Symposium: "A New Base for Corporate Relations: From Strategic Deceit to Trustworthy Action", Nokia House, Espoo Finland, Tuesday, June 3, 2003.
This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker's presentation(s) and comments from the audience. These should not be viewed as official transcripts of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. These notes have been contributed by David Ing (daviding@systemicbusiness.org) at the IBM Advanced Business Institute ( http://www.ibm.com/abi ).
Enron: speculated on everything
Wrote futures contracts, but booked future revenues
immediately.
Created a spiral.
Risk in collaborative relationships: who gets to
define the architecture of the relationship? They get the profits.
At Enron, important that systems were not transparent
IT created systems so that accountants didn’t
understanding, etc.
Trust in different countries, e.g. China – still different
Dove, hawk and chameleon
Finns as doves, Americans as hawks and Japanese as
chameleons
If you try to sell as a hawk, e.g. reducing labour,
it doesn’t fit the environment
Trust in IT
Suggestions for 8 Exima students, to formalize
Undertake a writing: a story about the company
you work in, or fictitious story, or a case about a situation that involves
relationships at a deep level
First, to help yourself understanding
Then to help us understand the relationship.
You should use as many as the ideas over the past few
days to discuss.
Address directly: what does governance mean, in
context of the story: a piece, a meta-relationship, or a irrelevant to the
story.
How would you deal with the governance – this as a
secondary.
Primary, deal with relationship
Write the document as public, and share with others
Poetry or prose, diagrams okay
Precondition is that the story is meaningful to you,
and hopefully meaningful to us.
Collective wisdom
Hope the last 1.5 days have helped the story
This information will be fed back in some way.
Different type of relationships
Lots of buy-side and sell-side relationships
Governance is difference
Business transformation relationships and
outsourcing: taken mostly to the buy side, rarely to the sell side,
although it can be done.
Do you generate governance, or do you generate
control?
Who owns the customer? Governance, then network position.
Need to understand both sell side and buy side?
Also internal business structures, e.g. Nokia Business
Infrastructures, competing against outside suppliers -- same rules?
Internal client satisfaction.
Some content on this website may be subject to prior copyrights.
Please contact the author(s) prior to reproduction or further distribution of the materials.