On 2007-05-24 12:48:00, Allan Engelhardt wrote in CYBAEA Journal:
McKinsey writes about Better Strategy Through Organizational Design and come out strongly in favor of Enterprise Social Software and collaboration techniques:
[T]he new element that can help 21st-century corporations create more wealth is large-scale collaboration, across the entire enterprise, enabled by digital technology. ... Digital technology provides the means not just to promote efficient, effective, and large-scale collaboration but also to measure each person’s “assists” and thus motivate employees to collaborate in ways that were not possible in the past.
Their arguments are closely linked to the profits per employee measure we introduced back in October last year. This is the most important metric for the CEO to manage.
Focusing on this formula (rather than returns on capital and on the amount of capital deployed) offers several advantages. For one, profit per employee, unlike returns on capital, is a good proxy for earnings on intangibles. The reason, in part, is that the total number of employees is easy to obtain, while a company’s capital, surprisingly, is subject to the vagaries of accounting on issues such as goodwill and to corporate-finance decisions such as debt-to-equity ratios, dividend policies, and liquidity preferences. And these days, talent—not capital—is usually a company’s scarcest resource.
Talent is the scarce resource because it is the ultimate generator of the intangibles that drive the creation of wealth in the digital age. Winning companies are those that can increase their profit per employee by mobilizing labor, capital, and mind power into profitable institutional skills, intellectual property, networks, and brands. The returns to companies that can accomplish all this are extremely attractive because intangibles now confer enormous scale and scope advantages. Furthermore, intangibles represent unique assets for the individual companies in possession of them—that is, they are unique in supply—so they can create “natural monopolies,” which are difficult for other companies to replicate.
This is difficult for most executives. Innovation velocity is dependent on collaboration; and collaboration among larger groups and creation networks require different skills and tools than what most executives are used to and is therefore often ignored or placed in the "too hard" category. But it isn't too hard if the executive team is willing to show leadership and embrace new organizational ideas.
On 2010-07-13 07:47:00, Allan Engelhardt wrote in CYBAEA Data and Analysis:
I am not sure apeescape’s ggplot2 area plot with intensity colouring is really the best way of presenting the information, but it had me intrigued enough to replicate it using base R graphics.
The key technique is to draw a gradient line which R does not support natively so we have to roll our own code for that. Unfortunately, lines(..., type="l") does not recycle the colour col= argument, so we end up with rather more loops than I thought would be necessary.
We also get a nice opportunity to use the under-appreciated read.fwf function.
Read more (~535 words).
On 2010-06-22 11:45:00, Allan Engelhardt wrote in CYBAEA Journal:
We have a mild obsession with employee productivity and how that declines as companies get bigger. We have previously found that when you treble the number of workers, you halve their individual productivity which is scary.
We now re-do the analysis four years later and, just because we can, we are using the leading companies of the London stock exchange instead of the largest American companies.
The results still hold. We called it the 3/2 rule: treble the number of workers and you halve their individual productivity. Large companies with ten times the number of employees are ¼ as productive as their smaller competitors.
Employee productivity is a big issue. If all the FTSE-100 companies achieved their average profits per employee, then the index would generate almost £1 trn of additional net profits for the economy.
Read more (~245 words).
On 2010-06-22 11:20:00, Allan Engelhardt wrote in CYBAEA Data and Analysis:
We have a mild obsession with employee productivity and how that declines as companies get bigger. We have previously found that when you treble the number of workers, you halve their individual productivity which is mildly scary.
We revisit the analysis for the FTSE-100 constituent companies and find that the relation still holds four years later and across a continent.
Read more (~763 words, 5 comments).
On 2010-06-17 09:05:00, Allan Engelhardt wrote in CYBAEA Data and Analysis:
Following on from my previous post about improving performance of R by linking with optimized linear algebra libraries, I thought it would be useful to try out the five benchmarks Revolutions Analytics have on their Revolutionary Performance pages.
Read more (~300 words, 2 comments).
On 2010-06-15 10:21:00, Allan Engelhardt wrote in CYBAEA Data and Analysis:
Can we make our analysis using the R statistical computing and analysis platform run faster? Usually the answer is yes, and the best way is to improve your algorithm and variable selection.
But recently David Smith was suggesting that a big benefit of their (commercial) version of R was that it was linked to a to a better linear algebra library. So I decided to investigate.
The quick summary is that it only really makes a difference for fairly artificial benchmark tests. For “normal” work you are unlikely to see a difference most of the time.
Read more (~934 words, 1 comments).
Join the discussion
There are no comments yet. Be the first to comment.