June 2005 Archives

Today we moved Hedgey down into the garden. I've modified his box so he can get out (and get back) if he wants to.

Hedgey, is the hedgehog we've been looking after for the past couple of months. I found him one lunchtime when I was out walking. Hedgehogs shouldn't be out during the day, so I knew he wasn't well. He was pretty mangey, and he stunk to high heaven.

So, I picked him up and carried on walking to our local vets, Animalz. Once there I said, if he can be saved I'm happy to pay for the treatment and to look after him, if not then please put him out of his misery. They told me they would have a look and give me a call back.

The SPCA put me on to a wonderful women called Donette (I hope that's how to spell her name). She looks after lots of ill hedgehogs. She gave me a lot of good advice and was always available on the phone. Thanks Donnet.

Any way to cut a long story short, he needed some Ivomec injections (to kill the mites); I had to oil and clean all the dead and mangey skin off him; give him antibiotics (because the mange-crust was breaking his skin open causing it to bleed).

After a couple of days of oiling and washing we could see his face and eyes. But he was underweight (350 grammes) and wouldn't survive the winter -- hogs need to be 600+ grammes to survive hibernation. Also, he lost a lot of his spines. I would guess about 90% of them.

At one stage he drove us crazy. Although hedgehog mites can't live on people (for more than a day or two) they itch like crazy.

But that's all behind us now. Today Hedgey (that's the name the vet put on his medication) weighs over 800 grammes. He has the first wave of new spines coming through, and they are about 1 cm long now. So it's time to let him go.

I wonder if he will ever come back.

A romp through:

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052-1081.

The abstract says:

We examined the concept of archetype, implicit in a number of contemporary approaches to the study of organizational design and change. Despite an emerging interest in archetypes, the concept has received inadequate investigation. The present article offers a basis for definition of the concept and sets down three assumptions, which we tested using data collected longitudinally from 24 organizations. We present a number of theoretical and methodological implications of the archetype approach to the study of organizational change.

I was reading an old article by Miller (1987) on the relationship between strategy and structure (or is it structure and strategy), and in my notes I asked the question "Is there a link between the notion of organisational gestalts", which was very contemporary then, "and the idea of archetypes?" The answer, based on this article is yes. Organisational archetypes, configurations, and gestalts are all part of the same quest to study how organisations are transformed and develop--or to put it another way it is "a central thrust of organizational theory ... the need to understand organizational diversity through typologies¹" (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993, p. 1053).

Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, "An archetype is ... a set of structures and systems that reflects a single interpretive scheme" (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993, p. 1052). The article seeks to provide an understanding of large-scale change as an organisation moves from one archetype to another (as opposed to micro or incremental changes within the organisation).

Again, this article has a common heritage with other articles from these authors. For example, it relies on the article by Miller (1987) that started this current discussion--i.e. the three dimensions of decision making; rationality, assertiveness, and interaction--and Greenwoods & Hinings own work on tracks (1988).

One of the things that struck me in reading this article is the hypothesis that "organizations will develop structures and systems consistent with a single interpretive scheme" (emphasis added, Greenwood & Hinings, 1993, p. 1056). Why should this be so? Surely a firm could be developing multiple, contested structures and systems? Greenwood and Hinings bring together a number of ideas to explain why this isn't the case. The ideas of best, dominant coalitions and shared culture are the main reasons given.

The second idea I took away from the reading is that an archetype would be specific to an institution--that is to say they would not be "generic" in nature. I always assumed that an archetype would be more like an 'ideal-type' of configuration.

From the point of view of writing an article I was struck that in a prestigious journal, such as the Academy of Management Journal, the fact that the results were ambiguous did not preclude the article from being published. That is good news.

References

¹ We westerners seem to love to classify and clarify (to mis-quote 99 Red Balloons by Nina). And yet, and yet this form of knowledge making (as exemplified by the 2 × 2 matrix) is often something academics look down upon.

Lisa and I went to see Oscar Wilde's An ideal husband at the Maidement Studio. A very enjoyable romp through the mores of Victorian England. A solid performance.

It was nice to see Miriam Sharpe playing Lady Chiltern--I think we've previously seen her in Summer Shakespeare

The set was pretty good -- I liked the leaves -- and I enjoyed the way the stage was "set" as the audience came in.

The only thing I don't understand is why the direct/stage manager/set design had his name capitalized (or not) as patrick graham, instead of Patrick Graham. Answers on a postcard to ...

I've just had my feedback from the MBA class Integrating Strategy. Everyone one seems pretty happy except one person who gave me very low ratings. I struggled to make sense of this disparity until I read the comments that the student had made.

• Robust framework
• Some of the cases are so vague
• Lecturer should have a framework for each/most cases. Most of the time/cases we did not have any focus during class discussions.
• Business case competition organization was a complete disaster

I struck out the last comment, because that wasn't really about the course.

SO, I'm left wondering why I didn't manage to connect with this person, and more importantly why they they didn't feel there was nearly enough frameworks for them.

For my part, I thought I had given a structure to the discussion (which mirrored in many ways how I had tackled the case, and hence my framework). However, the approach I took was no better than some of the approaches the class took. I wonder if that person wanted something more like the 7s framework.

Clearly, with this person I failed to get my message across -- every case is unique, there is no simple framework (or small set of frameworks) that you can routinely apply to understanding either a case or, more realistically, a business. What is necessary is the analysis of each situation, determining the critical issue, and then some creativity to address the issue (okay, this is rough paraphrase of Kenichi Ohmae, 1982 -- but it probably isn't enough of a framework for this particular student).

