Replying to LO27802 --
It has taken me some time and research but I have started a white paper
process on following topic:
7 wonders of Intangibles beyond 20th Century Branding & Valuation - tell
me if you want me to send you a draft. It starts with a mathematician's
observation that arithmetic (ie operands on numbers) was never intended to
represent the dynamics of things which grow because of their connectivity,
ie rule number 1 of numbers is that your are dealing with stuff that
separates. By its founding definition, intangibles was always about human
process stuff whose core value and identity is in its systemising
connectivity. Mathematically it can be said (no proven!) that anyone who
tries to value intangibles only by numbers is either a bit dim or trying
to pool wool over other people's eyes ( we've seen quite a lot of that at
Enron, Andersen and other places that if American corporations dont now
put their stakeholder value discrimination in order, the rest of the world
should leave you to globalise yourselves not us , thank you kindly)
If this sounds technical, well that's what we need to simplify into a
common human language: because (the economics as well as the learning and
actions towards) most value productivity and destruction is now intimately
interconnected with intangibles
What I really need is for other people to take over the paper and rewrite
the parts of it that need their discipline or cultural politeness (eg your
view of Learning Organisation or intangibles economics or human values not
my rude Englishman's style as a son of a libertarian economist) into it.
In other words, its only the first mathematician's wonder that starts the
white paper process off on a learning curve orbit to wherever you would
like to take it.
Any takers? Any advisers on whether a parallel white paper process has
ever been tried and how to systemise a process in the best of LO and
(double loop) revolutionary traditions...because this one's worth an
urgent crusade on, as far as I can see...isn't it?
chris macrae, email@example.com (UK tel 0208 540 5304)
Do quarterly numbers provide sufficient knowledge for people to know if a
company they are involved with is truly producing value?
opening July 1 www.valuetrue.com the community where people testify against
stakeholder value discrimination:
(testimonies are 200 words long, and we'll freely operate a POBox system for
anyone who wants to testify on any expert subject viewpoint that might stop
Enronitis -or some such humanly depressing culture - coming to a company you
have a stake in)
>From: "Mark W. McElroy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> In the wake of the Enron debacle, there's been a continuing storm of
> demands for campaign finance reform, accounting reforms, and so forth. But
> how about management reforms? Why haven't we heard about that? How about
> reforms that would make it nigh to impossible for management in a company
> to engage in unethical management practices to begin with? How about
> making management in organizations more open and more accountable to its
> own population of employees, stockholders, and other stakeholders?
what's the saddest Enron consequence you've heard of:
>From 60Minutes CBS Network April 14
Everyone was shocked when Enron collapsed last year, right? Not quite.
People in places like Nigeria, Indonesia and the Philippines weren't
shocked. Enron had been a scandal in those countries for most of the past
decade when the company had moved into some of the world's poorest and
most corrupt nations, pushing megapower deals, projects that invariably
came with huge price tags, allegations of bribery and the weight of the
United States government behind Enron. Nowhere was this more the case than
in India, where Enron came in 1992 with a plan to build a massive power
plant, bigger and more expensive than anywhere else--a project that turned
out to be a total disaster for both Enron and India.
(Footage of Bombay; aerial footage of landscape)
SIMON: (Voiceover) Enron's captains came to Bombay in June of '92. They
got in a helicopter and picked a site for their plant without ever
landing. Within five days, they'd signed a deal to sell electricity to the
Indian government. There had been no competitive bidding. How much did you
say the contract was worth?
Mr. PRADYUMNA KAUL: $60 billion over 20 years.
SIMON: $60 billion over 20 years.
(Footage of Kaul in his office)
SIMON: (Voiceover) Pradyumna Kaul is a management consultant who was
brought in by Indian officials to evaluate the project.
India signed this contract with no competitive bidding?
Mr. KAUL: With no competitive bidding. That's right. Absolutely.
SIMON: How do you explain that?
Mr. KAUL: The Indian government in Delhi, they were told that they would
have no--no alternative but to sign because that will--that was the
only--and the--condition for the US government to continue to support
India on the foreign exchange financial front.
"chris macrae" <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.