! So, publish and be damned! Go on, give it a try!davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-6870784955959289952009-11-11T13:53:00.004+00:002009-11-11T14:28:07.937+00:00Innovation: Publishing in the modern world! Post IA short essay that stated as a single blog post!<br /><br />The book is dead? Long live the book? Really! As I bring my first <a href="http://www.davidsartof.com/ds_books.html" target="_new">novel</a> to market (I decided, with the impatience and petulance of spoilt teenager, that I was not going to wait for some kind Agent to introduce me to a Publisher – I’ve run a business before!), I thought I’d try a blog post on my take of the landscape before me. Or, at least that part of it that I can see, for the moment, through my limited field of vision. And one post became two! <br /><br />A short essay in two posts. Post I – The book is dead…<br /><br />As a writer (yes I can say that – despite my relative inexperience; I have published!), I am a player in a changing landscape. Not that other landscapes are not changing, and not that I don’t play in other changing landscapes – business, for example, is a constantly changing landscape, forged by countless battles of profit versus social and individual need; but that is a theme for another post.<br /><br />Back to innovation and writing…<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.smashwords.com" target="new">Smashwords</a> is one of the growing number of e-book sites: a battlefield in which the (bloodless?) war over the democratisation of publishing is being fought. Is the battlefield being levelled? Is the author dying – lying wounded on the field? Long live the author, really? <br /><br />Where can the budding new author get an opportunity to publish their work if the likes of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/09/martine-mccutcheon-mistress-eastenders-fame" target="_new">Martine McCutcheon</a> can capitalise on the limited time and energy of the industry’s great and good? It would seem that prior-celebrity is fast becoming a requirement on the CV of a budding novelist, purely on the basis that it is the celebrity-status that de-risks the commercial enterprise. And risk, to me, is what it is all about. When investment dollars (pounds for us Brits) are limited, the “established” prefer sure-fire bets (or sexy sounding techno-bubbles). In the publishing industry, celebrity offers that sure-fire bet. The use of “celebrity status” is a low-risk strategy designed to maximise the return on investment required to bring any new product to market. <br /><br />For the celebrity author, even the relative bad publicity of the likes of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/09/martine-mccutcheon-mistress-eastenders-fame" target="_new">Lynda La Plante's intervention at a recent award ceremony, which led to a wave of articles attacking celebrity authors</a> generates an interest, and the exposure of a published work to its market, and to sales! There is a natural balance to the order of things. It is an almost Newtonian-principle that for every person that sides with the view that celebrity writers steal the bread from the mouths of “real” writers, there is a person who will think differently. Publicity is indiscriminate in its audience! The “established”, the great and the good are vindicated in their investment decisions. <br /><br />I am not one to suggest that celebrity authors are taking bread from my mouth. If I had celebrity status, I would use it! So, how, as a “real” writer, do I join the fray? <br /><br />Only entrepreneurs with a passion for a market are willing to take a bet on something that isn’t a sure-fire thing! How many entrepreneurial Agents and Publishers are there out there? A few – there are always the proverbial exceptions to any rule. But for the budding new novelist, finding the needle in the haystack is a time consuming, soul destroying journey of rejection after rejection after rejection. I know, I’ve tried it. (But not for too long!)<br /><br />I look to the changing landscape of publishing as an opportunity. It is a battlefield. Business is, generally – despite all the words of corporate social responsibility and the rights of individuals. (In my other existence – as my blog posts may reveal, I write on management issues!) We are talking innovation! Innovation, Innovation, Innovation.<br /><br />The book is not dead; the new author is not dying, lying mortally wounded in the field – shot in the first charge at the enemy. <a href="http://davidsartof.blogspot.com/2009/11/innovation-publishing-in-modern-world_11.html">Read Post II, where I continue with an equally short rant on innovation.</a>davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-16391933133966574642009-10-22T19:43:00.004+01:002009-10-22T20:12:50.944+01:00A short post on... SKiP(ing) into the futureLooking for a new acronym for innovation in a knowledge economy? Forget PEST, try SKiP(ing)…<br /><br />I wrote, in an earlier post on <a href="http://davidsartof.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-innovation-and-ragged-trousers-just.html" title="Check it out" target="_new">Ragged Trousers</a>, about the fact I had based that very post on an earlier essay entitled "SKiP(ing) Into a Futurist Economy". It was loosely based on a presentation I gave to some academic staff at Sheffield Hallam University earlier this year. <br /><br />I have now made that essay available as a pdf file for <a href="http://demeter-ms.com/Downloads/ThoughtPiece-SKiPing%20into%20future.pdf">download</a> from my web site. You can read, in detail, some of my thoughts centred around innovation and, in particular, the concept of Open Innovation. In addition, I introduce SKiP as new acronym for relating to Innovation in Knowledge.davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-73891585659607618282009-10-11T22:15:00.007+01:002009-10-22T19:37:42.383+01:00The end in sight...? A publishing journey... and some kind words!Progress in reaching the publication of my first novel!<br /><br />This week I launched my new author web site: <a href="http://www.davidsartof.com">http://www.davidsartof.com</a>!<br /><br />David Sartof is my pen name, to keep my fiction writing separate from my non-fiction. And, there just seems to be so many David Atkinson's out there who write books! Who would credit it? Is the the DNA/Gene pool talking?<br /><br />Still, for those interested, the book is introduced with a book trailer - an example of the growing trend of using the capabilities of new media and the Internet to advertise books! Take a look, either through the web site or direct on <a target="_new" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lpRdalvpjC4&hl=en&fs=1&;feature=player_embedded">YouTube</a>.<br /><br />As I make the final preparations for the launch - towards the end of this year - I thought I would mark this stage in the publishing journey with some of the kind words from some other writers over at Autonomy.co.uk. These writers have all commented having read the first few chapters of River of Judgement.<br /><br /><em>"I wasn't sure if I could get into something like this, but nevertheless wanted to give it a try anyway. Glad I did! This is a very strong project; all the aspects of drama, conflict, great dialogue, excellent plot, near-perfect writing--it's all here! Sometimes taking a risk does pay off..." Anne</em><br /><br /><em>"A timely book, this. ...I thought this is a crisp, fluent read - well-developed characters dealing with topical dilemmas." Jo<br /></em><br /><em>"This writing is excellent, high finance drama in the boardroom... I was a general manager for... 15 years so I can identify. Always plenty of conflict in the boardroom, great makings for a novel. ...You have a great story working here..." Steve</em><br /><br /><em>"...I like the story [to] take me on on a journey without me knowing where it's to. Your story does that for me... It's well written and excellent characterisation" Anthony</em>davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-81348880812509820582009-07-01T10:40:00.014+01:002009-07-02T12:29:14.954+01:00Innovation: ...in a game of Chinese Whispers?Gateway to Investment (G2i) the London-based Investment Readiness Programme, have recently (1st July) issued a <a href="http://www.g2i.org/article/2009/07/uk-government-release-uk-innovation-fund-plan">post</a> relating to the UK Government's plan for a UK INNOVATION FUND .<br /><br />The G2i post prompted me to consider the game of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers">Chinese Whispers</a>.