Adaptive Process versus The Sourcerer’s Apprentice

“Adaptive processes are therefore not about being chaotic, creative, un-structured or non-compliant but about using the real-world dynamics of work to create a process that fulfills all goals, follows all compliance rules and can change at the drop of a hat to be better NEXT TIME.”

Creative ‘deconstruction’:: Innovate Your Business Model

In such a fast-moving economy Opportunities & Threats emerge from the environment at such pace that an effective, resilient, ecosystem are prerequisites. Not since the dawning of the Industrial Revolution has the need for ‘organisational adaptability’ and agility been so apparent.  image

“…even with a concrete business model, there may come a time to modify and innovate it.  So, the question is:

What circumstances require business model innovation?

There are five circumstances that often require business model innovation.  They can be categorized into Opportunities and Needs…

via » Deconstruct and Innovate Your Business Model.

Adaptability: The New Competitive Advantage

Geary Sikich quoteNo wonder many of C-level Exec’s and institutions, that thrived in the industrial era, are “failing” in the Digital Age, when so much of what they held dear and used as justification for excessive remuneration and bonus packages, have been shown to be deeply flawed: economics; financial and risk management. Some do claim that they are now looking to “innovate” their way toward a brighter future but the evidence suggests that their idea of i-nnovation is more about re-packaging the same old “win/lose” propositions: destructive creation!

What IS required is the type of “creative destruction” that benefits stakeholders and leads to “win/win”: now that is I-nnovation that customers can understand and embrace. Alternatively, customers will look for VALUE from new entrants to a given marketplace…whether these be new players (without legacy issues) or established players from emerging markets. Read more of this post

Roads to Ruin: major corporate failures beyond the scope of risk management

I confess that I haven’t read the full report (it runs to 200 pages) but, between the report itself (link below) and the CII summary document, the message sounds eerily familiar to the voices that have been going round in my head for the last few years!!! Don’t be afraid I am not a threat!

buiding-collapseMuch of what the voices were telling me resulted from extensive research into the nature of complex systems that was prompted by the “genius” of Dr Jacek Marczyk (Founder & CTO at Ontonix). Much of what I have learnt and sought to bring to the attention of those engaged with mitigating and managing risk in insurance (and wider Financial Services) has, unsurprisingly, found its way into the pages of this very blog, numerous Linkedin Group and “real world” discussions.

Whilst my “journey” has been intellectually rewarding the same cannot be said in financial terms!

My experience is such that I don’t expect that there will be rapid and sweeping change as a result of this report. Although, bearing in mind the nature of the risk management “weaknesses” and given what we know about the societal cost of major Corporate failure, it would be perfectly reasonable to ask: why not?

It isn’t as if there haven’t been warnings. This is an extract from a report into systemic risk, prepared during 2006:

Two particularly illuminating questions about priorities in risk management emerge from the report. First, how much money is spent on studying systemic risk as compared with that spent on conventional risk management in individual firms? Second, how expensive is a systemic-risk event to a national or global economy (examples being the stock market crash of 1987, or the turmoil of 1998 associated with the Russian loan default, and the subsequent collapse of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management)? The answer to the first question is “comparatively very little”; to the second, “hugely expensive”.

Read more of this post

Video: “Practice without sound theory will not scale”– invaluable lessons for model transformation

The following introduction doesn’t do justice to Dave Snowden’s presentation but there are some things that I felt I needed to say.

Having been an insurance broker for circa 30 years you acquire a broad “knowledge” of a wide range of industries and sectors. You also come to appreciate that there are common practices in one industry that can provide, if not the solution, then an outline of a solution in another. But, unless there is the means to communicate between industries and across sectors valuable lessons can be lost: information is transformed (and transformational) with effective communication…it should go without saying that this is also true of communications WITHIN an organisation.

In former roles, the process of learning about the business for which you were required to arrange appropriate cover, I came across variations of problems that I had seen in unrelated industries. When I did, I shared as much information as I could in the hope that this would help the client and assist me in gaining the trust and patronage of the prospective client. Sometimes this approach had the desired effect and everyone won as a result. I used to refer to it as “David’s handy hints”. I came to think of this a bit like a bee pollenating plants and, in some respects, this is a good analogy.

Having watched this fantastic presentation by Dave Snowden, I am delighted to have discovered a new term for and understanding of what it was I was doing: EXAPTATION

Read more of this post