"Trapped for the long term because of government policies", Letter by Simon Buckingham to the Financial Times newspaper, published on 8 JUNE 1995

"Beyond experience", Letter by Simon Buckingham to The Economist, published 27 JULY 1996

"Web requires professional surfers", Letter by Simon Buckingham to the Financial Times newspaper, published 21 AUGUST 1996

"Capitalism and Certainty", Letter by Simon Buckingham to Wired magazine, UK edition, published SEPTEMBER 1996

"implementing collapsible corporations", Article about Internet dynamic authoring written by Simon Buckingham and published in Internet Business magazine, UK, March 1997.

"Towards Technological Capitalism", Article written by Simon Buckingham and published in Internet Business magazine, UK, July 1997.

"90-'renes supernerd: Nettvisjon'ren som vil erobre verden", Article written by Eirik Flaa and published on www.digi.no on the 11 SEPTEMBER 1997.

"Technology gives companies a chance to collapse and thrive", Article written by Terry White and published in the Sunday Independent, South Africa, on 14 SEPTEMBER 1997.

"Corporate Killing", Letter written by Simon Buckingham to The Independent newspaper, UK, published 4 OCTOBER 1997

"Corporate Killing", Letter written by Simon Buckingham to The Guardian newspaper, UK, published 4 OCTOBER 1997

"Home Alone", Article written by Simon Buckingham and published in Internet Business magazine, UK, January 1998.

"Content Is King", Letter written by Simon Buckingham to Upside magazine about Microsoft, US, published in January 1998.

"Millennium Have no Fear", Recommendation of unorgan.com in the "P' nett" column of Playboy Norwegian edition, written by Trond Bugge Gjerde, March 1998

"From Busyness to Business!", Article written by Simon Buckingham and published in Praxis magazine, The Hindu Business Line newspaper’s quarterly journal on management, India, in March 1998.

"Small Will Be Beautiful", Article by David Pringle in which Simon Buckingham is quoted in Information Strategy magazine, UK, May 1998.

"How To Be A Learning Individual", Article by Edwin E. Bobrow CMC, in the "As I See It" column of The Journal Of Management Consulting, May 1998.

"Business Not Busy-Ness", An Article by Simon Buckingham in the Agenda column Of Information Strategy magazine, UK, June 1998.

"Towards Freedom", Article written by Simon Buckingham and published in Praxis magazine, The Hindu Business Line newspaper’s quarterly journal on management, India, in August 1998.

"Klap virksomhederne sammen", Interview of Simon Buckingham written by J'rgen Arberg and published in Alt om DATA magazine, Denmark, August 1998.

"FEELING UNORGANISED?", Interview of Simon Buckingham written by Cathy Stadler and published in Intelligence magazine, South Africa, August 1998.

"Trapped for the long term because of government policies"

Letter to the Financial Times newspaper, published on 8 JUNE 1995

From Mr Simon Buckingham

Sir, Re your editorial "No quick fix on housing" (June 5), it is sad but true that householders need to blame the government for their own housing investment decisions. Individuals are trapped for the long term in their houses and in their organizations because of policies from the government, banks and hierarchies.

The dormant state of the housing market is not so much a good thing because it "ought to inspire the same long-termism in would-be home buyers that is considered desirable in business". In what would be a fast and flexible world without distorting policy making, the apparent problem of "short-termism" would be an irrelevant myth and not an evil perpetuated to justify more policies. What is short-termism anyway? These days, in the short term, we are all dead.

"Beyond experience"

Letter to The Economist, published 27 JULY 1996

Sir- I was surprised to see you advocate the overriding importance of managerial experience (June 15^th), which "nothing can ever substitute for". How important is it for someone to have experience in a world where tomorrow will not be like today? How necessary is it for me to have been in my industry (the provision of mobile-phone networks) five years ago when everything has since changed: the technology, competition and customer expectations.

It is more difficult to unlearn received wisdom that is no longer relevant than to learn new truths; hence the importance of executive recruitment from other industries. Increasingly, given the nature of the more chaotic external economic environment and the internal, less hierarchical internal structures, the need for experience is a myth perpetuated by 37-year-old to keep 27-year olds from getting ahead.

If middle-class, middle-aged, white, male, experienced executives had proven themselves managing organisations (economic and political) then fair enough. Alas, they have not. Therefore, the only prejudice is talent- not age, not sex and certainly not "experience".

"Web requires professional surfers"

Letter to the Financial Times newspaper, published 21 AUGUST 1996

From Mr Simon Buckingham

Sir, If in "Rise of the Internet threatens banks’ market", (August 12), you replace the word "banks" with "companies" and the word "branch" with "office", you end up with an emerging truth. That is, all companies in all sectors are significantly affected by applications of technologies such as the Internet.

Web-based order processing, that is, Internet front ends to traditional legacy database systems, are the next big trend which many banks and other retailers will adopt as they move past-entry level Internet presence.

Technologies such as credit card authorisation, Java and ActiveX will facilitate interactive Web pages, increasing the attractiveness of online transactions.

If you combine the impact of the Internet with other technologies such as smart mobile phones and position location systems you begin to see the possibility of "collapsible corporations" defined by transient transaction-oriented electronic signals and not physical, geographical structures such as branches.

Traditional vested interests may deny this but as the growth in the graph in your article shows, these trends are irresistible. The repercussions in terms of "technological capitalism", in which individuals can participate in, and benefit from, free markets, are phenomenal.

Entry barriers to the Internet are low and publishing and retailing opportunities high. The waves that the Web will throw up will require pro-surfers.

"Capitalism and Certainty"

Letter written by Simon Buckingham to Wired magazine, UK edition, published SEPTEMBER 1996

I was surprised to see Swiss banker Richard Olsen making the front cover of Wired 2.07 ("The Dynamics of Capitalism", page 42). If accurate predictions of (financial) markets were possible then the effect would not be fewer businesses going bankrupt, it would be fewer businesses starting up, because where there is no uncertainty, there is no risk and therefore no worthwhile return. Growth would certainly not therefore be higher! If one day "all traders will use his [Olsen’s] software", no one will benefit but Olsen. The risks of entrepreneurship come in several parts: market (do people like it), product (does it work) and financial (is your cash flow eaten up by interest payments). Olsen addresses only the later, and not even all of that.

In an uncertain and dynamic world it is inherently precarious to project the future "using only information from past prices". The future isn’t what it used to be. The experience gained from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism can in no way be shaped to fit Olsen’s theories. In the case of the ERM, intervention by government financial officers with limited understanding of complex global markets caused inevitable distortion.

Exchange rates were fixed at the wrong level and could not be sustained by government intervention. Governments, financial traders and anyone else should not be able to project their misplaced good intentions onto markets which do not need their intervention. It is better to accept the efficient markets hypothesis setting prices than the inefficient traders hypothesis.

It being contrarian is enough to make the front page of your magazine, then this is tired, not wired.

"implementing collapsible corporations"

Article written by Simon Buckingham published in Internet Business magazine, UK, March 1997.

INTERNET DYNAMIC AUTHORING MAY HELP TO FACILITATE NEW SRUCTURES OF BUSINESS ORGANISATION KNOWN AS COLLAPSIBLE CORPORATIONS. THESE CORPORATIONS WILL NOT BE SHAPED AROUND PHYSICAL, GEOGRAPHICAL STRUCTURES SUCH AS OFFICES. INSTEAD, THEY WILL BE SHAPED AROUND TRANSIENT TRANSACTION-ORIENTED ELECTRONIC SIGNALS, SAYS SIMON BUCKINGHAM.

Watch out! Technologies such as the Internet will have profound implications on the way that people work and companies are organised. One of the most powerful enabling technologies for increasing customer responsiveness and reducing the cost of doing business is Internet dynamic authoring. Dynamic authoring enables access to information of mutual interest in a common HTML format. Dynamic authoring basically means that business records and other information which resides on proprietary business databases can be pasted in real-time into a tailor-made HTML page. Common Gateway Interface CGI scripts take care of the translation from environments such as Unix or Windows NT into shareable HTML format. Dynamic authoring software from vendors such as Object Design (www.obi.com) and Parallax (www.parallax.co.uk) includes a CGI application which reformats requests for data from Web browsers into a format understandable to the platform which that information resides on, looks up the information and sends it from the business database to the CGI application which formats it into the Internet language HTML for transmission back to the requesting Web browser.

The great thing about dynamic authoring is that it does not matter which type of host platform the required information is stored on, or what device the Web browser making the request is running on. Some large companies have dozens of different host e-mail and database systems. It is the ability to escape being trapped by investments in legacy computer systems which allows companies to quickly and inexpensively transform their organisational processes.

To get up and running with dynamic authoring, companies don’t even need to go through a one-off process of transferring all of their existing data into HTML. Neither do they need to manually update their Web pages as information in the legacy database changes. Instead, tailored information can be published as and when it is requested, and is always up-to-date with the business service data.

Take, for example, TNT and Federal Express which have Web sites that allow customers to track the location of their parcels. Sites like these can dynamically author the current position of the packages by taking data from the parcel company’s database system and posting it in HTML format on the customer’s Web browser. The information available to the customer can be restricted to the status of their package only.

Parcel companies can also have "extranet" relationships with other suppliers- such as airline companies- which are separated by firewalls. (An extranet is an intranet, or private Internet site, which suppliers, business partners and other collaborators have access to.)

Internet dynamic authoring is a powerful facilitating process for collaboration between employees in different places and partner companies. Instead of expensive leased lines between companies, each partner just needs an inexpensive dial-up Internet account to share information. With dynamic authoring, it would be no problem for us to collaborate even if I was running an Apple environment, you Windows and I was trying to get information from your Unix database.

Smart mobile phones take the increasing convergence between communications and computing to the logical conclusion of cable-free integrated all-in-one devices. Smart phones are already available in the UK. The Nokia 9000 Communicator, for example, opens in half to reveal a small screen and qwerty keyboard. It can use to access the Internet, send and Internet e-mail, and send and receive both short text messages and faxes. Based on the GSM global digital mobile phone standard, the 9000 also boasts palmtop computer features such as a notepad, diary and alarm clock (www.nokia.com).