<br /><br />The essence of my observation, here, is the G2i post-writer's mention of an assumption made by Lord Drayson, the Science and Innovation minister. <em>Apparently (according to the post), Lord Drayson has championed the need for such a UK INNOVATION FUND to put an end to the equity gap in the UK, based on the assumption that the fund will "...attract more investors, entrepreneurs and companies to the UK." </em>Is this really a key objective of the fund? What does such an assumption say about the state of innovation in the UK? Are we really so devoid of our own innovative capacity, that we must now seek to import further capacity through making available public funds for "external entrepreneurs and investors" to profit from?<br /><br />But...<br /><br />All may not be as it appears... <a href="http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=431&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=404169&SubjectId=36"><strong>Government aims for £1 billion venture capital fund to invest in the businesses of the future</strong> </a><br /><br />The G2i post, I assume, was based on an earlier news release (issued by the Government's own COI); the "official" press release casts the UK INNOVATION FUND in a subtly different light. <em>"The Prime Minister has today [29 June] announced the creation of the UK Innovation Investment Fund to invest in technology-based businesses with high growth potential. The new fund will focus on investing in growing small businesses, start-ups and spin-outs, in digital and life sciences, clean technology and advanced manufacturing."</em> Significantly - to my mind - no mention is made of any assumption about the fund being used draw-in non-local/UK innovators or funding.<br /><br />The fund, it appears, rather than being targeted at drawing in such external support to UK Innovation, as might be read in the G2i post, is perceived to be required to invest in key sectors, where (UK) support will be given to the UK's most promising start-ups and existing small companies.<br /><br />Venture capital finance is frequently seen as the lifeblood of innovation; VC finance is crucial to realising the creative idea as an innovative product or service. Given the UK's investment in science and technology research, further investment is required - as put by Lord Drayson - to "...safeguard the Government's record..." in this area.<br /><br />On the face of it then, if access to venture capital is one of the critical factors in developing innovative companies, products and services in the UK, then the promise of a UK Innovation Investment Fund could be seen as a welcome addition to the options faced by British Entrepreneurs. However, does it attack the real problem? Are there enough viable UK investment propositions, backed by viable UK-based management teams, for the venture capital funds already available in the UK market place?<br /><br />Simply making more money available to invest will not address the fact that there has to be a supply of viable investment propositions available to invest in. An idea, stemming from some advanced research centre or other (commercial or academic), still needs the right team behind it. The so-called "equity gap" arises, in large part therefore, through the difficulty in finding the right people to manage right ideas through to fruition (i.e. production and delivery). Investment in a fund of funds: THE UK INNOVATION INVESTMENT FUND, will not address this very real concern.<br /><br />And my observation? Of Chinese Whispers? Well, the G2i post was brought to my attention by Twitter: a valuable networking tool. In less than 140 characters I was treated to the headline: <strong>UK Innovation Plan - solution to the equity gap or doomed to fail? </strong>But, following the embedded link in the "tweet", the G2i post merely offered what, on the face of it, appeared to be an inaccurate re-post of a formal press release. No attempt had been made to suggest the rationale for the head-line: the problematic of the investment gap.<br /><br />Given the proliferation of (inter)networking tools, there is a danger, in any re-posting of information, that the real message becomes so obscured by noise and inaccuracy, that any potential "knowledge transfer" fails; any potential debate is stifled; and the background noise that is the constant chatter and re-chatter of diluted, and ultimately meaningless, factoids and suppositions, increases - unchecked.<strong> </strong><br /><br />I like the G2i post; it draws attention to an interesting problematic in policy-driven attempts to address the UK's "equity gap". I think, however, that what would be useful in an opinion piece is more opinion and less whispered repetition.<br /><br /><strong>Solution to the equity gap or doomed to fail?</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />And my opinion? Well, the UK INNOVATION INVESTMENT FUND will neither be a failure nor a total solution: just one more option added to the complex landscape of alternative initiatives that will ensure management of the UK innovation scene will remain a commercial challenge.davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-85723447065854119372009-04-06T19:35:00.003+01:002009-04-06T19:44:55.944+01:00On innovation and ragged trousers… just a thought!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqu7EToo4kjjTZa2xYTKkFW1Zp7m02fFQqnVZuI9Eb4O3mADXVuWGIMJPDZbsfrEWZhkwPeVLBw1tp_4pFl6x53knF1j6Ij9HtC2YskwlOS8TREsKQ8tL41Mfxand8EN6DNTac3pLixRs/s1600-h/9780007204502.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5321651046050341218" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 98px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 150px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqu7EToo4kjjTZa2xYTKkFW1Zp7m02fFQqnVZuI9Eb4O3mADXVuWGIMJPDZbsfrEWZhkwPeVLBw1tp_4pFl6x53knF1j6Ij9HtC2YskwlOS8TREsKQ8tL41Mfxand8EN6DNTac3pLixRs/s200/9780007204502.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="color:#99ffff;">Robert Tressell described the “Great Money Trick” of capitalism, in his book “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, first published in 1914. This was admirably summarised by Gary Day, in his 1997 introduction to the Harper Perennial edition of the book – and I paraphrase slightly</span>:<br /><br /><em>“There are those who own the means of production, and there are those who own nothing except their labour power, which they sell in order to survive. What the workers earn is always less than the value of what they produce. Hence the owners, by selling back to the workers what they produce, continue to increase their wealth while the condition of the workers progressively deteriorates.”</em><br /><br />Now, heading towards 2014, and one hundred years on from the fictional, small bunch of painters and decorators sat around in the Cave, listening to Marxist philosophy, we may have cause to echo their sentiments.<br /><br />There is a growing concern that, as a culture, we are not innovative enough: a lack of innovation is often proffered as a cause for low productivity. Increasingly then, a common innovation strategy involves companies seeing their customers, not merely as passive consumers of innovations, but rather as contributors to the innovation process itself. This is where the ideas and insights of consumers can provide the starting point for new directions, creating new markets, products and services. Take, for example, Lego, the Danish toy manufacturer. Lego set up the Lego Factory website. Here, users can design their own model online, and have the ready-to-assemble model sent to them. The site has given Lego an effective way to capture ideas from its customer base, which are then built into mainstream products, and (re)sold in quantity. In the extreme, is this a sustainable strategy?<br /><br />I think, without a doubt, there is a place for this type of thinking and strategy, but as a basis for policy making to generally improve inclusive economic development, we could draw an interesting insight from those Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. And I will paraphrase again:<br /><br />Taken to the extreme, <em>“Lego owns the means of production… then there are others, their customers, who own nothing except their knowledge power, which, under open innovation, they no longer sell in order to survive – they give away in a globally networked, knowledge exchange process. What the knowledge workers now earn is far, far less than the value of their ideas. Hence Lego, by selling back to the knowledge workers innovations based on their own ideas, continue to increase Lego’s wealth while, relatively, the condition of the knowledge workers progressively deteriorates.”</em><br /><br />Culture is about the people; and it is at the level of the people that creativity takes place. In the SME community of my own experience, the focus should be about people, not so much about process. There is a place for process of course, but in fostering innovation, and its root of creativity, knowledge workers should be engaged and encouraged to participate in a general, innovative culture. This will require principles better aligned to fair trade ideals, than some ideological notion of a global network for the free exchange of ideas.