Background to the Symbiotic Ephemeralization document (for those of you who are interested...)
Symbiotic Ephemeralization was written over a period of about two years in my spare time. Since then, a number of questions have appeared and resurfaced time and again so, to pre-empt some of the questions asked about this document, here is a "FAQ" of your favourite ones:
Update: I keep getting requests to finish (or at least update) this document, an "honour" which I respectfully decline. My reasons are simple. The times have caught up with the underlying arguments discussed in this document, which makes it pretty much useless from a strategic perspective, I'll leave it on the Internet for a while because it still stirs interest, and because I still get some valuable feedback from it.
However, the value of these kinds of "cage-rattling" documents is to provide food for thought for those who have the incination to read, research and think for themselves (currently listed by me as an endangered species). There is nothing of strategic value that can be added to this paper in my view. Apple Computer have pretty much proven the premise that true innovation will continue to sustain a good business model regardless of economic (mis-)fortune, although I'm not privy to their internal mechanisms for generating said IP. As for the arguments that executives should not be trusted with decision processes that cause wholesale change outside the boundaries of traditional and prudent risk management practices, even if such efforts work in isolation, well... what exactly is there to add?
Q: Who funded this?
A: Are you kidding? Nobody. It was written by me, in a bit of spare time, as a bit of fun.
Q: "I don't understand it. What is it about and why the language?"
A: The document is aimed at a narrow readership who are presumed to be able to understand it, and in that context it is very much "tongue and cheek". For example, in the introduction the question is asked whether bees would improve their productivity if you gave them PDA's, mobile phones and network connected computers. However, the document has a point to make - which is to caution large businesses against the casual manner with which they traditionally lay their people off in times of difficulty. It explores some (but not all) reasons why these decisions, which are so readily made these days, may not be in the Corporation's best interest in the longer term. To illustrate the argument a concept known as "pollination symbiosis" is called upon, which is really a heavy term for the way bees not only gather honey, but are a vital link in the human and animal food chains. Even though as individuals bees don't appear to accomplish much, as a participant in the global ecosystem their contribution is far greater than the sum of the individuals would suggest. The paper argues that the same goes for employees in a large business (or enterprise if you like). It is not just the people that get "sacked", but the relationships that they have built up over the time that they have been there (and the ecosystem that they have built outside the organisation's rule system to get things done) are frequently broken. The result is frequently a less competitive business, rather than one that operates with a lower cost base. It then goes on to place some critisism on the more traditional thinking of "management consultants" who think that everything can be fixed by repairing the coffee machine and installing faster elevators (metaphorically speaking ofcourse) whilst head office is happily burning to the ground through ignorance. Finally it suggests a system for boosting corporate profits through true innovation based on existing "communities of practice". This is a relatively simple concept that takes the ideas from one group of people and "feeds" it to another group of people, who then add further ideas to it, package it up, and "feed" it to yet another group of people and so on until ideas are fully developed.
There you go; a summary straight from the horses mouth..
Why the language? First and foremost, it was a ton of fun to write it that way - and if I may be so bold; why not?
As the document has no commercial constraints, and doesn't need to "please anyone" I thought it would be fun to stretch the vocabulary a little and see what would happen. Would the message lose out to the heavy wording, or would the message win out?
This has proven to be an interesting project that has delivered some surprisingly useful answers.
Q: Are you willing to share those answers?
A: I'm afraid not.
Q: Was it created using some random generator?
A: Read it and decide for yourself. Far be it from me to take that challenge away from my readers.
Q: What kind of feedback have you received?
A: Hugely varied. Some of the most interesting comments have been stark critiques of the way it was written, and the "identification" of spelling errors. Also, some of the comments to the article on "The Register" really cracked me up!
Q: On "The Enquirer" a comment from "Nick Rutland" on the 8th of February 2008 goes as follows: "Symbiotic hypercycle teleology. This about sums it up. Also, don't sack your staff: they'll help you out if you let them". Does that sum the paper up?
A: Not really. The context of that analysis is wrong.
Q: Any thoughts on finishing it, or "translating" it?
A: Not really. It was just a bit of fun, and fun it has been (and continues to be), but I think that it is time to move on. I'm currently interested in emerging content delivery paradigms, particularly the provisioning of prohibited content, implicit references to said material, and the potential legal ramifications of that business model in various countries. The culmination of this may lead to a similar opinion paper in the future if personal circumstances allow, and a broader interest is identifieable.
Hope that answers some of your questions,
Best regards,
J.
(5 August 2008, latest update 25 Feb 2010)
|