Each firm is unique, and therefore the choice of model needs to be based on judgment and ones own strengths, rather than a ritualistic application of a standard solution.

Interestingly, I've been reviewing a book for Wiley this week, and that would be my main criticism -- it tries to provide a stock solution/approach for strategy. Such an approach is fine at an undergraduate level, but it doesn't stand up in the face of MBA students who have to make sense of such models in live settings (i.e. for practitioners).

So, I'll have to go back to the drawing board and see how I can get my message across more clearly and more convincingly.

p.s. I wonder why they didn't draw on the numerous models and frameworks from the Mintzberg et al (2003) text book if they wanted more frameworks.

References

I was looking at my web logs and the statistics that are produced for this site, and I was curious why people come here. As you probably know, when you use a search engine such as Google or Yahoo information is passed about the site that refered you (Yahoo or Google) along with the search terms that were used.

So what patterns do I see? Well firstly, some people come here looking for information on strategy cases -- I presume they are looking for some insight that they can use in their class. Ican't be certain if they are staff or students, but from the IP/DNS entries, I suspect they are students. Cases such as Swatch, and Karl Zeiss Jenna from the de Wit & Meyer text book appear frequently.

There are another group who seem to be looking for information on Mike's Bikes. If anyone is interested I have "sure fire" strategy for winning the first three (and sometimes more) rollovers. Alas, the downside is that it hard to continue that winning into rollovers five and six. As Ken Simmonds often states, anyone can increase profit by sacrificing the future value of the company.

Finally, a few people looking for Prof. Nigel Haworth also end up here too. I wonder what they want to know about him. Isn't his university web page enough?

Sometime ago I created a Passport account. In doing so a web folder was created in My Network Places. It appears as a file called My Web Sites on MSN.

All well and good.

Now I have an iPod and I keep a copy of my_"C:\Documents and Settings_ as I figure all my documents, etc are stored there. Alas, every time I plug my iPod in to a Windows PC it finds the web folder and stars prompting me to connect (using Passport) to the MSN network -- and in doing so it blocks the correct mounting (and unmounting) of the iPod. This happens despite me telling Windows not to do anything with the disk drive that is the iPod.

Anyway, I've deleted the file My Web Sites on MSN and now I no longer get Windows demanding that I login to Passport.

At one stage I thought that perhaps Microsoft was spying on the music that I had installed on my iPod. But, of course, they weren't.

Update 10 September 2008
This page is one of the most popular on my site. There are many 'arrivals' here from people who have searched for "My Web Sites on MSN". Indeed, the search term "my web sites on msn" is the most search phrase that delivers people to this site.

If I Google the phrase my web sites on MSN, the first entry is a link to Microsoft, and the second one is a link to this page.

According to Microsoft:

The My Web Sites on MSN folder is added to My Network Places (and appears in common dialog boxes) after you use the Web Publishing Wizard or the Add Network Place Wizard to create or add files to your MSN Web site. Microsoft offers free storage on the MSN Web site for Passport customers. If you do not have a Passport, you are prompted to create an account when you use the Web Publishing Wizard or the Add Network Place Wizard. If you are not signed in with your Passport account, you are prompted to sign in when you open the "My Web Sites on MSN" folder. A Passport account allows Microsoft to map your files to your security-enhanced Passport account, which helps add security and privacy to your files and makes sure that no one else can access your files.

With the change of version of Movable Type the words in the page names of this blog are now separated by a hyphen instead of an underline. I wonder how long it will be until this becomes a popular page again. So I have set up a redirect to ensure searches from Google end up on the right page and don't get a 404 error

In his classic article, Arch W. Shaw explores Some problems in market distribution (Shaw, 1912). He describes how production is only one half of industry; having produced the product it needs to be distributed. The choice of method to distribute the product needs careful consideration. Selling direct to customers, using one's own salespeople, using wholesalers, and other intermediaries all have an impact on the value that the producer receives that the consumer receives and that the middlemen receives.

In many ways Shaw's model of distribution pre-dates Porter's value chain (Porter, 1980) or value system in showing how organisations are linked together. It is often assumed that the most value is obtained by those people who are closest to the customer. For example a farmer growing coffee beans in South America gets very little value for his beans compared with the price the final consumer pays for a cappuccino. Where, in this chain of distribution, is the most value being appropriated by the various middlemen?

This does not always mean those his best to be selling direct to the customer. Sometimes this is wholly impractical or cost inefficient. Using the example above, is it realistic for the farmer growing the beans to sell his produce to the end-user i.e. the coffee drinker? The same is probably also true for the manufacture of baked beans does a consumer actually what I baked beans as a distinct purchase from the producer, or would they rather purchase than baked beans as part of a collection of products at the same time at the supermarket? Similar examples can be found for when it is best to sell through wholesalers, distributors, or other middlemen.

Shaw also makes the point that the needs and wants of such middlemen are almost always different to those of the end consumer; they have different conceptions of what is valuable. For example a wholesaler may only be interested in selling a product if they believe it is in some demand at the right price by retailers. Whereas retailers may only be interested in selling the product if they believe that the consumer values the product over other products.

As an aside, Shaw's article is also interesting in explaining the development of modern distribution systems.

References