Other smart phones will become available during 1997 from companies such as Psion, Ericsson, Motorola and NorTel. It is unclear which of the competing operating systems will drive smart phone: Unwired Planet (www.uplanet.com), Java, GEOS (which the Nokia 9000 uses) or Windows Consumer Electronics devices such as the Hitachi Handheld PC and Casiopeia from Casio. These technologies will transform every industry and by way of illustration I will explain the effects on the banking industry. Today’s conventional banking model of high street branches with cashpoint machines, counters and paper-based transacting using cheque books will increasingly be replaced by electronic banking in which the banks themselves use dynamic authoring and their customers use Web browsers running on any device to access virtual branches for banking services such as transferring funds and arranging loans.

A customer would enter the bank’s URL into their Web browser, which dials up the bank’s Web server. The requested information is located in any of the bank’s business service databases and dynamically authored into an HTML template for transmission back to authorised originating Web browsers. Customers can transact using this basic model of client Web browser and host dynamic authoring.

The implications of combinations of these technologies for all static business organisations as we know them, including banks, are profound. Individuals empowered by electronic agents and located and protected by position location can thrive autonomously without organisational membership given the availability of opportunities to demonstrate their talents through low entry barrier media such as the Internet. This removes the static notion of membership- currently either I am a member of the organisation and am entitled to use the services and benefits it provides, or I am not entitled.

Technologies are making it a lot easier to co-ordinate economic activity using free markets rather than firms. It is the existence of transaction costs when using free markets that provides the economic justification for the existence of firms. These costs include finding out prices, negotiating contracts and such like. However, these costs are being cut as technologies such as electronic agents let individuals sort out their business transactions quickly and easily. Thus, the advantages to individuals of organising economic activities within the cocoon of the organisation become less pervasive. The unorganised world of free markets can be navigated and negotiated using technologies, facilitating collapsible corporations structured around electronic signals rather than physical buildings, with electronic networks replacing geographical communities.

Individuals armed with these technologies will bring about what I call technological capitalism, in which individuals can participate in, and benefit more fully from free market economies. Not only are there more opportunities in the open unorganised world, but greater access to them. Collapse your company, not yourself. Remember, aim for business not busyness!

"Towards Technological Capitalism"

Article written by Simon Buckingham and published in Internet Business magazine, UK, July 1997.

Simon Buckingham says we should aim for the implementation of technological capitalism as we move to a promising twenty-first century.

The world we all live in has fundamentally changed for the better from the old orderly organised world, where there was certainty and convention, to today’s unorganised world where there is freedom and diversity. This unorganised world can be navigated and negotiated by individuals using today’s flexible technologies such as electronic agents, the Internet and mobile phones.

Such technologies are rapidly getting both more powerful and simultaneously cheaper as Moore’s Law is proven. This Law, named after the founder of Intel Corporation, predicts that computing power doubles and price halves every 18 months. This increased power makes for more flexible technologies which are easier to use. Technologies become really persuasive when applications built using them do not require users to change their habits. Instead of individuals having to adapt their habits and behaviour to overcome the limitations of the technologies, technologies are now portable, flexible and usable. For example, the structure of the Internet is complicated but the mechanism through which e-mail messages are actually sent and how data is transferred from servers is transparent and irrelevant to Internet users. All the consumer needs to know is that they can communicate anywhere in the world for the cost of a local telephone call.

Take for instance, mobile phones. They are a great technology for keeping in touch whilst on the move. Three generations of mobile phones have emerged so far, each successive generation more reliable and flexible than the last:

Analogue standards such as AMPS or TACS: You could only easily use analogue cellular to make voice calls, and typically only in any one country.

Digital mobile phone systems such as GSM added fax, data and messaging capabilities as well as voice telephone service in dozens of countries.

Available by the year 2000, satellite systems such as Iridium and Globalstar will supplement the digital offerings with coverage available to 98 per cent of the world’s landmass and offer new services such as position location.

With each new generation of technology, the services which can be deployed on them become more and more wide ranging and truly limited only by imagination.

Technologies are not only more powerful and flexible, but more widely available. Technology consultants help to diffuse process innovations and best practice between firms and industries. Partnerships and strategic alliances are providing access to expertise and innovations from other firms which when combined with those other alliance partners spurs further innovations. Innovative activities are encouraged because they are the key to attracting alliance partners. Technology companies view to establish industry standards; licensing and often giving away technologies causing rapid diffusion.

Venture capital firms also encourage technology developments by helping to finance innovations. The private sector venture capital model in the US provides free or low cost services to start-ups such as banking, legal and property to start up firms In return, these service providers receive a share in any subsequent Initial Public Offering of that company’s stock on the stock exchange.

Entrepreneurs and start-up companies are always looking for ways to make their technologies more accessible to the whole market so as to maximise their return from technology development costs. For example, prepaid mobile phones take cellular into another sector of the market and Internet access via a television or network computer and means that a high power and expensive personal computer is not needed to benefit from Internet access. This diffuses the technology widely into the general public.

Given the rapid development and deployment of sophisticated enabling technologies, I predict an end to technophobia amongst the general public, i.e. a reluctance to use technologies because of their perceived complexity. When companies such as WebTV build Web browsers into televisions, some people will think they’re still using teletext. No wonder Microsoft is trying to buy WebTV. The man machine interface for both the hardware and the software is getting to be so intuitive and easy to use that the user can learn by using it, with very little training. Five minutes with a Web browser such as Netscape Navigator and you’re surfing the Net and sending e-mail.

These enabling technologies reduce the transaction costs of production. Basically, production can be carried out using either markets or firms. Today’s office-based firms exist because the transaction costs incurred when using free markets were higher than those incurred to organise the same quantity and quality of production within a firm. These transaction costs include those for bidding, finding out information and negotiating which have to be carried out separately and repeatedly using markets and are therefore often internalised within a firm. But when you send out an electronic agent over the Internet from a company such as Autonomy Systems of Cambridge (www.agentware.com), it can organise the transaction separately from the individual who can get on with something else. The resulting lower transaction costs facilitates the downstructuring of firms into collapsible corporations ‘structured’ around electronic signals rather than physical buildings, with electronic networks replacing geographical communities.

Downstructuring is not about reducing the number of employees, it is the art of eliminating organisational control systems and procedures and empowering local decision making. This then frees each individual to expand their role and realise their full potential.

Downstructuring is necessary because it is harder in the complicated unorganised world for managers and politicians to understand and control multiple events and diverse people. Refusal to downstructure brings about their own downfall by restricting personal and economic growth, causing under-performance and discontent amongst employees, customers, voters and shareholders.

As technologies such as the Internet reduce the entry barriers to economic opportunities, the so-called voluntary exchange principle that no-one need to do anything they do not want to is fully implemented. Individuals who have avoided ownership traps such as mortgages and membership traps such as organisational benefits, can walk out of their organisations and join another organisation, do temporary work, not work at all or form their own collapsible corporation. Other people’s companies are no longer the only stage from which people can earn a living and prove their self-worth.

Realisation of the voluntary exchange principle and a reduction in transaction costs are prerequisites for a new economic system called "technological capitalism":

The move along the political spectrum that we have already seen from communism to socialism and onto capitalism has rightly shifted us away from organising events using institutions towards using markets instead. But this transition has not yet gone far enough and moved onto technological capitalism. Too much economic activity is still dominated and dictated by large private and public sector institutions and not enough by individuals.

Socialism was a response to inequality, whereas capitalism can cause it. Under capitalism, new economic opportunities tend to present themselves to members of institutions such as companies or to people who have already benefited from other opportunities. Individuals acting alone face either high entry barriers or are excluded altogether from taking advantage of those market opportunities. The rich get richer and the poor people stay poor.

Technological capitalism is the opportunity to pursue the opportunities., Under technological capitalism, there are both the free market opportunities and the opportunity for all individuals to benefit from those opportunities. Individuals can participate more easily in, and benefit more fully from free market economics. Talent determines future wealth, not current wealth: poor people can become rich.

Technological capitalism is similar to capitalism in that it emphasises the existence of opportunities arising in free markets and the importance of individuals acting out of self-interest in the private sector. The invisible hand is still the only magic wand. However, technological capitalism realises in practice the equality of opportunity amongst individuals that was always the theoretical goal of communism whilst anchoring the achievement of such equality firmly within an economic system of very free markets.

The implications of an unorganised world coupled with the transformation of the economics of doing business are immensely positive. The full implementation of technological capitalism promises all the advantages of capitalism coupled with the communist ideal, without the disadvantages of either economic system. Everyone is affected everywhere by the attraction of technological capitalism, whatever part of the political spectrum they used to occupy. Mark my words, implementation of technological capitalism is the holy grail that should be our number one goal as we move to a promising twenty-first century.

The author Simon Buckingham runs the unorganization Web site at www.unorgan.com

"90-'renes supernerd: Nettvisjon'ren som vil erobre verden"

Article written by Eirik Flaa and published on www.digi.no in Norway on the 11 SEPTEMBER 1997.

Oslo (digi)- For ett 'r siden avsluttet Simon Buckingham sine studier ved Birmingham University. Siden den gang har han ved hjelp av sitt nettsted opparbeidet seg en internasjonal tilhengerskare til sin unike id', deorganisering. En id' Buckingham er overbevist vil gj're ham til milliard'r.

Med stadig sterkere penetrasjon av Internett vil dagens organisierte sammfunnsstukturer bryte sammen. Man vil ikke lenger ha sosialisme, kommunisme eller kapitalisme slik vi kjenner den idag. Teknologien trekker hele verdenssamfunnet mot en uunng'elig ny orden- teknologisk kapitalisme, hevder 24 'r gamle Simon Buckingham.

Buckingham, som avslutter sine studier ved Birmingham University for bare ett 'r siden, har ved hjelp av sitt nettsted unorgan.com opparbeidet seg en internasjonal tilhengerskare p' et par tusen personer.