<br /><br />I have based this post on a short essay. If there is any interest, I will consider making the full essay available.davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-18187025289132731702009-02-16T11:44:00.002+00:002009-02-18T13:54:07.000+00:001909 - The Future and all that...“We will sing of great crowds excited by work, by pleasure, and by riot; we will sing of the multicoloured polyphonic tides of revolution in the modern capitals; we will sing of the vibrant nightly fervour of arsenals and shipyards blazing with violent electric moons; greedy railway stations that devour smoke-plumed serpents; factories hung from clouds by the crooked lines of their smoke; bridges that stride the rivers like giant gymnasts, flashing in the sun with the glitter of knives; adventurous steamers that sniff the horizon; deep-chested locomotives whose wheels paw the tracks like the hooves of enormous steel horses bridled by tubing; and the sleek flight of planes whose propellers chatter in the wind like banners and seem to cheer like an enthusiastic crowd.’<br /><br />Filippo Tommaso Marinetti (1876-1944), ‘The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism’,<br />Le Figaro, 20 February 1909<br /><br />As Caroline Tisdall and Angelo Bozzolla wrote in 1977 (Futurism: Thames and Hudson Ltd), the Italian Futurist project was a “…hectic herald of the recurrent concern in the art of our times to equate art and life, an equation which still remains unresolved.”<br /><br />How apposite. We could sing the Futurist Manifesto in this current age – albeit with different images: try green industries, ethical banking, and social entrepreneurship to name just a few. The image of modern wind-power farms, their multitudinous sails,<a href="http://aardvarkpoetry.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-view-of-wind-farm.html"> a revolution, of colossal white ghosts, marking their own time,</a> casts just as much an evocation of industrial enterprise as deep-chested locomotives, whose wheels paw the tracks. If we look at 21st Century Art though, we might argue that the equation linking art and life has become far more obfuscated than that the Futurist’s struggled with.<br /><br />We have an economic culture that drives processes for maximum efficiency; we use technology to intercede wherever we can bring it to bear, in maximising return on investment. We seek skilled labour to operate stream-lined processes. We no longer educate to think, but to do. We outsource customer service to script-driven resolution. We forget shades of grey in a drive to the black and white of a digital society. We no longer connect Art to life – there is no room for Art in the process-driven juggernaut of commerce. But, what happens when the wheel comes of that tumbling juggernaut of commerce – when we have no flexibility to adapt, since we have designed all such flexibility out of our systematised life.<br /><br />If the current economic climate teaches us anything, perhaps connecting life to Art would be a good place to start. Present investment in innovation concentrates on developing new ideas. This is all well and good – new ideas develop into new businesses and new opportunity. But, we neglect investment in innovation in existing businesses – we create new dinosaurs at our economic peril. Art is about change, about envisaging a reality different to the one we are in. Where is the art in your work?davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-76920484983791538762008-11-16T20:34:00.009+00:002008-11-28T09:30:23.165+00:00River of Judgement...<span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153);font-family:georgia;" ><strong>Murder, drink, divorce, bankruptcy and love threaten in the unfolding drama of a city-executive as he looses control of his business and his life.<br /></strong></span><br />Well, the first draft of <a href="http://davidsartof.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html">River of Judgment </a>is now complete and, having set a target of 80,000 words for this novel, I came in surprisingly close with 85000.<br /><br />I have looked back over the statistics... outline of plot 30 August 08 - on a spread-sheet of all places – well I am an engineer! The outline was then developed, off and on, over September before I then started to write out a detailed plot treatment. The file date-stamps on my trusty lap-top tell me that I started to write the first chapter in anger on 11 October, and finished the first complete draft on 12 November.<br /><br />I must add that I have had the advantage of being able to devote my full time to this project; otherwise I might still be writing the novel this time next year.<br /><br />Apparently, having now read a bit about writing novels – as opposed to academic/non-fiction – there are two camps: the plotters and the non-plotters. Armed with my spread-sheet outline plot, with its section and chapter analysis, I must clearly be of the former persuasion. Without some form of plan I would have found great difficulty in ensuring that I had covered the various angles without veering off-course.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153);">Has this anything to do with management? …Perhaps.<br /></span></strong><br />As I have covered in “<a href="http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=0230553745">Thinking the Art of Management</a>”, in July 1994 the Chairman of The Walt Disney Company, Michael Eisner, struggled to fill the void of Disney’s President, Frank Wells’ unexpected and untimely death in a helicopter accident. Notwithstanding Michael’s overwhelming sense of sadness and loss, he told of his anger at Frank, for Frank’s death, for <em>‘…[Frank’s] not [being] around to help [him] deal with a very difficult situation…’</em> Indeed, less than 36-hours following Frank’s death, Jeffrey Katzenberg, the de facto Number 3 in the ranks of Disney executives, had apparently laid the ultimatum on Michael Eisner that <em>‘…Either [he got] Frank’s job as president… or [he was] going to leave the [Disney].’</em><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Work-Progress-Michael-Eisner/dp/0375500715">[From Eisner, M. (1999) ‘Work in Progress’, New York: Hyperion.]<br /></a><br />I have commented that, even under “normal” business conditions, within the managerial narrative the challenge of management and organizational practice is often about the introduction of change to achieve some vision, purpose or function. If we then consider the inevitability of unexpected management scenarios, such as that painted by Eisner, even the best efforts to manage effectively become prone to ambiguity, emotion and seeming irrationality.<br /><br />Thus it is with <a href="http://davidsartof.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html">River of Judgment </a> where I explore the ambiguity, emotion and seeming irrationality that arises when a city executive is faced with an unfolding drama that is not of his choosing. SO! OK! The murder is a bit over the top… but then it is a novel and I have to appeal to a fictional readership!davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-51296215590153557572008-10-24T09:20:00.008+01:002008-11-16T23:34:40.330+00:00From thinking management to creating management...<div>Well, here goes... I have decided on a career change - number ? in a series from 1 to ??<br /><br />In <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=0230553745"><em>Thinking the Art of Management</em></a> I have written about the concept of fiction as a means of delivering new objective ideas into any real world scenario (and I use that word "real" with all the caveats imaginable - what is real?). Fiction is a powerful tool for communication: the creation of an imaginary idea that, with a process of socialisation, sets up a realm of the possible.<br /><br />For example: where do we - or you - as an individual or corporate body want to be in five years time? That is fiction. A business plan is fiction. And, to me, the most successful fiction is that which I can relate to, get engaged with and so on. Fiction only works as a communication tool when its audience can engage with it. To Ruskin, the greatest art was that which conveyed to the mind of the audience, the greatest number of the greatest ideas.<br /><br />So, my next project is an overt work of fiction: a novel. I am busy writing an 80,000 word suspense novel set in the world of management. It is, I have to admit, being written with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">commerciality</span> in mind. I certainly do not intend to pass it off as some form of alternative management text. However, I hope that my work will stir the imagination in its final readership.