(Note: I have snipped much of Kim's posting and am responding only to two
selected portions.)
Kim Ridgway, using the McKinsey & Company "Horizon" framework, comments:
>The questions in my original note were more focused on how to help the
>horizon I (McKinsey term) parts of the business (those whose thinking and
>actions were limited to today and maybe two years out) begin to learn new
>ways of doing things, like thinking about horizon III ideas (focus 6-10
>years out). Many of the responses to this original note basically said -
>wall off the horizon I business and let it die its slow death because it
>won't change.
I'm one who explicitly said "wall off" the existing business. However, I
said that not because the existing organization won't change but because
it is easier to get individuals to adapt to new circumstances than it is
to get large groups of individuals (i.e., organizations) to change their
ways. Letting the old organization "die on the vine" as I put it, refers
not to the demise of the entire enterprise but to the shift of people from
the old organization to the new one that is being built while the old one
is walled off.
>My bias is that to overcome some of the problems inherent with our
>structure today, we need to outsource all or almost all of our
>manufacturing to businesses that exist outside the company today.
That is an intriguing remark. What is the basis of your "bias" as you put
it? Why is outsourcing required or viewed as necessary?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting "Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>