At jeg ved hjelp av et nettstad har klart ' tiltrekker meg s' mye oppmerksomhet, understreker nettopp mitt hovedpoeng. Jeg har bygget mitt eget merke. De som ser n'dvendigheten av mitt virke kan velge ' bruke meg, sier unge Buckingham til digi.no. Han forklarer at den teknologiske kapitalisme krever at bedriftene deorganiserer sine n'v'rene strukturer, og bygger opp et nettverk av individer de selv kan velge ' benytte. Individene p' sin side kan velge fritt velge hvem de vil jobbe for.

Jeg har allerede implementert disse id'ene med stor suksess hos det s'rafrikanske TV-selskapet Channel Africa. Selskapet, som har nedstukturert sin virksomhet og deorganisert sin organisasjon, er et bevis p' at mine id'er fungerer i praksis, sier den selvsikre unge mannen som for 'yeblikket er i Norge for ' holde foredrag.

Foredrag er sammen med publisering av artikler i ulike medier Buckinghams viktigste inntekskilde, og dette holder forel'pig til livets opphold med god margin.

Det siste 'ret har jeg hatt en inntekt p' 30.000 pund, men trolig kunne det v'rt mer dersom jeg hadde tatt meg skikkelig betalt av Channel Africa, sier Buckingham, som har store planer med sin deorganiserte virksomhet. Gjennom nettverket skal han bygge opp et verdensomspennede desentralisert konsulentnettverk, som det skal bli penger av.

I l'pet av fem 'r eier jeg et verdensomspennende konsulentselskap som vil verdsettes til 'n milliard pund, sier Buckingham, som tror at utviklingen av telekommunikasjon of Internett har gj'r det mulig for ethvert iderikt menneske ' gjennomf're sine dr'mmer.

N'r vi f'r tilgang til nettet gjennom TV-en vil de siste resten av teknofobi forsvinne. Dette vil gi muligheten for enhver ' eksponere sine unike id'er for en hel verden, avslutter Buckingham, som helt uten sammenligning for'vrig minner forbl'ffende om superneden Bill Gates i sine yngre dager...

"Technology gives companies a chance to collapse and thrive"

Article written by Terry White and published in the Sunday Independent, South Africa, on 14 SEPTEMBER 1997.

(See existing text at /press.htm)

"Corporate Killing"

Letter written by Simon Buckingham to The Independent newspaper, UK, published 4 OCTOBER 1997

Sir: The introduction of a new offence of "corporate killing" in response to industrial disasters would remove part of the responsibility of the individual for acting safely and with excellence. Each individual would be protected by their corporate umbrella.

Instead of encouraging company directors to scrutinise the actions of each employee lest their mistakes lead to that director being held responsible, we should be encouraging greater empowerment of the individual, to, for example, stop the entire production line if a quality defect is suspected. Instead of making the corporate collective responsible for the individual employee, we should be trying to increase individual accountability.

"Corporate Killing"

Letter written by Simon Buckingham to The Guardian newspaper, UK, published 4 OCTOBER 1997

A CHARGE of corporate killing would remove part of the responsibility of the individual for acting safely and achieving excellence. Each individual would be protected by their corporate umbrella, which they could blame for their under-performance.

Instead of encouraging directors to scrutinise the actions of each employee lest their mistakes lead to that director being made responsible, we should be encouraging greater empowerment of the individual to, for example, stop the production line if a quality defect is suspected. Instead of making the corporate collective responsible for the individual employee, we should be trying to increase individual accountability for their actions.

The contention that safety and profit are in some way at odds is simple-minded. No private sector company acting under the profit motive would find it cost-effective to reduce safety procedures for short-term gain. Many airlines have disappeared following a single crash, irrespective of their good safety record. And excellent safety record is a pre-requisite for continued profitability.

"Home Alone"

Article written by Simon Buckingham published in Internet Business magazine, UK, January 1998.

Simon Buckingham explores the challenges and implications of working from home.

We have moved from the old orderly organised world to a new global, diverse unorganised world. Because the world has changed, so too has the nature and form of work. We need to find ways of increasing the amount of business done in organisational contexts and reducing the amount of busyness. Navigating ourselves to the office is a transaction cost incurred just to get ourselves in a position to transact and do business. Teleworking recognises the wastefulness of such outmoded systems of work and provides a viable alternative. It saves time and energy and reduces the stress from, for example, congestion. As such, work is increasingly changing from static and office-centric to dynamic and home-centric.

Teleworking is facilitated by the recent rapid advances in the power of enabling technologies coupled with a significant reduction in their prices. These technologies include e-mail, ISDN, PCs, high speed modems and so on. Follow me personal mobile telephones and fax numbers are available from companies such as Vodafone. These can be routed through to any other telephone number anywhere in the world- hence, customers and colleagues can reach employees whether they are at the office, at home or in between. Remote intranet access using a simple remote password or other security feature is perfectly viable.

These technologies mean that the generation and communication of work content is location independent. It is not dependent upon any particular physical, geographical environment. The simple fact is that not everyone works best in the same environment, some people work better in the morning, some late at night, some work better in supervised environments, some create better work autonomously. People should be able to work wherever they can best produce their agreed output. Employees should not be expected in a certain place day in, day out when location does not affect the quality of output. Teleworking considers and meets this requirement for diversity.

Office-based employees do get access to the full resources they need to carry out their job. These resources may not be readily available for teleworkers. The work tools encompass a photocopier, fax machine, stationary, overhead projector, printer, information technology, secretarial support and conference facilities. However, many of these services and devices are available in portable or inexpensive multiple formats, for example printers, scanners and fax machines in one unit aimed at the small office, home office market. The benefits of teleworking need to be offset against the cost of providing the home technology- laptop or desktop PCs, printers, faxes, mobile or fixed phone lines. For the first time, all of the tools and enabling technologies necessary to facilitate effective teleworking are both effective and cost-effective.

These days, physical office buildings are expensive, inefficient resources. Companies incur high fixed costs to maintain buildings are yet they are only occupied for part of the day. Even during working days, many people are out of the office but simultaneously office-based departments such as customer service are overcrowded. Teleworking reduces the fixed costs of doing business. Organisations have a huge investment in office resources- they pay a lot of money for resources that are under-utilised.

There are, however, some weaknesses and challenges with teleworking that need to be recognised and minimised. Pure teleworking, in which the teleworker works solely from home, can lead to that person feeling isolated and "out of the loop". Even if there is an effective organisational communication system in which everyone inside and outside of the traditional company office is informed of the latest developments, much of the informal information sharing that provides context and perspective is not included in e-mail, fax or even telephone conversations. Even when colleagues collaborating across distances know and trust each other, they rarely communicate with the same depth and width as they would in face-to-face meetings between the teleworkers and their other colleagues, in an office other shared space. Such meetings help to prevent teleworkers from losing their sense of belonging and feeling isolated.

Offices will not be abolished as teleworking becomes more widespread- instead we will deploy those spaces more a social meeting place for collaborating interactively about ideas and projects, getting feedback and taking advice, discussing the ideas generated and written up at home.

Environments in which teleworking is most suited and appropriate include stand-alone work such as writing reports and preparing proposals and presentations. For example, a company may have a core business and several people spread around the globe developing business in new areas. Because the areas of business share little overlap, those people outside the core business are likely to have more in common with and a need to collaborate more closely with people carrying out the same or similar tasks overseas. As such, there is little requirement to be sitting next to someone in the core business team and that work can be carried out from home.

On the other hand, manufacturing work would be more difficult to carry out using a telework system. In fact, before the creation of factories that bought production activity into a single firm, a so called "piecework" system was in place in which people produced a certain component at their home and these separately produced were then integrated into a whole. Factories were then set up because of the transaction costs from negotiating prices for the components, arranging for the integration of the parts, correcting errors in the production specification that arose from inefficiently communicated or executed requirements and so on. However, these days, the very technologies that facilitate teleworking are also reducing these transaction costs. As such, whilst we are certain to see an increased incidence of teleworking in knowledge work, we may also see more outsourcing of the production of manufacturing components.

Prison workers cannot yet work from home- although with the wider use of electronic tagging- they could in the future monitor and apprehend offenders who break curfews from their home.

Teleworking does require a change in the way remote staff are managed. Clearly, direct supervision and observation of work output and behaviour is thankfully no longer possible in a teleworking environment. Managers who supervise, monitor and enforce will thankfully be replaced by mentors who advise, lead by example, motivate and support. Direct supervision will be replaced by mutually agreed performance targets and goals- which may include rewards for turning up at the office- along with regular communication about the extent to which those targets are being met, advice given and so on. The focus will be on the results achieved rather than mere presence in an office.

As we have seen then, teleworking is taking off because it is beneficial to both the employer and the employee- it helps improve productivity, reduce office costs, attract and retain the best staff, encourage an entrepreneurial culture and teaches employees how to deploy the technologies effectively. Teleworking rightly puts the focus on business and not busyness!

"Content Is King"

Letter written by Simon Buckingham to Upside magazine, US, published in January 1998.

I do not think that Microsoft has already one everything ["Give Up"]- or won the future. It has simply won the past.

Microsoft is in the distribution business; it makes the underlying software that allows people to generate and communicate ideas. It does not matter to me which word processing package dominates. The value is added in the words I write using that tool. These days, partially because of Microsoft’s efforts, distribution is a commodity business, and content is king.

Except for Internet software and tools, our basic PC packages (such as word processors) have been characterized by diminishing returns. It is no longer worthwhile to upgrade because you cannot concentrate on generating content with some software agent continually correcting you.

Microsoft has been astute at creating new distribution businesses by acquiring WebTV and trying to provide better distribution over cable systems. Buts its content activity leaves a lot to be sceptical about; the content in Slate and Microsoft network is good, but not especially so.

I recently read that Microsoft accounts for only 4 percent of the $66 billion in revenue that its economic web generates; the rest comes from content-generation value its partners build on top of Microsoft’s operating systems, tools and application software. The secret of success is to make yourself defunct and then reinvent yourself in another role. Microsoft has done the former but has not yet achieved the latter.