<br /><br /><br /><br /></div><ul><br /><br /><li><strong><span style="color:#ffcc00;">River of Judgement</span></strong> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkVHnJKMSWFoVEt-er2hUpRef-Bu0e57KP9HcBx14nDalP5tBC4dpEuDOmjm0Yj3GevXVmNE2EKdd4DsXLNGj03lQM6QpKxetjqYv6HayaoAt1BVpeLVW-8Iu10o9Iap451xtXUIRn6Ko/s1600-h/RIVER4.jpg"></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpyitXCplxYWYv6NnkiyoGsBqKOfQHsza5fj-SZyPEAXyJjEhqiTVauMJ_LJnAbFOkrzKQ5EEvGVMBFI3kKbWmT8zPXiUSEr_g248pmrbAWZxEbcqwQ2wqY6WrKyTMra7pYOEMHjeKFHs/s1600-h/book_0001_NO+LOGOsml.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5269402386938518802" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 80px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 120px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpyitXCplxYWYv6NnkiyoGsBqKOfQHsza5fj-SZyPEAXyJjEhqiTVauMJ_LJnAbFOkrzKQ5EEvGVMBFI3kKbWmT8zPXiUSEr_g248pmrbAWZxEbcqwQ2wqY6WrKyTMra7pYOEMHjeKFHs/s320/book_0001_NO+LOGOsml.gif" border="0" /></a><br />Doing business in the city can be a dirty game – it is for FINN JACKSON, chief executive of Tiger Oil. When company chairman GRAYSON BARCLAY forces his exit in a board room coup, Finn’s world is turned upside down. Overnight Finn goes from entrepreneur on the brink of making it rich to near bankrupt and, faced with nothing else left to lose, he is a man backed into a corner. Finn has no plan and few friends in the city; he is learning every step of the way. Friends turn to enemies and new relationships are forged – including the beautiful Welsh litigation lawyer, LYNETH JONES, and ALEXA STUART, the gorgeous wife of his friend and business partner AARON PHILIPS. From the Peace River oilfields in Alberta to the City of London, Finn fights to regain control of what he has lost; he is a man with a mission -he needs to get even.</li></ul><p><br />More later... But, as the saying goes, if any one is interested in learning more - drop me a note.</p>davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-57061080329895744572008-09-02T13:25:00.003+01:002008-09-02T13:39:08.154+01:00Dancing Organisations...This is just a brief post to draw attention to a recently published paper in the Journal <a href="http://info.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=md">Management Decision</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=AB43795167E12BCD1865065E00186C8F?contentType=Article&contentId=1736816">Dancing “the management”: on social presence, rhythm and finding common purpose</a><br /><br />In an early post last year - <a href="http://davidsartof.blogspot.com/2007/07/view-from-wien-2-on-dancing.html">A View from Wien (2)</a> - I drew attention to some work-in-progress. This was a conceptual essay exploring the concept of dance as it might be used (metaphorically) in exploring organisational management.<br /><br />I merely draw attention now to its published status for those who may wish to read into this topic in more detail.<br /><br />Kind regards<br /><br />Daviddavidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-62974392246589889552008-03-17T17:09:00.002+00:002008-03-17T17:19:31.928+00:00"A shark in formaldehyde?": With a title like that… …why "Change”?<p>I read with great interest the title of a recent column by James B. Rieley on Emerald Management First: <a href="http://first.emeraldinsight.com/change_management/articles/rieley_shark.htm">“A shark in formaldehyde?”</a> How could I resist such a title? I looked on in further interest as I read:<br /><br />"And in the art world, it stimulated the question, “is it art?” A similar question arises from most change programmes; “when is a change effort really creating a new environment and not simply as effective as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?”...<br /><br />However, while James Rieley provided a good call on the art metaphor in his column’s title and opening remarks, I felt that it did not capitalise on the value of the metaphor itself.<br /><br />James’ use of the art metaphor was to adress a question posed by another reader of his column: "how can I show [my management] what they really need to do if they don’t see it themselves?’ The point being made is that there is a precursor to this question. The initial question to be asked is "how can I show them what I believe they need to see?" This is straight out of the art world - a question which artists, their critics, patrons and historians have struggled for many years to come to terms with.<br /><br />My own argument, which I do not see as contradictory to the point James was making, is that the art metaphor can be used to examine "how we see". How do we (...or at least some people!) come to see Damien Hirst's shark as art? Can we use the same reasoning that an "Artworld" might use to persuade us that the Hirst "shark" is Art to adress this precursory question of “what should we see”?<br /><br />The danger, from my own writing, is that once something like Damian Hirst's Shark is accepted as an "Artwork" by the established "Artworld" it gives licence to the phenomenon that copies of Damian Hirst’s Shark Set in Formaldehyde sell at multiples of the original’s value (see quote below). And there we have, I suggest, part of what is wrong with much of the consultancy industry, and the notion of change for change's sake.<br /><br />Indeed, when I asked James about this he was kind enough to largely agree with me, particularly on the point about the consultancy industry. As James expressed it to me, he saw the goal of many consultancies as being to “breed an addictive environment, in which the client begins to believe that its only sound option is to keep the consultants onboard.”<br /><br />The answer to the question “how can I show them what they need to see” provides a scource of potential realisation, overcoming the problematic of “how can I show them what they need to do”. This is, however, not simply a matter of adopting some pre-determined “cultural change” practices in order to manage change. Unless a vision for change is, first and foremost, both rooted and cultivated within the present culture, no amount of subsequent consultancy will persuade some organisational doubters that the emperor now has new clothes.</p><p> </p><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>The Sunday Times, March 19, 2006: ‘Hirst earns £2m at the shark factory’. It was reported that Damien Hirst is to earn £24m [sic] by turning out versions of the works that made his name in the 1990s as the leader of the Young British Artist movement. A version of the “pickled shark”, 1/3 size, sold for £2.28m, 45 times more than the artist first received for the original work.</em></span>davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-69242428269875732712008-01-17T18:01:00.001+00:002008-01-17T18:10:22.465+00:00Does business ignore the business schools?The following blog is based on a letter I wrote to the Financial Times newspaper on 16th January – though it was not published by them.<br /><br />Following an article by columnist <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/215022b8-bd2c-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1">Michael Skapinker</a> (January 7), I ask the question: does “…business [really ignore] business schools”? Or is it simply that business merely ignores such academic outputs as at suggested by the title “A multi-level investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary spanning behaviour”. After all, MBAs are products of business schools, and these are simply not ignored by business.<br /><br />The issue Michael writes about is a perenial one within the area of management research and education. There is a perceived gap between the usefulness of much management education emanating from the academic business schoole and the application of that research in management practice. The same gap is not perceived to exist in other professional fields such as engineers, doctors and lawyers – where the academic output of their schools is understood to be of greater relevance to practice, with journals avidly read by practioners.<br /><br />However, following a response by Rita Gunther McGrath’s in “The upside to business schools” (January 14), I also ask: is it a little too reactionary and simplistic to cast aside such insight as Michael Skapinker’s observation on law versus management as a professional occupation? A counter argument based merely on the apparently different career structures of lawyers v business people misses, I believe, an opportunity to build on Mr Skapinker’s observation.<br /><br />Key, I think, to Mr Skapinker’s argument lies within the closure of his piece.