All 18 entries tagged Rdm

Will you be passive or proactive?

Managing knowledge as an assest or just managing assest is a core element of doing business. If you don't managing your assets you will go out of business it is as simple as that. That might also be the reason for why so many different concepts exist for optimising organisations- like Lean, Ballance scorecard, six sigma etc. All in all they focus how companies can manage their assets better. But is it a choice to do use these concepts or are companies actually doing it without using the words?

Some of the elements in managing assets is so logical that they will be managed with or without and academic concept. If that is efficient or not is another question?

If we assume that they are just doing it without help from academic work I think the organisation will automatic become a passive one. A passive organisation which only change when there is a fire and not before. This will be opposite for organisations using academics knowledge based assets management approaches. They think in a proactive way by always striving for excellence.

So in my mind arguing for that companies should use knowledge management or not is wrong. It will happen either way or the business will not exist. The choice is not about to do it but how to do it. In other words what will you be passive or proactive? Not will you use knowledge management or not.

Rasmus Gejl Kristensen : 19 Apr 2012 09:40 |  Tags: Kbam Rdm |  Comments (3) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Knowledge, to be or not to be?

I read an article, not scientific, saying that rich kids are becoming even richer in their life. I also read a funny comment on facebook where a ceo was calculating why he should not invest in a marriage with a girl who only had the look. He was saying that people were in fact smart people and not fools which would be people who would invest in a girls look. Well linking these two "arguments" together it states that rich kids are somehow born to be smart. They become richer and thereby have a high salary- hence they are smart. All because their parents were rich. If this should hold parents with a huge dept should then have stupid kids? Where does that put new born in EU right now?

I know that this calculations does seem stupid in the logical way but I think there is a good point in it. Money creates money that's a phrase I heard and read sometimes now. If you don't have money for starting up a business you cannot start it eventhough the idea is world class. You need money to do things its that simple. But why is that those with the money are the one deciding if the idea is good enough? What kind of knowledge do they have for making this decision? Some have earned the money by them self and thereby gained some experience as their knowledge. Others have just inherited money which has given them the position to be the one taken decisions. They therefore don't have any knowledge but only assumed to have it due to their money.

Can knowledge be linked with money? Like a lot of money means a lot of knowledge. We need knowledge to generate improvements in a business. A business needs improvements and innovation for surviving in the business world. Innovation needs creativity which involves breaking down bias. Bias which can be created because of knowledge. In that sense knowledge becomes an obstacle for future improvements.

Knowledge is therefore some kind of paradox. Sometimes it's assumed to be there for making a decision and other times is there without knowing and thereby hinter a decision. How can this be managed? I guess that's what KBAM is about.

Rasmus Gejl Kristensen : 17 Apr 2012 09:59 |  Tags: Kbam Rdm |  Comments (4) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Dont do excellence– Live in the moment!

Its Saturday and I'm still working on my literature review for my dissertation. In that process I'm surfing a lot of different news channels for getting "brain" brakes similar to what others calls procrastinating ;)

Doing this surfing I stumbled upon an article about one of our Danish ministers who is not doing well at moment. All the polls are showing a huge drop and journalist are therefore really focused on him at the moment. Some journalist event brought a cake for him to his birthday showing this drop. All this must be really frustrating for the minister because all attention is on this and not his political program which is was elected on. So what should he do?

Im really a hypocrite in this situation. I know that he should think long term and not short term. Denmark just had an election so he should not focus on how many mandates he would get in 3 years but focus on doing the things he was elected for doing. Even though I know this I still make comments to the drops in the polls by saying things like "they are in deep trouble" or "man they can't do the walk but only talk". So I am reading what the journalist says and thereby becomes the customer even though I don't like the process behind it. Weird right?

A part of Excellence is achieving balanced results- short and long term. Do politicians do this?- No. They are purely focusing on the short term decisions and who can blame them. We are the ones demanding these short term decisions because we read what the journalist are writing. And those same journalist are there for showing the truth in a democracy- like a power.  But then again, is it not more fun to jus live in the moment? Who cares about the future if we are having a great time know? Why should we?  

Rasmus Gejl Kristensen : 14 Apr 2012 13:25 |  Tags: Excellence Rdm |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Is it sand or concrete?

Im currently working on my literature review for my project, which means a lot of reading. Not only just reading but also selecting the right articles, books and other sources to use in the actual review. Funny enough for being able to do that I have to read even more. Some of the time spend on reading is therefore a waste and other is value if saying that time spend on references used in review is only value. If dividing the process up like that and also assume that there the marginal extra reference used in a review will add value in a exponential manner. Would it then be right to argue for that des more time you use on your review time used on waste will overtake time used on value?

I know this is always the case when talking about how much time we should use on PMA and other assignments, but the literature is also more limited in those cases. The dissertation review has to be thorough and cover a significant amount of the literature written. In other words it has to be made so thorough that you can base valid arguments on it later in the dissertation.

My question is not when is "good" enough? similar to the question when is a decision robust? 