To the extent that Microsoft can use the past to buy or create the future, it may well win. But I do not see a close correlation between the past and the future, or between money and creativity. How can anyone fear Microsoft when Bill Gates is wasting energy building a house when the only property that matters in the unorganized world is intellectual property?

"Millennium Have no Fear"

Recommendation of unorgan.com in the "P' nett" column of Playboy Norwegian edition, written by Trond Bugge Gjerde, March 1998

https://www.unorgan.com

Unorganization anbefales for den som: arbeider I en alt for hierarkisk organisasjon- eller I en alt for kaotisk bedrift- ellr for den som s'ker en uorganisiert bedriftskultur der fleksibilitet og nytenkning er viktigere enn innarbeidede rutiner. Her f'r vanedyret smekk, kaospiloten st'tte og den s'kende tr'st.

"From Busyness to Business!"

Article written by Simon Buckingham published in Praxis magazine, The Hindu Business Line newspaper’s quarterly journal on management, India, published in March 1998.

Something fundamental and positive has happened to our world. We have moved from the old organised world to today’s unorganised one. In the orderly, stable organised world there was certainty and convention. In the global unorganised world there is freedom, diversity and instability. Whilst these changes have occurred in the wider world, managers and employees have not changed their attitude and behaviour sufficiently to adapt their business organisations to the new circumstances. As a result, much of the activity that takes place in our organisations is mere busyness and not business. In other words, it is bureaucracy, administration and other non-value adding work.

Today’s typical business organisations have formal membership and highly structured policies and procedures, with work carried out in specified locations such as offices. These organised business organisations suffer from some fundamental flaws that cause the high levels of bureaucracy and busyness.

Bounded rationality is the problem of limited understanding and control of an increasingly dynamic and global unorganised world. Managers cannot locate and organise responses to opportunities and threats around the globe. Managers must respond by devolving decision-making responsibility, letting strategies emerge and making reversible commitments. If they do not, their inability to realise the organisation’s full potential will cause discontent amongst employees, customers and shareholders.

Accurate incentives within free markets stimulate the optimal completion of valuable business outcomes, paramount amongst which is excellent customer service. However, bounded rationality causes a lack of accurate and adequate incentives within traditional static companies. These faulty incentives mean that achieving world class performance is reliant upon the existence of intrinsic employee motivations such as pride and satisfaction felt at delighting the customer. Faulty incentives also necessitate the very existence of managers and managerial procedures. If everyone in the company was doing what they wanted to, there would be no need for other people higher in rank to supervise and ensure adequate completion of the tasks.

Dependence within organised organisations means that to perform excellently, individuals have to rely upon their colleagues supporting them. Organised groupings such as teams splinter and divide because different members think and believe different things about the decisions taken and events happening within that group. Effort is either expended on busy negotiations and compromise to keep the group together- or the static group disintegrates. Either way, the organised groupings do not provide an optimal platform for internal employee collaboration or external customer responsiveness.

The existence of coercion and force within organised business organisations means that people are forced to do things. They have no choice but to carry out the tasks given to them by their managers, which they are often not interested in or suited to or which do not challenge their full abilities. This means that employee potential is not maximised and external customer results are suboptimal.

To overcome these fundamental flaws, and ensure that the company’s actual growth is close to its sustainable potential, managers should implement unorganisation techniques such as downstructuring, opporTUNEitizing and collapsible corporations. This then aligns their companies more closely to the unorganised operating environment and thereby increases the amount of business and reduces the amount of busyness carried out in organisational contexts.

Downstructuring (removing structure) is not about reducing the number of employees (downsizing) or changing structure (restructuring).

Downstructuring is removing the "hard" side of the organisation: its policies, policies, procedures, strategies, systems and structures such as job titles and paper-based administration. Downstructuring is the technique of choice for transforming those areas of organisations involved in idea creation and knowledge working. Because idea creation is not related to time or place, downstructuring is a useful tool that facilitates location independent working. Currently in India, many workers travel to their company’s offices to work because they do not have the necessary resources at home. But as mobile and fixed telecommunications services and Internet provision are deregulated, the prices of such services are bound to fall and become widely available to more people.

One company in India that has introduced a flexible working environment for its employees is Siemens Communication Software in Bangalore. Here, flexi-time is the norm and employees set their own work schedule and determine for themselves how to best meet their deadlines. Thirteen to fifteen employees typically work to each manager compared with two or three in more traditionally structured Indian companies. "It’s initially hard for them to accept so much freedom," remarks Hans Krafka, managing director of Siemens Communication Software, about the company’s programmers. "On the one hand they like it, but on the other side they are reluctant to take up the responsibility. I still find a number of engineers having difficulty walking freely into my office. Some even walk backwards out my door."

Whereas downstructuring is the practice of eliminating structure, opporTUNEitizing is the practice of making structures in the organisation dynamic. opporTUNEitizing is best suited to freeing employees engaged in physical activities such as farming, distribution, manufacturing and assembly. Within such industries, employees should be able to take responsibility for important personal and company objectives such as product quality, customer service, reliable production, continuous improvement and learning. opporTUNEitizing reduces structure sufficiently to allow employees to meet these valuable end objectives by minimising the means (static systems, procedures and structures) that hinder their achievement. Too many procedures were set up merely with the intention of arbitrary control of "subordinates".

Under opporTUNEitizing, those structures that are static and an end in themselves (a means for managerial control) are removed. On the other hand, those structures that are dynamic and flexible and a means to an end (employee learning, product quality) are kept. The remaining positive procedures are followed during routine activity, but can be transcended when circumstances deviate from the norm such as meeting non-routine customer services requests. Downstructured companies and new start-ups will come to resemble "collapsible corporations" in which clusters of people from inside and outside of the organisation’s traditional boundaries form voluntarily, dynamically, and impermanently, in order to meet customer requirements.

The people who participate in collapsible corporations will have transformed themselves from dependent "rankers"- interchangeable units of economic production- to independent "branders"- people who think of themselves as brands, with a strong inner core of knowledge and outer core of image and networking. Collapsible corporations are shaped around electronic signals rather than physical geographical office buildings.

Business success for collapsible corporations is all about combining the complementary capabilities of business partners for mutual gain. Once a novel idea or content has been generated, it can be implemented by outsourcing the actual production and distribution. Enabling technologies such as the Internet facilitate this partnering and licensing. Such low entry barrier media provide entrepreneurs with a mechanism to create wealth. Srinath Srinivasa, a researcher at the Indian Institute of Technology in Madras sees "some parallels between unorganisation and the ‘core competence’ philosophy advocated C K Prahlalad. Like unorganisation, core competence advocates specialisation and outsourcing of all activities that are not directly related to the core competence." As such, managers should not persist with traditional business organisations in today’s unorganised world. By avoiding the fundamental flaws, they can minimise busyness and maximise business!

"Small Will Be Beautiful"

Article by David Pringle in which Simon Buckingham is quoted in Information Strategy magazine, UK, May 1998.

The digital economy has the potential to fundamentally change the balance of business power. And the large corporation may not be the ideal economic entity. David Pringle reports on how small companies, and even individuals, are about to experience their own information revolution.

<snip>...

Do your own thing

Given the right amount of computing power, the individual could become a mini-corporation in his or her own right. They would sit at the top of their own electronic organisation simply making decisions. In a paper on company transformation, Simon Buckingham, a business theorist, comments: "Think of the massive savings in fixed overheads if your head office is a web site."

<snip>...

Simon Buckingham argues that organisations need to be radical and allow employees at all levels to make vital decisions. "The limited understanding of managers is a fundamental justification for removing structure. The decision-makers are whoever has the most relevant information to make the right choice."

Most senior managers, handicapped by the belief that they should make decisions, will find it difficulty to agree with such sentiment. But the future of management will be all about putting the right people in the right jobs and then giving them the necessary information to get on with it. If large companies don't do this, small companies will run rings around them.

"How To Be A Learning Individual"

Article by Edwin E. Bobrow CMC, in the "As I See It" column of The Journal Of Management Consulting, May 1998.

While I was at a New York City chapter meeting of the Institute of Management Consultants (IMC), there was some spirited discussion on how we should keep up with the fast-paced changes taking place in consulting and in the specific fields that affect our clients and, consequently, us. It seemed to be a topic that would interest most of you, so I surveyed by e-mail some 20-odd consultants in six countries- Belgium, Canada, India, Israel, South Africa, and the USA- to see how they, in fact, keep up. In addition I surveyed some clients and information providers.

As I started to write this column I thought an appropriate title might be "Keeping Current." How in the world, however, can anyone keep current with the tremendous amount of information we are exposed to? Accelerating information at that. "Keeping Up" seemed the best one could hope for. Yet there is even more to equipping oneself with the knowledge, skills, and information needed to practice effectively in the 21^st century. I think the better framework is "How to Be a Learning Individual."

Survey Responses

Everyone who responded to the survey, with one exception, seemed to make a conscious effort toward learning. Some of the more obvious techniques they mentioned are: reading, attending workshops, contacts with colleagues, writing articles, giving workshops, teaching, listening to tapes, and listening, listening, listening. Some suggestions were unique to the individual; a few unique services were recommended as well to help us on this never-ending journey.

Gene Bellinger, a consultant, wrote that he would prefer to ask the question, "How do we develop an infrastructure that enables us to cope in an environment where it is simply not possible to keep current?" Toward this end, Bellinger and an alliance of leading business management consultants and experts are developing a knowledge base called OutSights (http://www.outsights.com/). This Web site not only provides information and expertise, but it ties the information to problem solving. I visited the site and it is different from anything I had experienced. Worth a look see.

I also heard from Carol Sager, Sager Educational Enterprises, who wrote that publishing a newsletter, in and of itself, helps her keep current. She suggests writing articles, surrounding oneself with "best in class," making speeches, working collaboratively across traditional boundaries, and listening to the dissenting voice. She publishes a unique newsletter on change management, "Critical Linkages II Newsletter" (http://ww.dowtech.com/CLIIN/). She was also the only one who said, "Please let me know more about what you are doing" (another way she keeps current and fosters new friendships). We have exchanged information.

Simon Buckingham wrote that subscribing to the LO (Learning Organization) list of articles, books and Web resources would point you in the direction of best new practices and pioneering work. "The threads give detail as ideas are explored and thoughts stimulated on specific areas and discipline." Buckingham has an interesting Web site that opens up new concepts and ideas (https://www.unorgan.com).

One group of consultants……

"Business Not Busy-Ness"

An Article By Simon Buckingham in the Agenda column Of Information Strategy Magazine, UK, June 1998.

In the orderly, organised world of the recent past there was certainty and convention. In the new unorganised world there is freedom, diversity and instability. The answer, according to Simon Buckingham, is ‘downstructuring’, an approach that is very different to downsizing.

The world has fundamentally changed from the old organised model into today’s unorganised one. To deal with it individuals must become ‘branders’, companies must ‘downstructure’ and countries need to establish technological capitalism. Yet we persist in seeing, thinking and acting using yesterday’s organised instruments and policies.

Large companies, in particular, have fundamental flaws that, cause much of their output to be non value-adding ‘busy-ness’ rather than actual business. These include a lack of adequate market-based incentives for employees, the presence of force in managerial contexts such as task-setting and team membership, and increasing difficulties for managers to successfully intervene because of their limited understanding of today’s complex global unorganised world.

Commerce is still valuable, but the means through which it is achieved should change. Formal organisations are outmoded in this day and age. To reconfigure existing organisations for the 21^st century business environment, they must be downstructured.

The Unorganisation Grid

Downstructuring- removing structure- is not restructuring- changing structure and downsizing by removing people. Downstructuring is the process of eliminating static inflexible systems and procedures such as job titles and paper-based administrative processes that hinder the achievement of valuable organisational outcomes such as excellent customer service.

It requires managers to recognise their limited understanding and respond by letting strategies emerge, make reversible commitments and keep decision-making vague. But if managers don’t decentralise and downstructure, local opportunities will be missed and local managers will leave, with the resulting under-performance (ie. Actual growth does not reach its potential) endangering the very position of the top managers because of discontent amongst employees, customers and shareholders.

One of the companies that downstructured most spectacularly and successfully is Channel Africa, a unit of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). Overnight, Channel Africa’s operating environment changed from one of organised apartheid to unorganised diversity. In response, it combined a reduction in administration such as the elimination of job tittles and descriptions with widespread deployment of technology tools to support its newly mobile workforce. The head office had been digitised with many former ‘clerical’ staff now editing content and employees communicating and filing reports using satellite telephones. In theory, each person was freed to live their dream, though about 30% of employees could not or would not change, and left the company.

For entrepreneurs to thrive, they must have a brand presence. It is no longer just products that need to develop a brand identity; so too should individuals. In large organisations and hierarchies, people were ‘rankers’; interchangeable units of economic production carrying out jobs that were closely defined by organisational procedures.

Now self-employed individuals need to be ‘branders’, people who think of themselves as brands and cultivate the differences that make them special. In this context a brand can be seen as comprising an inner core of knowledge and expertise and an outer core of network contacts, integrity and honesty. A brander needs to work hard at developing both through continuous learning and nurturing rather than neglecting business and personal contacts.

In fact, in the unorganised world, individuals should behave like companies, and companies like individuals. One way people can become branders is by developing multiple ‘lifestreams’. They are more than just a hobby. They are a means of earning a living.

A lifestream is something active. It is not just watching a sport such as cricket, but organising a fan club or Internet site related to it.

Lifestreams ebb and flow during the course of life, with different ones taking prominence at different times. The best form of job security in the unorganised world is to have alternative means of making a living, in other words, multiple lifestreams.

At the same time, collapsible corporations will need to replace organised hierarchies. New firms do not require the formal structures of the past. Production can be carried out using either markets or firms. Today’s firms exist because the transaction costs incurred when using free markets were higher than those incurred to organise the same quantity and quality of production within a firm. These costs include those for bidding, finding information and negotiating.

Sophisticated enabling technologies have reduced these transaction costs and thereby made it a lot easier to co-ordinate economic activity using markets rather than firms. Today’s unorganised world can be navigated and negotiated by individuals armed with today’s flexible technologies from mobile phones to electronic agents and the Internet.

This facilitates collapsible corporations ‘structured’ around electronic signals rather than physical buildings, with electronic networks replacing geographical communities. Business success for collapsible corporations will be about combining the complementary capabilities of business partners for mutual gain.

Once you have generated content or an idea it can be leveraged by outsourcing the actual production and distribution. Technology tools will increasingly facilitate this partnering and licensing. Managers who persist with using organised ways and means of doing business, however, will inevitably lose out to new and nimble competitors.

"Towards Freedom"

Article written by Simon Buckingham published in Praxis magazine, The Hindu Business Line newspaper’s quarterly journal on management, India, published in August 1998.

ACROSS the globe, in developed markets such as the USA, and developing markets such as India, small businesses have always accounted for the bulk of employment, wealth creation and economic growth. Furthermore, the importance of large companies will decrease still further in the twenty-first century because, as my previous article in the March 1998 issue of "Praxis" described, there are some fundamental flaws with large organisations that are threatening their effectiveness. These flaws are a lack of adequate market-based incentives for employees to perform to the same levels as they would as entrepreneurs, dependence between employees who rely on their colleagues to carry out their jobs in organisations, the presence of force in managerial contexts such as task-setting, office presence and team membership and increasing difficulty for managers to successfully intervene because of their limited understanding of today’s complex global unorganised world.

FUNDAMENTAL FORCES

Not only are large organisations fundamentally flawed, but there are some fundamental forces in the economic operating environment that help small businesses to match and exceed large organisations.

Transaction costs are the costs of getting into a position to do business, before the business itself is carried out. Transaction costs are falling rapidly because of enabling technologies such as the Internet, electronic agents (computerised assistants that find out information, organise meetings with other people’s agents and so on) and mobile communications. Because of the Internet, it is easy for any individual to have a global presence instantly. Any individual can inexpensively set up an Internet site and people around the world can then inexpensively access that information. Word of mouth recommendations, often by electronic mail, mean that the web site’s success depends upon the perceived value of the content published there.

Markets are increasingly contestable because ideas matter rather than current power configurations or wealth. Contestable markets are those that can be entered and exited easily and profitably. Too often in the organised world, new opportunities accrued to established large organisations, necessitating organisational membership to participate in wealth creation. However in the unorganised world, entrepreneurs who have generated unique content or ideas, can then leverage those ideas by licensing their logo and outsourcing the actual production and distribution of their ideas.

The outcome of all this is the realisation of the voluntary exchange principle that no-one need do anything they do not want to- people are not forced to be employees and do what they are told in organisations- they can earn a successful living as self-employed entrepreneurs.

Human civilisation is developing from Lean Liberty to Fat Slavery to Lean Slavery to Fat Liberty. Lean Liberty is the state of civilisation in developing countries where there are few widespread government welfare programs and people fend for themselves. Fat Slavery is the situation where large government and business institutions provide everything for citizens and employees- initiative is not encouraged, compliance is. But the fundamental flaws are turning Fat Slavery into Lean Slavery- employees are trapped in routines and their organisations are not necessarily the best or only means for developing careers and realising individual potential. Ultimately, we should be striving individually and collectively for Fat Liberty by harnessing the fundamental forces and achieving the glorious combination of both autonomy and independence and wealth and prosperity.

BRANDERS

For individuals to thrive and achieve Fat Liberty, they must have a brand presence. It is no longer just products that need to develop a brand identity; so too should individuals. In large organisations and hierarchies, people were "rankers"; interchangeable units of economic production carrying out jobs that were closely defined by organisational procedures. Instead, self-employed individuals should be "branders": people who think of themselves as brands and cultivate the differences that make them special. A brand comprises an inner core of knowledge and expertise and an outer core of network contacts, integrity and honesty and so on. A brander needs to work hard at developing both their inner and outer core, through continuous learning and nurturing rather than neglecting business and personal contacts. In fact, in the unorganised world, individuals should behave like companies, and companies like individuals.

LIFESTREAMS

People can become branders by developing multiple "lifestreams". Lifestreams are activities in life that particularly interest a brander and that they are particularly talented at doing. A lifestream is more than just a hobby; it is a means to earn a living. A lifestream is something active; for example, it is not just watching a sport such as cricket, but organising a fan club or Internet site related to it. Lifestreams ebb and flow during the course of life, with different lifestreams taking prominence at different times. Whichever lifestream is most prevalent for the time being, the brander ensures that none stop flowing completely. It is important that each brander has MULTIPLE lifestreams: too many people let their workstream predominate and dominate, with little time spent developing anything else. The best form of job security there is in the unorganised world is to have alternative means of making a living, in other words, multiple lifestreams.

BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS

Individuals such as branders will increasingly no longer earn their living within traditional business organisations, but instead will work within more dynamic forms of company that I call "collapsible corporations". These are clusters of people from inside and outside of the organisation’s traditional boundaries partnering and collaborating voluntarily, dynamically and temporarily in order to meet customer requirements.

Establishing business partnerships extends a small company’s reach and helps to turn a vision into reality by extending the scope of the idea and the resources working on developing it. Business partnerships also fulfill many of the social aspects of business in collapsible corporations, acting as regular contacts and support systems. Business success for small businesses is all about combining complementary capabilities to add value to the service you offer to customers. Win-win relationships are the name of the game. Leveraging complimentary skill sets for mutual gain is the order of the day! Agents and business partners can generate and call you into mutual revenue earning opportunities. As opposed to strategic alliances, which tend to be exclusive, contractual and involving financial investments, business partnerships are typically non-exclusive relationships set up without significant exchange of money between the partners. Business partnerships are often non-contractual relationships based on mutual benefit and trust. Business partners may work with your direct competitors.