<br /><br />“The reason that real-life lawyers, doctors and engineers have no problem with their research is not because they are smarter than business people, but because the research assists them in what they do. Lawyers and doctors proceed from a corpus of knowledge and build on it. They look at what their colleagues do and try to do it better.” With this premiss, I – as an ex-engineer – heartily agree.<br /><br />However a second premiss concerning the predictability of material is, I believe, somewhat flawed. One can look at the entertainment value in the medical television series “House” to see the plausibility of a certain medical unpredictability, with symptoms and causality being difficult to correlate. Also, the nature of much that is legal work is dealing with exceptions, arguing new conclusions from both extant precedent and new evidence. Mysteries as challenging as the social phenomenon that is management practice, can, in practice, be found in all professional walks of life.<br /><br />Here we can perhaps note what most “historically” established professions appear to have understood, for some time, is that while many of the essential skills of a profession – be they medical, engineering or legal skills – can be readily taught in a classroom, the “qualified practioner” requires both structured practical training and professional experience. While it may be common to site the 6 or so years it takes to qualify as a medical practioner, certainly in the UK it can also take some 6years to gain status as a Chartered Engineer. Lawyers too, also require to sit professional exams based on practice and gain experience under supervision before being qualifed to practice.<br /><br />Much of what is achieved in developing professional capability is the application of a body of aquired knowledge to a situation at hand to achieve a desired outcome. This capability requires attention to reason, logic and argument – all skills grounded in philosophy and embedded in the study of the law, medicine and engineering. In short, professional practice requires the learning of how to create new knowledge on the fly. Doing becomes epistemic.<br /><br />“Managers tend to be practical…” yes! But, I argue, so are practioners of medicine, law and engineering. Management practice can build on “competitors’ achievements”, and the best doctors, engineers, lawyers and managers will also often seek to do something different. The difference, I argue, between managers and others is that the relatively young “profession” of management (both those that aspire to it and those who aspire to teach it) have not accepted, to the same degree as the others, that achieving professional competance is a greater matter than the mere acquisition of knowledge.<br /><br />Those in Management Academe who are concerned (for not all are) that work on such esoteric micro-concerns as “a multi-level investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary spanning behaviour” must understand that there is much that can be done, academically, to develop the knowledge of practice rather than mere knowledge itself.<br /><br />Does business ignore business schools? I would argue not. Business merely ignores what does not appear useful to them in practice. The development of an understanding of epistemic practice requires, however, such “backward-looking” analysis as “Harvard’s case study method”. The challenge is therefore not for academe to “struggle to tell us what innovators will do next”, and neither should business require that of academe. The challenge is, rather, for academe to also develop knowledge about how others can arrive at their own new knowledge through practice. Managers also need to “proceed from a corpus of knowledge and [to learn to] build on it”.<br /><br />Daviddavidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-70811229866605178302007-11-29T15:46:00.000+00:002007-11-29T15:53:31.652+00:00… breaking through paradigms?This is not a resumption of full time blogging... but:<br /><br />A reader of one of my earlier posts asked “What is your opinion… upon the focus of The Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society (SCIS) as one example of breaking through paradigms”.<br /><br />Not actually being familiar with <a href="http://www.scis-calibrate.org/About_The_individual_and_society.htm">The Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society (SCIS)</a> I decided to look them up. What follows in response, is therefore a mere reflection of a first impression.<br /><br />I quote from the SCIS web site. <span style="color:#993399;">‘…The terms "individual" and "society" have given rise to many definitions and conceptualisations. Manifold are the proposed interconnections and causal relationships between the two… [The SCIS] think that "the individual and society" does not narrow down possibilities as much [as the individual in society].’</span> The “individual <strong><em>and</em></strong> society” or the “individual <strong><em>in</em></strong> society” that is the question…!<br /><br />What I see here is the SCIS choice, at a conceptual level, to reify (in some way) the conceptual position of the conjunction <strong><em>“and”</em></strong> as superior and more all-embracing than a consideration of the conjunction <strong><em>“in”</em></strong>. An interesting and, to a point, noble attempt at a new focus. But is this, as my questioner suggests, in any sense “breaking through paradigms”?<br /><br />The positioning of the individual in society, as SCIS relates, <span style="color:#993399;">‘…assumes a number of things and prioritises certain theoretical bases…’</span> Yes (perhaps)! But cannot the same be said about the individual and society? Conceptually, is not a society to be wholly construed as a conjunction of many individuals and “the” individual therefore exists wholly within “a” society? If this is the case does not the individual and society pose a problematic relationship of the individual in a sense comparable with society on its own terms?<br /><br />If we consider the two objects of our interest, there are in fact four logically possible states of interest. Firstly, we have the state where neither the individual nor society exists. Of course this state provides little of real interest in the context of this present discussion. In the second and third states we may consider each object separately from its other: that is to say, secondly, we consider merely the individual without regard to society and, thirdly, we consider society without regard to the individual. In the fourth state we place the individual “and” society in conjunction.<br /><br />To turn to my reader’s question: In my own opinion, consideration of the “individual <strong><em>in </em></strong>society” is the difficult task of the holistic, non-separate, consideration of both the individual and society in this conjunctive, fourth state. Any separation of the “individual” <strong><em>and</em></strong> “society”, beit in the second or third states, is no more than a function of a rationalistic drive for determining characteristics of the individual and society that will provide insight into the <span style="color:#993399;">“proposed interconnections and causal relationships between the two”</span>.<br /><br />I think, therefore, that what is proposed by SCIS is no example of “breaking through paradigms”. Yet SCIS does propose a valid attempt at reconciling rationalistic thinking to a new whole; the problem being that this new whole is a socially constructed ontology of rationalistic abstractions; it does, in my belief, miss something of the richness of context that can only be retained by studying the “in” that cannot be resolved to any set of constitutive elements.<br /><br />Without the “one” there can be no “other” and the problematic might be seen, not as a narrowing of possibilities of a study of the in, but as a lack of an effective paradigm for its realisation.davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-4808191159198512222007-10-09T10:32:00.000+01:002007-10-25T23:18:54.475+01:00A temporary pause in activity...After operating with this blog site for a few months, it has become quite clear to me that - in terms of priority - I have many activities that require my resource and that this blog quickly falls down the list of "must do" tasks, particularly as I contemplate the launch of a new business venture.<br /><br />I do hope to come back to these pages in the not-to-far-distant future, but for the time being - rather than give the impression of having just faded into nothingness - I felt some form of post appropriate at this juncture!davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-61044947262402753732007-07-18T17:20:00.000+01:002007-07-19T09:09:09.237+01:00A (personal) view on Imagination@Lancaster...