If linking these together the review has to be robust. That robustness will help ensure the robustness of later research which is the main part of our final mark. We were told that having a good review would not secure good marks in REME. But looking at the other way around having a bad review will definitely be a negative factor for the final mark. Also like they stated "not building you paper on sand".

I guess that is the same for robust decisions. Some companies might be successful but they are build on sand. The problem is just how you know if your foundation is sand or concrete enough to build on? Do company really now this when making decisions?  

Rasmus Gejl Kristensen : 13 Apr 2012 14:40 |  Tags: Rdm |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Was that a bad decision?

I'm currently working on my research methodology for my project which is behind schedule. If I would have followed my time management I should have been finishing up my literature review and thinking about gathering data. What does this mean for my success of this dissertation?

Well I know I have to work harder and more than 42 hours per week which is why I try to work in the weekends. But working in weekends means less efficiency at least for me. I can't work as serious doing the weekends because I know that's the time where I was supposed to do "fun" stuff, like explore UK. So what should I do and how did I get in this situation?

End of February I changed my project topic which meant I had to start from scratch. When I took that decision I knew I had to work harder, which also would involve weekends. Its therefore not a surprise for me that I have to work harder and that I'm behind the original time plan. What I didn't know was the actual consequence of this decision. Working harder and in weekends seems so easy when saying it also when saying out lout. In fact it almost give some kind of self motivation feeling like " Yes I can do this!!" followed up by a " I'm such a hard worker, so I have earned a brake" feeling. The fun part is just that until know the "hard work" have just been word and not been the walk yet. Yes I do work from 9-17:30 each day, and yes I am on the right track with all my PMA, but that is just by working not hard working. I have been given myself brakes based on something I said but not done which made me wonder.  How often is a decision being made where all the consequence are known but not actually taken serious?

I could personally think about a lot of examples in my own life where I made a decision with a later consequence which was not taken serious. So I guess I haven't learned from my mistakes? Or is it just being human?

Today I just ordered a 4 day trip to Malaga. Is that another bad decision? 

Rasmus Gejl Kristensen : 11 Apr 2012 21:32 |  Tags: Rdm |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Make it complicated

Grid analysis and other matrix analysis is really easy to handle. It's all about setting criteria's and then somehow make "best-guess" on the different decisions. Can't this effect the actual final decision due to the bias involved in making the "best-guess". I know that just using a matrix analysis will not create a robust decision but i'm just wondering if tools are sometimes made too simple. If I should make a robust decision in a company where time was a heavy constraint and decision tools was not a standard usage I would go for simple tools. But these simple tools depends, in my mind, a lot on how serious a team would use them. They could easily figure out the result when using the tools and thereby become bias towards a single decision. A pre-determined decision has therefore already been chosen before using the actual tool, so using the tool could be questioned?

I think this would be the case for many decisions process. People would join a process with a pre fixed mindset which support a specific decision. Using simple tools to "ruin" this mindset will not help in my mind. The person who has that pre fixed mindset would be cleaver enough to see how his actions will affect the final decision and thereby "manipulate" his answers. Not saying that he does this my purpose but more without noticing it- hence the bias.

We all have biases and will always have. That's why I personally like the more complicated decisions tools more than the simple ones. Im in that believe that a complicated tool will benefit to a robust decision in a higher degree than a simple tool. It might have a higher cost in shape of time so that has to be balanced. But using a simple tool can somehow be a waste most of the time. This is therefore not a question about "des simpler, des better" but "des more complicated des better".      

Rasmus Gejl Kristensen : 09 Apr 2012 20:00 |  Tags: Rdm |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Blame the follower not the leader!!

This might sound funny, but a big topic in the Danish medias right now is about a dead dog. The dog was shoot by its owners neighbour because it was running on his private ground. He didn't do anything illegal according to the Danish law and here is why. It's legal to shot another person animal when it's on your private ground if you have given the owner prober warning before. This was done by the neighbour in fact he had returned the dog 20 times to his owners, three times to the police and also giving the owner a written and vocal warning about him shooting the dog if it run into his ground again.

People are really split in this situation. Some are calling the neighbour evil and even compare the situation by imagine that the dog was a kid. In other words making the neighbour look like a cold killer. Others are see the situation as being fair and see the problem lays at the owner of the dog instead. In fact a minister in Denmark has taken it so far to be willing to change the law so this would be illegal in the future. An argument for this that killing should never be the solution but a dialogue should have been made instead. My question is just know, how many incidents should happen before an consequence could actually happen? I mean if we assume that a dialogue have been made each of the 23 times, I think it would be all right to agree that the attempt to making a dialogue has there. Also during this dialogue process it can also be assumed that the ultimatum had been made that if the owner was not able to control his dog the neighbour would shoot it. So why are people then getting angry about this situation? is it something to do that consequences are sometimes seen as not being real? Like the rumour about " they can't fail us all" thing when submitting a PMA? If the tutor decided to fail us all because of a poor quality in our submitted work we would also get angry-right?

