One of the interesting issues that came across my desk today as I was discussing a colleague’s new venture was the taxonomy and ontology of our conversation. She wanted to cover multiple concepts in the same conversation which is a notable goal regarding economy of one’s time. However, it became apparent that the terms being used were being overloaded during the conversation. Example: Discussing the Business Structure and Organizational Structure both terms were used interchangeably. However, when I hear the words Business Structure I think of the legal form in which the business is established (Corporation, LLC, Partnership, etc.). When I hear the term Organizational Structure I consider whether it is centralized or distributed; a partitioning along functional, product, customer or geographic lines. As I continue to develop the Business Design Tool (see below) the question becomes how-to ensure that the dimensions are orthogonal to each other while retaining the interconnectedness of these dimensions.
Many of the recent texts define various dimensions such as complexity, market, size, etc. However, the interconnection is only a Infographic. Perhaps these interconnections are only a probabilistic connection leading one to only heuristics. I will make a interesting systems dynamic study at the Center for Understanding Change when I have some spare time. In the meantime I continue to develop the Org Design and Modern IT Portfolio Management tools which are looking more and more like an enhancement to the Business Analysis System and Environment (B.A.S.E.) application built in 1994 on MS Access V1.
B.A.S.E. at that time performed a variety of management consulting analysis:
This application will eventually become the basis for the semi-automated workflow for several of Intellectual Arbitrage Group’s practices and services