<a href="http://krconnect.blogspot.com/">Kevin Roberts</a> of Saatchi and Saatchi has written on his involvement with a new project: Imagination@Lancaster. I have commented that this is a worthwhile and potentially exciting project and one that I look forward to seeing its products and progress with some eager anticipation. However, call me skeptical if you like, but do I detect something of a recent drift in emphasis? Certainly, I do if I read Kevin's recent post literally.<br /><br />Initially we were treated <a href="http://krconnect.blogspot.com/2007/06/imaginationlancaster.html">Friday, June 22, 2007</a> to the possibility that Imagination@Lancaster would provide a forum for the reimagination of '…the way universities interact with industry and government, and the impact we could all have by pooling resources in one university'. This is, from my own point of view, a noble and worthwhile aim that seeks to adress a specific area of social reality - the boundary between diverse yet socially critical realities. It is an aim with at least a focus.<br /><br />We are now (<a href="http://krconnect.blogspot.com/2007/07/imaginationlancaster-journey-gets.html">Tuesday, July 17, 2007</a>) treated to a process of translation and diffusion – where the dream for Imagination@Lancaster is apparently now '…to be a global leader in imagining new concepts and new collaborations for the common good'. Are we missing something in translation? I fear we have at least (from my own point of view admittedly) lost the noble focus of our noble cause.<br /><br />The world (we might assume from Kevin) is clearly bereft of creative ideas and our potential saviours are – we are encouraged to read – a '...bunch of collaborators with a total commitment to sustainability'. A noble cause, yes! But the mere possession of a strong will to act as passionate catalysts to bring the future into the present simply introduces a design for some new grand narrative. Is the pooling of this '...intellectual, passionate capability...' a rejection of the “potential of all” to contribute to '...the brining of the future into the present'? This might unfortunately be read as a rejection of social potential of “Stalinist” proportions.<br /><br />Kevin Roberts writes that core to the Imagination@Lancaster team is the belief that '…creativity happens at the boundaries, the exceptional is in the everyday, and that uncertain ground is the place to be if you revel in a challenge.' We do not want, may I suggest, that the Imagination@Lancaster team become '…a global leader in imagining new concepts and new collaborations for the common good'. Neither do we need the application of their power, and their clear potential, to show how others can begin to imagine new concepts and new collaborations for the common good – we are all capable of creativity and using our imagination.<br /><br />What is really required is a focus for the facilitation of collaborative government/industry/academic strategies, policies and action for the creation of new spaces for play; space within which all of society can participate (voluntarily) if they so wish, rather than the apparent suggestion that our future is to be created by only a select few!<br /><br />Actually, I have a strong belief that Kevin's intention was not to suggest that the Imagination@Lancaster team was, in some way, a reified collection of individuals with some grand design on the world. I still await more on this potentially groundbreaking idea! The question for me remains the retention of an appropriate focus.davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-34245777065305216952007-07-14T14:12:00.000+01:002007-07-14T14:17:05.042+01:00A View from Wien (2): On Dancing Organisations!In this second post relating to my attendance at the 23rd Colloquium of the European Group for Organisational Studies: Beyond Waltz – Dances of Individuals and Organisation, I want to look at the notion that organisations might be brought to dance to their own melody.<br /><br />I have written, in a work-in-progress essay, that the synergy and rhythm that might be identifiable in the social negotiation of an organisation’s common purpose can be metaphorically likened to an organisational performance of dance. Here I use the concept of “dance” as it generally refers to patterns of human or animal movement occurring in a form of expression, social interaction, or some other form or method of non-verbal communication.<br /><br />The associated concept of “rhythm” within a dance can be interpreted as the variation in length and accentuation of a series of sounds or other events. Here rhythm involves patterns of duration that are phenomenologically present in such events and, seen in this light, both the concepts of rhythm and dance are inextricably linked. I might therefore surmise that forms of “dance” may be seen as being dependent on social, cultural, aesthetic, artistic and moral constraints. They range from functional movement (such as Folk dance) to virtuoso techniques (such as ballet).<br /><br />Within the colloquium, a number of people sought to draw correlations between organisation and various forms of dancing; they sought to provide insight into how organisations might be read through these forms. Thus, taking one case in point, I was party to a basic lesson in the Argentinean Tango: a dance of passion! Here I was encouraged to think about how entrepreneurial managers are required to lead their organizations through exploring the passion implicit in that dance. Other dance forms were discussed. However, perhaps the most enlightening experience for me was a session with <a href="http://www.konnexwien.at/en/team/index_2.php">Aurelia Staub</a>, the Artistic Director of the <a href="http://www.konnexwien.at/">Konnex Dance Theatre</a>.<br /><br />With Aurelia, our colloquium sub-group of some 20 people were not so much introduced to additional and specific dance forms, but more to the basic concepts of movement in space and time within a group environment. In a simple exercise, we were all led to the “dance floor” – a lecture room where tables and chairs had been cleared away. With only the simplest basic movements (forwards, left, right and backwards) and constrained by the boundaries of the room and the proviso that no collisions were allowed between people, we proceeded to move – in our own choice of direction – around the room. Observable from this exercise was the distinct possibility that people, given a degree of freedom, yet operating within certain basic protocols, could generate new and meaningful patterns of movement in which co-operation was implicit and the patterns themselves indicated a form of natural rhythm. <br /><br />Can organisations be made to dance? Yes! My own belief is that the question for organisational research is not what dances are being practiced but, in order to better support managers in practice, how can we encourage the emergence of an organisation’s natural “dance” movement, and how might this dance then be choreographed within a shared common purpose.davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-84094066904428483132007-07-10T10:58:00.000+01:002007-07-10T11:00:41.504+01:00A view from Wien: The Death of an Art?<p>Last week I had the good fortune to enjoy a formal reception and dinner in the roof-top Justizcafé of the Justizpalast in Vienna. I dined in the company of some bright new minds in management and organisational research, drawn from many of the top universities of the European states, and including some others from around the world – from Australia, Brazil, USA, and Canada.<br /><br />While – like me – there were a few older “newly qualified” academics, the majority demonstrated the real potential of a younger generation to contribute many, many years of dedication to developing the body of management and organisational knowledge. The diversity of talent at that dinner was impressive; like children, their futures stretched out before them. Talking to a number of them, both during the reception and dinner and before, during the earlier events of that day, you could see and hear the passion they held for their subject matter.<br /><br />Following that dinner, and in a less formal grouping – enjoying a simple meal and beers in central Vienna – I reflected on the prequel to the 23rd Colloquium of the European Group of Organisational Studies, in which newly qualified PhD graduates, and those still in the process of study, had been given the opportunity to discuss their work with a faculty of established European academics. I recalled – not for the first nor, I doubt, the last time – Picasso’s notion that every child is an artist; the problem is how to retain the artist in them once he or she grows up. Here, to be metaphorical, in my presence were some of the talented child-artists of the academic world.