Hegel & Brown’s Big Shift

Makes sense to me:

  • Knowledge stocks -> Knowledge Flows
  • Knowledge transfer -> Knowledge Creation
  • Explicit Knowledge -> Tacit Knowledge
  • Transactions -> Relationships
  • Zero Sum Mindset  -> Positive Sum Mindset
  • Push Programs -> Pull Programs
  • Scalable Efficiency -> Scalable Peer Learning
  • Stable Environments -> Dynamic Environments

I’ve not read the book.  Three things I might wonder about

  1. Won’t economic actors will strive to own or control one or more in the first column to enable the item in second column?
  2. Isn’t there something deeply at odds between the point about relationships and the point about stablity?
  3. Why is there nothing here about the the shifting slope of the power law curves?

More here

I got the book out of the Library.  It’s awful, maybe they out sourced the writing.

2 thoughts on “Hegel & Brown’s Big Shift

  1. Luis

    Isn’t there something deeply at odds between the point about relationships and the point about stablity?
    No. Relationships aren’t stable; they are emotional and political and messy. Transactions can be fine-chunked enough to make them stable, or at least give everyone the impression of stability.

  2. bhyde Post author

    Luis – Fair enough; yes relationships are messy and pliable; and so presumably dynamic. But…

    Relationships take time. Over the life cycle of the relationship something stable is going to come into existence. e.g. a repeated prisoner’s dilemma game, and that game will be stable.

    The transaction->relationship point usually is made in the biz books to highlight that your supply chain can’t be framed as commodities and contracts, but must be framed into something richer, fine grained, and more flexible. Mumbling about japanese car supply chains usually is heard at this point. These are sticky – where voice and loyality displace exit; and all that’s stable eh?

    Well … that’s what I was thinking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.