The key for successful partnering is to provide better responsiveness and support than competitors who are also partnering the same companies. In business partnerships, co-operation is essential. For customers, responsiveness is everything. Customers have got to be able to get straight through to you because they may not call back. You have to make information about your company’s activities readily available to potential customers and meet their needs closely and flexibly in a prompt and efficient way. For your partners, customers are everything. There is no point in setting up a partnership if it is not going to bring mutual reward i.e. mutual customers.

Large market-leading companies who have set up business partner programs should be more than willing to support smaller companies if these smaller companies can deliver solutions to their customers cost-effectively, flexibly and quickly. If the company is consistently responsive and professional, then they are large enough to get the business. If you are a competent and responsive partner then chances are you’ll get introduced to a large percentage of their suitable customers- irrespective of your company’s size. Size does not matter. Behaviour does.

In fact, in today’s global diverse unorganised world, size is not a useful criteria for evaluating companies. There is no such thing as a small business because all individuals have access to and seek recourse in support systems such as their network, customers, friends, family, suppliers and partners. As such, small businesses are often made up of collections of individuals- often self-employed- who work together for mutual gain. For example, a kitchen studio company may only formally employ two people- a sales manager and accountant, but when you take into account the people who work closely with them- plumbers, fitters, builders, tilers, electricians, decorators and so on, you see that the "small" business is actually more powerful and capable than it at first appears. Company size does not matter much, other things such as responsiveness and reliability are more important. As such, large companies may be in the best position to meet customer requirements, or small companies, depending on what the requirement is and how much customers are willing to spend and when they need the job done by. Large or small is not the most important selection criteria- there are flaws with large organisations and disadvantages such as resource constraints with many small businesses.

SUMMARY

A combination of the fundamental flaws of larger organisations and the fundamental market forces helping to bring about small business success, means the valuable end of commerce will increasingly be carried out by different means- markets rather than firms in the twenty-first century. To succeed in such an unorganised business environment, entrepreneurs need to think of themselves as brands and develop knowledge that they leverage through business partnerships. The result is a fundamental transformation in the nature and form of business- one that creates the potential for ALL individuals to participate in wealth creation, rather than the majority of new opportunities being conferred upon those people who are employed by large companies. This facilitates a brand new economic system called "technological capitalism" that has the potential to close the gap between the first and third worlds in countries such as India and give EVERY individual the opportunity to pursue economic opportunities.

The future is not what it used to be. We are all entrepreneurs now! Size does not matter! "One man bands" have become "single person armies"! Onwards towards Fat Liberty!

Simon Buckingham is the creator of the unorganisation lifestyle for the twenty-first century. His five unorganisation handbooks can be accessed free-of-charge on the Internet at https://www.unorgan.com

"Klap virksomhederne sammen"

Interview of Simon Buckingham written by J'rgen Arberg and published in Alt om DATA magazine, Denmark, August 1998.

Teknologien kan fjerne hierarki og bureaukrati og skabe mere dynamiske milj'er

I sin taglejlighed ud mod Themsen I hjertet af London sidder data'konom Simon Buckingham og sender den f'rste elekroniske post ud til de enkeltpersoner, der for en kort periode er engageret hos et r'dgivende ingeni'rfirma.

Hver for sig skal de medvirke til at l'se problemer med rensningsanl'gget i Richmond og de alt for store m'ngder spildevand, der urenset slipper ud i floden og kv'ler alt liv. Han skriver til biologen, til kemiingeni'ren, til datalogen, til elektronikteknikeren, til entrepren'ren, til journalisten og m'ske ogs' til politikeren eller andre, der kan bidrage med deres specielle viden. Her og nu- i en l'st organiseret gruppe, der opl'ser sig i det 'jeblik, arbejdet er gjort f'rdigt.

N'ste gang henvender Simon Buckingham sig til nogle helt andre, for han hader lukkede virksomheder, stive kommandoveje, bureaukrati og organiseret hierarki. I stdet dyrker han den uorganiserede globale verden, hvor han springer rundt fra projekt til projekt og ikke beh'ver at bukke og skrabe for direkt'rer og langsomme planl'ggere.

I en s'den verden af frihed, alsidighed og ustabilitet sv'mmer engl'nderen Simon Buckingham rundt som en fisk i vandet, og med moderne dataudstyr har han de seneste 'r agiteret for at nedbryde alle de traditionelle strukturer i virksomhederne ud fra princippet om 'af-organisiering' - eller p' britisk-engelsk 'unorganization'. Hvor man klapper virksomheden sammen som en klapstol og s'tter den op igen, n'r solen atter skinner.

Specialist i organisation

Den 26-'rige brite er uddannet cand.merc. fra London School of Economics med speciale i virksomheedsorganisation. lige nu bruger han n'sten al sin tid p' at rejse rundt p' skandinaviske virksomheder for at holde foredrag om sin k'phest om at fjerne alle kendte strukturer.

Alt om DATA fangede ham efter et af hans flammende foredrag for at tale lidt om teknologi og arbejde.

Hvad fort'ller du i dine foredrag?

Jeg tager udgangspunkt i den foranderlige verden, der 'ndrer sig fra industrisamfundets stramt organiserede verden med sikkerhed og konventioner til det h'jteknologiske videnssamfund, hvor det eneste sikre er markedets ustablitet.

For at kunne udnytte de nye muligheder i den uorganiserede verden skal enkeltpersoner, firmaer og regeringer fors'ge at bev'ge sig fra at v're rene individualister i afstrukturerede firmaer i samfund, som baserer sig p', hvad jeg kalder teknologisk kapitalisme.

Enkeltpersoner realiserer bedst deres v'kstpotentiale som individualister og ikke som ansatte, der blindt parerer ledelsens ordrer.

Menneskret skal ikke v're en metervare, men en m'rkevare, der ved hj'lp af sine interesser og lidenskab udvikler livsforl'b - 'lifestreams'. Netop med basis i interessen kan mennesket yde sin ekspertise i 'adhocratier', det vil sige partnerskaber, der blot er dannet til leejligheden og derefter klapper sammen.

Den uorgiserede verden vil byde p' et v'ld af alternative muligheder at tjene sine penge p' - men det vil v're et f'llles tr'k: Alt hvad der lugter af tunge procedurer, sn'rende jobtitler og administraative processer skal systematisk afskaffes.

Sammenklappelige virksomheder kan nu erstatte organiserede hierarkier. Frivilligt of flydende slutter enkeltpersoner sig sammen med nutidens fleksible teknologier som elektroniske agenter. Sammenklappelige virksomheder er 'struktureret' omkring elekroniske signaler snarere end fysiske kontorbygninger og med elektroniske netv'rk snarere end konkrete geografiske enheder.

N'r jeg en gang har kabt et behov eller en ide, kan jeg udnytte den ved at outsource b'de distribution og produktion.

Derved flytter jeg v'gten fra instutioner til enkeltpersoner. fra afh'ngighed og tvang til frivillighed og begejstring. Og angstneuroserne forsvinder. Hvor mange medarbejdere binder ikke deres energier i dag p' at v're bange for at blive fyret. Det er jo absurd, at s' mange mennesker foretr'kker at leve som fede slaver frem for som tynde frihedselskere.

I den danske valgkamp for nylig n'vnte en kendt kvindelig politiker, at vi ikke alle kan blive professorer eller tilh're den s'kaldte elite. Hvis velf'rdssamfundet i Skandinavien skal forts'tte med at eksistere, beh'ver vi vel l'nmodtagere, der skaber v'rdier p' en anden m'de end ved at flyve og fare jorden rundt og h've fede konsulenthonorarer. Med andr ord: Er dit 'nske om at 'aforganisere' alting ikke et af de her smarte slogans fra managementkonsulenter, der er kodylt ligeglade med f'lleskabet og tvangsneurotisk er fikseret p' bundlinjen. Og h'rer ideerne ikke mere hjemme i den angelsaksiske verden i USA og England end her i velf'rdsskandinavien?

Jeg accepterer ikke, at du lanver skarpe skel mellem Skandinavien of resten af kloden. Vi lever jo i den globale landsby, hvor teknologien spreder sig ud til alle sociale grupper i samfundet. I USA, i Indien og i Denmark. Og jeg 'nsker at frig're energier og potentialer for alle sociale lag - ikke bare for eliten - og angribe st'vede organisationer, der hele tiden appellerer til loyalitet, solidaritet og stabililitet. Begreber, der h'rer en fjern fortid til, og som i hvert fald ikke g'lder for den klassiske kapitalistiske virksomhed.

Her siger topledere altid, at intet betyder mere for dem end medarbejdernes trivsel og loyalitet. De er jo fulde af l'gn og flytter virksomheden om p' den anden side af kloden, hvis det passer dem. Men med den ny teknologi kan de fleste sociale grupper selv s'tte dagsordenen, mindske fremmedg'relsen og kombinere fritid og faglige interesser.

Det lyder jo altsammen meget godt. Men er for eksempel telearbejdspladsen i hjemmet ideel for alle? Logistikken skal jo v're p' plads, og hvem betaler for ISDN-forbindelser, fax- og fotokopieringsmaskine, scanner, printer og hurtige modemer? Desuden har mange mennesker et socialt behov for at v're sammen og foretr'kker m'ske ogs', at nogle kommer og fort'ller dem pr'cist, hvad de skal g're, og hvordan de skal opf're sig.

Med den stigende konkurrence falder priserne p' alle de produkter, du n'vner, og der findes for eksempel printere, scannere of fax-faskiner samlet i en lille b'rber enhed. Eftersp'rgslen p' det s'kaldte SOHO-marked (small office/ home office) stiger dramatisk, og is'r mobiltelefonteknologien vil gavne den lille, fleksible uorganiserede virksomhed.

Hvad menneskelige behov ang'r, kunne jeg ikke dr'mme om at tvinge nogen til noget. Jeg skelner blot mellem 'rankers' og 'branders', det vil sige mellem folk, der foretr'kker hierarkier, og folk, der lytter mere til hjertet og fors'ger at f' det unikke frem hos sig selv. Og mennesket er nu engang gladest for at g're det, det er bedst til. Derfor bliver entusiasmen ogs' st'rre og slutproduktet - alt andet lige - ogs' bedre.

Viden drukner i organisation

De teknologiske muligheder kr'ver stor omstilling, og traditionelt bruger virksomheden to metoder. Enten fyrer de folk i bundter, eller ogs' 'ndrer de strukturerne internt, uden at det hj'lper nogetsomhelst i det lange l'b. Og 'ndres ikke ved den vertikale fors'ger at kontrollere infortmationsstr'm og viden.

S' kan man naturligvis lave en flad organisation krydret med lidt arvegods fra langh'rede 68'ere, men den degenerer som oftest ogs' til noget formelt, hvor den organisatoriske placering - som for eksempel projektleder - bliver vigtigere end viden og kompetence.

Jeg foretr'kker helt at eliminere struckturerne og lade virksomheden best' af en central vidensdatabase baseret p' intranet-l'sninger. Frie, uafh'ngige konsulenter kan derefter tr'kke og l'gge viden ind p' databasen og dermed ogs' bidrage til at 'ge virksomhedens samlede viden og dermed dens konkurrencekraft. Netv'rket 'ger effektiviteten. Det er eltid oppe, og informationer kan hentes eller lagres p' alle tidspunkter af d'gnet og lige meget, hvor man befinder sig.

Sikkerhedssystemerne er nu s' udviklede, at man roligt over Internet kan sende post og udveksle dokumenter, uden at det falder i forkerte h'nder.

Og med Intranet, der jo er en slags lukkede net p' Internet, kan kun personer med adgangskode logge sig p'. S'dan m' det n'dvendigvis v're - mere kaotisk anarkist er jeg alts' heller ikke.

Din lede ved organisationer og reguleringer har vel ogs' som konsekvens, at du g'r ind for minimalstaten. Al politisk og 'konomisk teori peger p', at det vil betyde stigende ulighed og junglelow, hvor fanden tager de bagerste. Det harmonerer i mine 'ren bedre med den vilde Thatcher-revolution end med New labour og Tony Blair, der i hvert fald p' papiret s'ger at omfordele noget ad den akkumulerede rigdom i det britiske samfund. Savner du ikke i virkeligheden 'The Iron Lady'?

Overhovedet ikke. Om nogen beskyttede hun det traditionelle lag af virksomhedsledere, der formelt h'ndh'vede den private ejendomsret og ustandseligt blev begunstiget af de konservative Torier. P' mig virker Thatcher-'raen som en helt anden tidsalder, hvor man stadigv'k brugte stencils og bl'k. Men jeg sympatiserede da med hende, da hun s'gte konflikten med de marxistiske romantikere i fagforeningerne og gjorde op med dered organisatoriske tyranni.

Historisk har jeg forst'else for, at arbejderne s'gte over mod socialismen for at mindske uligheden. Kapitalismen for'rsager jo ulighed, og den har en selvforrst'rkende effekt ved, at de 'konomiske muligheder normalt kun kan udnyttes af mennesker, der sidder h'jt p' str' i private virksomheder eller i forvejen sidder p' fl'sket.

Enkeltspersoner, der arbejder alene, st'r enten over for h'je barrierer eller udelukkes helt fra at f' fordele af dee markedsm'ssige muligheder. De rige bliver rigere, og de fattige forbliver fattige.

I hvad jeg klader den teknologiske kapitalisme, hvor der en bred adgang til ny teknologi i befolkningen, finder man muligheder b'de p' det frie marked, og for at alle enkeltpersoner kan f' gavn af disse muligheder. Enkeltpersoner kan lettere deltage i og fuldt udnytte den frie markeds'konomi. Talent og viden bestemmer den fremtidige velstand - de fattige kan blive rige.

N'r Internet om et par 'r bliver lige s' selvf'lgeligt som tv og telefon, kan man for alvor benytte sig af det frivillige udvekslingsprincip om, at ingen beh'ver at g're noget, de ikke 'nsker.

Vi kan g're vores hobby til vores forretning, udf're midlertidigt arbejde, slet ikkee arbejde eller danne vores egen sammenklappelige virrksomhed. Den teknologiske kapitalisme realiserer de lige muligheder blandt individerne, som altid har v'ret kommunismens teoretiske m'l, samtidig med at lighedeen er fast forankret i et 'konomisk system af meget frie markeder.

At koble lighed og marked sammen er ikke thatcherisme, det er heller ikke New Labour. Nej, det er den vidunderlige verden af 'unorganization'.

Dine sammenklappelige virksomheder vil vel ogs' betyde, at du g'r ind for at bev'ge dig in p' et eksportmarked, samle dine ekksperter og realisere ideen om at s'lge for eksempel datal'sninger til enkeltvirksomheder uden organisk forbindelse til det omgivende samfund. Du scorer kassen og flygter over hals og hoved. En s'dan 'hit-and-run'. strategi skaber jo katedraler i 'rkenen og vil aldrig kunne opbygge en stabil infrastruktur og dermed et velfungerende samfund.

Nu er jeg mest til at diskutere virksomheder og organisering, men jeg kan sagtens se det sammenklappelige princip brugt globalt. Og at involvere sig med 'bne 'jne er da s' langt at foretr'kke frem for 'Fly-by-night', der demonterer virksomhederne i udlandet for rigdom - og flygter i ly af m'rket og efterlader gabende huller og ulykkelige sk'bner.

Hvor har du set principperne for 'unorganization' gennemf'rt?

Jeg var selv involveret i at udvikle en plan for Channel Africa i Sydafrika - en lokal tv-station, der efter mange 'r med apartheid havde brug for nyt tankegods.

Efter at have skilt os af med hovedparten af den gamle, hvide Afrikaaner-ledelse definerede vi kanalens kerneydelser og tilb'd de medarbejdere, der besad stor viden, at arbejde for sig selv og l'se opgaver for kanalen l'bende.

De cirka 100 ansatte fik at vide, at de mistede deres skriveborde og deres skriveborde og deres titler og m'tte g're op med sig selv, om de kunne klare den omstilling, der bet'd, at de selv fik kontrol over teknologien uden at v're decideret ansatte p' kanalen og principielt arbejdede fra hjemmet.

Hovedparten af udgifterne til mobiltelefoner, pc'er med modemer og lydkort m'tte medarbejdere ikke ville v're med. De havde erfaringen, men ikke den rette holdning.

S' er vi tilbage i den uundg'elige selektionsproces mellem s'kaldte 'rankers' overfor 'branders' - mellem den autorit're type og den individualistiske type, der opfatter mennesket p' linje med et produkt - som en m'rkevare. For de sidstn'vnte har omstillingen v'ret en stor succes. De rejser rundt p' hele kontinentet og skaber bedre historier end f'r. De er mere dynamiske og udadvendte. Og fordrer og spiser hele tiden af den centrale database hos Channel Africa.

Vi ser, at mange n'glemedarbejdere hos for eksempel de store dataog kommunikationsfirmaer forlader virksomhederne og starter for sig selv. De f'ler sig kvalt og understimuleret og kan frig're en lang r'kke energier i en hverdag fyldt med kompetente og fokuserede medspillere. Med overraskelser, nye partnere og nye udfordringer. Det er for mig fremtidens vidensproducktion.

Hvordan oplever du ellers Danmark?

Jeeg m'der mange eksempler p' statisk og ufrugtbar kontrol - ikke bare af undeerordnete - men ogs' i for eksempel kontormilj'er og direktionslokaler. Regler og forordninger om at m'delokaler skal ryddes op efter brug, at stole ikke m' st' p' gangene, at tomme glas skal placeres i opvaskemaskinen oog at pc'er og faxer skal slukkes, n'r man forlader arbejdspladsen. Sirligt og pr'cist nedskrevet i dokumentmapper og sl'et op p' v'gge og gange. Hvorfor i al verden skal man bruge energi p' at skriive s'den noget ned? Det smager for meget af pedantisk undertrykkelse og sovjetick plan'konomi.

Jeg synes ogs', at danskerne t'nker for lidt p' at yde kunderne ordentlig service. Da jeg boede p' mit hotel i det indre K'benhavn, kom en af reng'ringspigerne til at smide en plasticpose med mit tioletgrej ud, og jeg rapporterede straks til receptionen, der ments at jeg selv skulle tale med pigen og finde ud af, hvor hun havde gjort af grejet.

Jeg har da ikke noget imod at tale med reng'ringspiger, men det er for ringe, at hotellet skaber et problem, som de s' synes jeg selv skal l'se. Og generelt ver jeg noget rystet over serviceniveauet over for kunderne i butikkerne - k'er, sure ekspedienter og elendig information var reglen snarere end undtagelsen.

Det afspejler sig jo ogs' i flere danske virksomheder, hvor man ofte er mere optaget af interne struckturer end at servicere kunden. Vend dog organisationen om - ud imod kunderne. Det er jo dam, vi skal leve af.

Ellers synes jeg godt om den afslappede atmosf're, is'r i det indre K'benhavn og blev positivt overrasket over den multi-etniske stemning. Det mindede jo n'sten om London. Og s' alle de skoleb'rn, der l'b rundt uden uniform midt i skoletiden. Hjemme hos os er de uniformerede og skal blive inden for skolens omr'de og ikke rende rundt i gaderne og k'be silk.

S' i virkeligheden har danskerne sikkert talent for klapstole og 'unorganization'.

Simon Buckingham har en hjemmeside, der fort'ller mere om hans ideer. Adressen er: https://www.unorgan.com

"FEELING UNORGANISED?"

Interview of Simon Buckingham written by Cathy Stadler and published in Intelligence magazine, South Africa, August 1998.

He's sold 20 000 copies of his books without ever having to print a page. Simon Buckingham is a one of a new breed of consultants working and using the Internet as a springboard for his work. Cathy Stadler spoke to Buckingham and found some interesting perspectives of knowledgement management.

IT IS EASIER THAN PULLING A R20 NOTE FROM YOUR WALLET. If you want to read any of Buckingham's books you simply visit his Web site www.unorgan.com, click on the book title your're interested in and it's instantly available on your computer. It was so easy that I had to check my files again - in less than thirty seconds I had one of the most interesting reads I have come across in a long time.

I asked the 25-year-old author of "Unorganisation" about his views on management and new ways of working in the knowledge economy. Buckingham says he gives his knowledge away free of charge at unorgan.com and then sells consultancy, report writing, speech giving and other activities on the basis of that content. This involves frequent travelling around the world to evangelize about unorganisation. With diverse interests, including collecting Coca-Cola memorabilia and expertise in short messaging services, Buckingham has traveled widely and has a BCom degree from Birmingham University. Other skills include proficiency in German.

Why did you decide to publish on the Web rather than go the traditional publishing route?

As an unknown name with nothing published, I wanted to quickly establish myself- and my ideas- globally and immediately. My content also changed a lot over time - and is still changing - and using the Internet allows me to refresh the content whenever I want and continuously improve it. I can also publish in multiple languages, differentiate the content according to whom the readers are, interact with a global audience and so on.

Has this strategy proven to be a successful one? How many copies have been downloaded?

I think the strategy has been extremely successful. Over 67 000 visitors to the unorgan.com Internet site have downloaded over 20 000 copies of my five handbooks so far. Once the payment mechanisms and desktop publishing technologies have been perfected, there will be little need for the physical distribution of books. People will download text that looks like today's books electronically over the Internet and read that text either on a plamtop computer or by printing it out on paper. The same content will be available to them for a fraction of the costs incurred in traditional publishing.

What made you write these books?

I studied organisation and management theory at university and then I went out and started working and found that, in practicde, organisations were still using 19th century methods of doing business - hierarchies, job descriptions, offices and so on. I wanted to suggest and show people that there is a better way and that we cannot persist with old orderly organised thinking in today's global, diverse unstablee world.

South Africa is of course a great example of the change from organised apartheid to unorganised complexity. Companies such as Channel Africa, a division of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, realised the imperative to change to adjust to their new non-monopoly situation and diverse audience. They "unorganised". (See www.unorgan.com/sabc2.htm)

What is the key message of Unorganisation? Can you define the concept of unorganisation in the context of knowledge management?

Unorganisation aims to eliminate the busyness that arises in organisations and replace it with business. The key message of unorganisation is that the world has changed and so too should we. We should not persist in seeing the world in terms of red and white when the reality is various shades of pink. In the unorganised world, the only property that matters is intellectual property; the only matter that matters is brain matter. In such a world, learning new truths and discovering new knowledge is essential to success.

What do you think are going to be the key changes that characterise successful companies and successful individuals?

Individuals should change from being "rankers" (interchangeable units of economic production doing "dumbed-down" jobs in hierarchies) and become "branders" (people who manage their own career development and learning and develop multiple "lifestreams") - an alternative means of earning a living. The motto is, "If you have got something to say, why don't you say it".... leverage your talents... realize your full potential. The focus will be on results - location and membership. Where the results are achieved and by whom will be much less important.

What do you think the consequences will be of retaining organised thinking?

Organised business organisations suffer from some fundamental flaws such as bounded rationality and a limitd understanding of managers, dependence on others to get a job done, transaction costs (the costs of getting in a position to do business) and the existence of force. These flaws, coupled with the fundamental change in the operating enviornment that is the global and diverse unorganised world, mean that knowledge management is improvement within a sub-optimal organisational form. It is evolutionary improvement in a fundamentally different world.

Because of their flaws, organisations will fail to reach their potential and if competitors do eliminate static inflexible structures and procedures then competitive position and survival will be threatened. The choice for managers is to delegate or die - they suffer from limited understanding of today's diverse global unorganised world. Managers either volunteer to delegate their responsibility voluntarily or the market will take their power away from them by force.

Can you offer a definition of knowledge management?

Knowledge is relevant, useful information about things that are important to the organisation such as its customers, competitors, product development processes and so on. Knowledge management is all about capturing and leveraging valuable information and making it widely available for use by other people throughout the organisation. Knowledge management concerns itself with packaging up information into "components" which when combined and modified can be reused in other places and contexts by other people in the organisation.

What do you believe are the driving forces behind knowledge management?

Knowledge management is the search for an advantage of persisting with organisations as we know them based on formal membership. It is an attempt to to turn an organisation into something more than just a formal and uncomfortable collection of individuals working in the same company but not necessarily together or for the same ends.

It is clearly useful to encourage information "externalities" where someone else benefits from being an employee of a particular company because they can access the proprietary knowledge of other people in their organisation. Whether I would want to join a management consultancy in order to gain access to its confidential knowledge database is very mute indeed. Its value would depend on the unique truths in its knowledge that are not available from any other sources and are applicable to other situations.

Unorganisation and knowledge management could be diametrically opposed concepts - management seems to be an opposing concept to managing and organising knowledge.

Yes, unorganisation and knowledge management could be seen as opposing concepts- or entirely complementary ones. Unorganisation states that leveraging knowledge and learning to serve customers is the goal of any economic actor- individual or company. The question is how to achieve that end. Knowledge acquisition is essential but a key unanswered queston is whether that knowledge acquisition is put into a communal collective database in an organisation or retained by the individual and used to finance self-employment.

Managers closely supervising employees in hierarchies neither encourage nor reward knowledge acquisition and learning. A collapsible corporation in which people voluntarily and impermanently co-operate is driven by knowledge because people are invited to participate because of their specialist knowledge. Indeed, the optimal way to share knowledge and stimulate effective collaboration and creation to meet end customer requirements is with collapsible corporations. In these dynamic organisational forms, people with complementary expertise voluntarily collaborate to share knowledge in order to solve a particular problem. Such voluntary free market-based forms optimise the incentives to collaborate and widen the quantity and quality of knowledge that can be accessed.

How will knowledge workers work in the knowledge economy?

In the unorganised world, we work with our heads and not with our hands. Because the generation of ideas is location independent, and different people work best at different times and in different places, the contexts in which content is generated will be much more diverse than everyone going to an office day in, day out. Teleworking will be widespread.

What parts of the organised world act against proper knowledge management systems being implemented and becoming useful to companies?

The use of force is a big barrier to the use of knowledge management systems. Employees are unlikely to readily contribute valuable knowledge to a system just because they are told to.

I can well understand why organisations want to gain access to the knowledge in their employee's heads. Employees can be rewarded for complying with such systems and contributing to the knowledge database. In fact, gathering the knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for successful knowledge management - that knowledge also has to be used and applied. Hence, rewarding employees for sharing and using knowledge is necessary to get people to use the system extensively. Once they have shared all their valuable information in the knowledge database, employees need to continue creating new knowledge.

What are the benefits for organisations that get it right? Can you give us some examples?

The biggest benefit is survival. Some of the biggest successes in implementing knowledge management can be found in the management consulting industry. These companies have had some success in generating internally stored and frequently reused knowledge and getting their customers to pay large sums for their insight. Moreover, a brand such as McKinsey usually remains beigger than that of its employees. Only occasionally does a person outgrow the consultancy - such as Tom Peters.

Management techniques in the Information Age [Side Panel]

Positively, knowledge management techniques are lateral across the organisation and therefore transcend current structures. This reduces the dependency of employees on their fellow department members. The knowledge is stored and accessible throughout the organisation, regardless of geography or operating unit. This is achieved using new technologies such as intranets and relational databases. Hence, someone in one area of the company can access information from other areas and past projects to help them make sense of and respond to current projects for different clients. Different employees can refine rather than reinvent knowledge and thereby respond more quickly to the current demands of customers.

In the pre-knowledge management era, most situation- and job-specific information resided in the heads of people. Different people may have been carrying out the same sorts of tasks in other parts of the same organisation. Yet, the two people may not have talked to one another, let alone shared knowledge about how best to get their similar jobs done. It is also quite clear that knowledge has in the past been difficult to access because it resided either in brain cells in heads or on paper in locked up filing cabinets. Moreover, some senior managers deliberately protected their knowledge, whereas the new imperative for leaders is to diffuse useful information throughout the organisation.

The value oif having a knowledge database within an existing organisation depends upon the extent to which the knowledge and ideas available in the company are more useful than those available outside the company. External knowledge sources include Internet-related media such as Web sites and external communities of interest in the form of discussion forums and e-mail lists.

It would be interesting to compare the value of the knowledge gained using the same sensitive search engine tool such as AltaVista on the public Internet and on the private knowledge database. Perhaps the internally stored knowledge would be more specific to that company and its requirements- requiring less original thought from the employees to solve the problem. Information overload is a myth. technology tools such as search engines and intelligent agents give everyone the ability to filter down and closely identify the exact type of answers they want.

Knowledge management is less useful when the sought after answers have not been generated in that organisation at all. This is the case even in the impossible situation of having a knowledge database that is completely coherent and therfore containing all the valuable knowledge that resides within the organisation. Employees must be certain to reassess the truth in the knowledge every time they reuse it - in a fast-changing world, information captured in the past may no longer be relevant. For example, some management consultants and Internet commentators have made the mistake of extrapolating the increasing returns model to explain the content-driven era, when in fact it ceased being important in the distribution-driven era.

It may well be useful to have a knowledge database so that when an employee leaves the company, the new recruit has access to the knowledge nuggets of wisdom left behind. Currently, successors have to rely primarily on just a set of quality manuals and procedures explaining what actions to take to do the job- not how or what to think. Knowledge management is to knowledge-based organisations what job procedures were in administration and manufacturing-based organisations.

It is very easy to imagine the implementation of knowledge management exercises as mandatory. Information "components" would then be passed up the hierarchy and signed off and agreed by managers before being posted to the knowledge database. Technology must be accompanied by attitude change- otherwise it just automates rather than "informates". The knowledge sharing and collaboration should be voluntary and not mandatory. Compulsion is never the best way to achieve a valuable enduring end. - Simon Buckingham