</p><p>It is ironic that, given the state of funding of academic institutions – particularly in the business and management schools into which these new academics are beginning to find their way – the expectations placed on academics to publish in only “certain” recognised A grade publications, or to produce research output that meets the “requirements” of sponsors, can seemingly act to constrain the freedom of thought and interpretation that acts to reveal new knowledge. Is the space between the academic world and the business world being eroded to such an extent that it is no-longer a space for creative play? If we lose this space at the expense of making the academic world a potential profit centre – as with any other market place – are we seeing the death of yet another artform?</p>davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-90477107282515277162007-06-29T17:15:00.001+01:002007-06-29T17:32:01.233+01:00No bigger idea than advertising?<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://krconnect.blogspot.com/2007/06/bigger-idea-than-advertising.html"></a>In <a href="http://krconnect.blogspot.com/2007/06/bigger-idea-than-advertising.html">“A bigger idea than advertising” Kevin Roberts (June 26<sup>th</sup>)</a> wrote:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:85%;">“Slowly. People are no longer interested in being preached to about functional benefits and features [of products]. In their lives they are looking for connections and that’s what they expect from brands they care about. We call those brands Lovemarks. We are heading from the Attention Economy to the Attraction Economy where Lovemarks thrive. In the Attraction Economy, advertising agencies have to step up and out, or be buried.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">My own view is that people have never been interested, whatsoever, about being preached to about anything, unless of course – and the BIG example here is religion – those people are fully engaged (read “connected” if you like) with a product in the first place (and I use the word product in the broadest possible sense).<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">It is not “slowly the people” but “slowly the advertisers”. It may well be “a bigger idea than advertising” but it is not Kevin’s, Saatchi & Saatchi’s or any other “ex”-advertising executives’ idea that people are looking for connections in their lives. If it were, some of the real social thinkers of this world (may I mention Weber?) might need to be reassessed! I think not!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Is it really a case of Kevin’s notion that:</p> <p class="MsoNormal">“…it’s not about what brands can use to reach consumers, it’s about what consumers are prepared to engage with…”? </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Or, is it merely a case of:</p> <p class="MsoNormal">“…it’s about what brands can use to reach consumers WHO they BELIEVE are prepared to CONSIDER an engagement with them”?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I would contend that the concepts of Attention and Attraction Economies are not a feature of social evolution but a particular “social construct” of the “marketing world” itself. More accurately we could perhaps talk of Attention Marketing and Attraction Marketing. But then what is the difference behind these two signs? </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Are we “grabbing” social attention or do we simply start with attention as a given? If we <b style="">have</b> attention we are in a de facto position of engagement, where the “consumer” is implicitly seeking more knowledge about “…functional benefits and features [of products]” Call this preaching to the converted if you may! As an “evolutionary process” we may look back in time and note that the “Attraction Economy” could simply be a reflection of a world in which far fewer products existed and where any product would, if highlighted to the consumer in some way, “demand attention”. In contemporary society where we now know everything, where we can now “buy” anything and everything, where the range of products, prices and quality create confusion no product “demands attention”.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">The brand issue is, if we do not have attention, we must seek to attract!<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">The evolution? The evolution is the realization, within the marketing world – not the consumer – that before a consumer’s Kantian “disinterested” engagement with the brand’s world – they (the “marketers”) need to establish the “beauty” factor!<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">After the attraction, the engagment and the marriage! The brand's products, their “…functional benefits and features...” will be King. (Even if - in an increasingly dispoable society - they are King for only a day!). But before love comes beauty! And the cynic in me tells me that the sign “Lovemarks” is no more than a beautiful force for attracting agency clients as consumers of branding products. Beauty is, after all, axiomatically in the eye of the beholder! <span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></p>davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-28920878632294097082007-06-28T11:54:00.000+01:002007-06-28T11:58:46.654+01:00"A Brown business world?" or "A view from a small business (2)"<p class="MsoNormal">So, Gordon Brown is “…poised to appoint a string of <st1:country-region><st1:place>Britain</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s most senior business figures to a new advisory committee to guide policy-making and to strengthen Labour’s relationship with the business world.” (<span class="byline">The Times,</span> <st1:date year="200" day="28" month="6">June 28, 200</st1:date>)<o:p></o:p></p> <p>Question! While the heads of the <st1:country-region><st1:place>UK</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s largest public companies are clearly well positioned to advise Gordon Brown on his policies and to point out areas where government action is hindering <st1:country-region><st1:place>Britain</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s competitiveness, is their perspective the only valuable one! </p> <p>What about the smaller business?</p> <p>In the <st1:country-region><st1:place>UK</st1:place></st1:country-region>, the SME sector is of great importance. The Department of Trade and Industry’s own information notes that we (the SME businesses of the UK-unite) account for around 60% of our GDP and around 58% of all employment. The larger firms (those employing over 250 people) – from whose leadership Gordon’s proposed committee is drawn – account for just 0.2% of the 4.3 million companies in the <st1:country-region><st1:place>UK</st1:place></st1:country-region>. We smaller firms (employing less than 50 people) account for around 99% of all firms. I would venture to suggest, here, that our (SME) views of the world of UK business and the requirements to improve our competitiveness are subtly different to the Amstrads, the Marks & Spencers, the Tesco’s and the Vodafones et al.</p> <p>In my own sector of interest, the actions of the larger firms are destroying the competitive landscape for the SME. The disproportionate power wielded by the larger organizations, particularly in being able to negotiate better supplier rates, is corrosive to the survival prospects of the smaller firm, who now has to consider whether or not to become a potential acquisition target in a race for consolidation. Yet the larger organisations are frequently cited as the worst offenders in terms of maintaining service levels. Local suppliers serving local communities – a distributed model – often wins hands down in maintaining quality of service. There is clearly a balance to be struck. I neither advocate a world in which we only ever envisage a cottage industry mentality, nor do I advocate that the SME sector is merely relegated to a role as an incubator, developing yet more seedlings for the voracious appetite of the corporate machine.</p> <p>There is a perennial cry concerning the competitiveness of the <st1:country-region><st1:place>UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> economy. If we, the SME sector are as important as the corporate sector, yet we are neither to be swallowed up nor allowed to dominate policy, then we should surely be part of Gordon’s consideration. Should we not? </p> <p>But I have no answer here (yet)! I am, after all, an SME business owner, struggling with the day-to-day issues of the survival of an SME business in a highly competitive environment. What time is there, for any of SME owner to contribute to the debate that so effects us? </p>davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-70423230081280089152007-06-27T18:39:00.000+01:002007-06-27T19:49:23.057+01:00View from a small business (1)<p class="MsoNormal">Aside from my "freelance thinking", I am also a hands-on entrepreneur/business owner-manager. My own (service-sector) business has developed from a single-person consultancy – in which I provided project and risk management consultancy services under sub-contract to major European and UK-based engineering projects – to a specialist mergers and acquisitions business. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Together with the more philosophical posts on this blog, I also hope to bring some sense of an SME’s reality to the fore – a personally perspective of being “in business”. What is it that I, as a business manager, find to be of concern to me? Am I bothered about the amount of “red tape”? How did I go about some aspect of my business; how was it that I solved some particular issue? Here, in the spirit of co-operation and mutual support, I also welcome any comment on this thread in the form of a new question that invites an answer. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">However, to close this initial post, at the launch of the <st1:place><st1:placename>Northern</st1:PlaceName> <st1:placename>Leadership</st1:PlaceName> <st1:placetype>Academy</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> I happened to meet with a most interesting individual. Our conversation turned to what I (and he) believed to be the most pressing concern of any small business trying to grow. How do I, as a small (unknown and perhaps unproven) business, attract the funds to develop new business ideas and concepts? This is not about leadership – unless one wants to examine who might lead in this case – it is about the raising of capital investment under conditions of risk. This particular individual commented that he had recently been involved with the establishment of a multi-million pound, grant-funded business development scheme. Such “venture finance” schemes are potentially the life-blood of innovation – certainly a potential contributor to any perceived economic “gap-closing” (regional or otherwise). Yet, where is the leadership required to develop innovation in the face of financial institutions and fund-managers that exhibit excessively risk-averse attitudes to investment? In the <st1:country-region><st1:place>UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> there is at least a perception that our venture finance sector can be so risk-averse that they collectively feel their first role is the protection of the funds against adverse risk.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";">In my own business I was able to secure finance under the Government-assisted Small Firms Loan Scheme (as administered by the major </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size:100%;"> banks). However, although my “new” business was less than 2 years old at the time of borrowing, as a legal entity (a private limited company) the company had existed for over 5. Changes in the Small Firms Loan lending rules now mean that while my business (at the time of writing) is “technically” still less than 3 years old, the company is no longer eligible for further such financing. The increase in the use of set “protocols” for the determination of decisions reduces the opportunity for the “intelligent” application of reason. It is a symptom of a risk-averse society in which we are increasingly devaluing the contribution of individual thought. We are continually constrained by policies that are driven by generalised, empiric observation. Is a potential net-effect a society where we no-longer need leadership (in business or politics)?</span></span></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size:100%;"></span> </span>davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-43736864959791146602007-06-27T18:02:00.001+01:002007-06-27T18:14:25.230+01:00Can an organisation dance?I shall shortly be traveling to Vienna, to the 23<sup>rd</sup> Colloquium<b><b> </b></b>of the<b><b> European Group for Organizational Studies: </b></b><b><b>Beyond Waltz – Dances of Individuals and Organization</b></b>.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">While I am not formally presenting at that colloquium, I am (as a newly qualified PhD) participating in a special </span><span style="font-size:100%;">early career scholars workshop. There, an essay I am currently working on will receive some critical review. I hope, either from Vienna or shortly after, to add some personal commentary on the proceedings and some thoughts about dancing organisations. Did Marx have a point? </span> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: right;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%;">“These petrified [social] conditions must be forced to dance <o:p></o:p></span></i></span></p><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: right;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%;">by singing to them their own melody.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></span></p><div style="text-align: right;"> <span style="font-size:100%;"><b style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";">Marx</span></b></span></div>davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2237766271142604614.post-57351097201907027632007-06-27T15:46:00.000+01:002007-06-27T18:15:52.139+01:00On leadership and the value of childhood...<p class="MsoNormal">On June 19th I attended the launch of the <a href="http://www.northernleadershipacademy.co.uk/"><st1:place><st1:placename>Northern</st1:placename> <st1:placename>Leadership</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>Academy</st1:placetype></st1:place></a>. My motivation for this visit was a mixture of my "alumni" connection with <st1:place><st1:placename>Lancaster</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>University</st1:placetype></st1:place> and a natural<span style=""> <span lang="EN-GB">curiosity</span></span> over what the NLA is to be about.<br /><br />"The north is lagging behind economically and needs more, and better, leadership at entry level to help close this multi-billion pound productivity gap".<br /><br />I believe that what is missing from this statement of need is the word "discuss".<br /><br />If the academic world - into which the NLA is set - is to help provide answers to this statement of need, is it best to take the traditional approach of academic research and set about investigating - in some empiric detail - the economic activity of the North of England? From such a standpoint, or basis of objective knowledge, action plans might well be suggested to change... what exactly? The North is not the South. Apples are not Pears and Men are not the same as Women. This is not to suggest that the NLA is not going to be a very interesting, very innovative and very valuable resource for the North - I truly believe it is. But there is the word "discuss".<br /><br />What if we now say "The north is lagging behind economically and needs more, and better, leadership at entry level to help close this multi-billion pound productivity gap;<span style=""> <span lang="EN-GB">discuss</span></span>." We are presented with creative opportunity. The essay is not empiric research, its<span style=""> <span lang="EN-GB">principle</span></span> aim is not the deconstruction of a situation; an essay invites the constructive possibilities of developing ideas that might, just, hint at developing a greater engagement with the very social strata the NLA is concerned with: "entry level" leadership. Here is an idea! What about a joint NLA/Industry sponsorship of a schools essay competition? As Picasso said, "...all children are artists...". We might encourage that (we might also employ them young while they still know everything!!! - but that is another subject). The wealth of plausible knowledge that exists in the young - unfettered as they are with too many preconceived notions of social truths - provides a rich ground for the exploration of ideas as candidates for new<span style="" lang="EN-GB"> institutionalised</span> narratives. New forms of knowledge might emerge.<br /><br />As <a href="http://krconnect.blogspot.com/2007/06/imaginationlancaster.html">Kevin Roberts</a> (Saatchi & Saatchi) notes in his blog, we might begin to "re-imagine the way universities interact with industry and government". But this also requires, I argue, an equal share of re-imagining the way industry and government interacts with universities. There is no sense in which I see anybody, including myself, argue that the traditional form of academic-business relationship has no future - I, at least, am not so evangelical. Rather my own argument is that we need also informal (and non<span style="" lang="EN-GB">-rigorous</span>) channels of communication between two seemingly disparate worlds if we are each to gain from an engagement with the other.</p>davidsartofhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09202519972391013384noreply@blogger.com0