The tutor and the neighbour was following the rules set up, so they have not done anything wrong. The only ones doing something wrong was us and the owner who didn't take any actions, why have a dialogue about that?

This make sense following the robust decision theory due to the knowing the consequences of your actions. But it might conflict some of the things we learned in leadership about making people follow you. The neighbour clearly didn't make the owner follow is opinion and thereby failed as being a leader ( If seeing this relationship as leader follower). It can be argued that the neighbour should be more calm towards having the dog on his ground because it was a nice dog. But then again the owner should also take the responsibility of having bought a dog. So referring back to a previous blog I think this result is a clear signal on a failed follower not the Leader. The neighbour really did what he could to prevent this situation in happening, but had poor followers. Blaming the leader is therefore wrong, the one who should be blamed is the follower!!

Rasmus Gejl Kristensen : 28 Mar 2012 11:57 |  Tags: Le Rdm |  Comments (2) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Time Is money!!

I blogged about this before, but here i go again. I'm currently taking the module management of change. It has been one of the modules I was looking the most forward to of all my nine modules. In my previous job experience I did try to make a change in a organisation and I learned there how difficult it was. Taking management of change should therefore hopefully help me in becoming better at this.

Well what I learned until so far, is pretty much the same as I knew from the beginning. Management of change is difficult and feels like being impossible. I got the role as managing director in a simulation and therefore had the most positional power for making a change. My first thought when giving this role was therefore also " YES!! now im really able to learn how to do it", so did I succeed...NO!!

I tried to use all what I learned in my previous modules. Trying to create the robust decision together with my organisation. Really used different kinds of leadership styles for different situations and teams. But all in all these techniques requires time, time I did not have. So in that way time consuming is a disadvantages for those technique. At least that was the reason for me not using them.

We learned or was told that taken time to implement could not be argued for as being a disadvantages- Is this true? The world are running with a fast speed, so time is money. New companies may struggle with just finding the necessary capital for running business and therefore can't waste any time on a technique which takes up a lot of time before creating a result. Thinking about this, the whole thing looks like a bad cirkel? When would I ever have the time for using the techniques I learned? I still believe in the techniques and can also see the good thoughts around them. But how good is a time consuming thought in a time is money world?

Rasmus Gejl Kristensen : 21 Mar 2012 21:25 |  Tags: Le Rdm |  Comments (2) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Leadershipstyle— obejctive choice or bias?

Today when finishing up my leadership PMA I was wondering on my bias towards a certain leadership style. We are supposed to be objective and chose the leadership style which fits the situation and team. But what about the leader factor in this function. Are all three factors having the same weight or could it be that the leader factor had a higher one. Like a person who is quite and introvert as a person would most likely not choose an extrovert leadership style even though that was what the two other factors was signaling. So again this would lead back to the question about being born or thought to be a leader.

A bias like this would argue for that leaders personality have a significant impact on the leadership style. But how do humans get their personality? Is that something we are born with or is it more a result from social environment. Looking at society problems today personality seems to be a result from the society they live in when asking me. In my mind a person who grows up in a tough environment are more likely to develop a very direct and tough personality. A person like that would in my mind most likely become a direct leader if he got the change. Not saying anything about him or her being efficient, because that's another question.

What i am trying to say is just that choice of leadership style might not be a choice after all. That might be the case where an external consultancy would be a beneficial investment to make for a company. A consultancy would minimize this bias and thereby help in the decision to choose the right leadership style most suitable for the team and situation.

Rasmus Gejl Kristensen : 14 Mar 2012 22:40 |  Tags: Le Rdm |  Comments (2) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The answer to all problems—–Leadership!!?

One aspect of making a robust decision is to look at the problem from several angles to get as many solutions as possible. These solutions should then again be evaluated by the different views.

When we evaluate what a effective leader is one of the main point has been that he or she should listen to every ones opinions. Would it be reasonable that effective leaders always create robust decisions, just because he views all team members opinions?

I know all different techniques you can use for getting this multi view on decisions and problems and thereby create a robust decision. But if leadership takes care of this, why use the tool at all?

I mean leadership is the answer to everything. If we have a problem in the organization one aspect will always be lack of leadership. Opposite if an organization performs well they are good at performing leadership. In other words, the word leadership always have some positive associations connected to it, why?

Is it really the case that leadership is always good and the questions is just if the leaders are efficient or not?

How critical are we actually when analyzing leadership when always associate the word with positive benefits and never negative aspects. In this reflective moment I cannot come up with a negative aspect of leadership, which cannot be argued for as being a question about the "good" or "bad" leader. Like the word democracy mostly will be linked with positive even thought it has negative aspects as well- Like voting for having a lunch break or not???

Leadership must have a negative aspect. The world is not that simple that a concept will purely be linked with positive thoughts and never negative. Would it be totally crazy to think that an efficient leader actually made a company to out of business and thereby associate leadership with a negative aspect? or would this be impossible because "going-out" of business is associated with inefficient leadership?

Rasmus Gejl Kristensen : 13 Mar 2012 10:08 |  Tags: Le Rdm |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem