Artikel-Schlagworte: „Organisation“

Im Zusammenhang mit dem Dieselskandal bei Audi wurden ein paar interessante Details bekannt.

Für den AdBlue ( Harnstofflösung) Tank hatte Audi ein Fassungsvermögen von 16 Liter konzipiert. Test zeigten, dass aber auf 1000 km 8 Liter verbraucht wurden, um die Werte zu halten. Vorgabe war jedoch mit 16 Liter AdBlue 10 000 km weit zu kommen.


Was tun?

Tank vergrößern? Ging nicht. Dafür war kein Platz vorhanden.

Also setzten die Ingenieure einen Trick ein, den sie Cycle Beating nannten. Sie führten die bekannten zwei Betriebsmodi (Straße und Test) ein, die jetzt in den USA aufgefallen sind.

Und schon hatte Audi den Vorsprung durch Technik in Vorsprung durch Betrug (Der Spiegel) ersetzt.

Die wichtigsten Trends faßt Helmut Scholl, CEO der reflact AG, unter dem Stichwort blended learning 2.0 wie folgt zusammen:

  1. MOOCs ( Massive Open Online Courses
    • Coursera, USA
    • Udacity ( mit Moderatoren), USA
    • edX ( Partner der TU München, USA
    • Iversity, Deutschland
    • Platform des Plattner Institut, Deutschland ( Potsdam)
    • Platform der Leuphana, Deutschland Lüneburg)
  2. Gamification
    • Sichtbarer Status (Fortschrittsanzeige)
    • Rangliste
    • Quest (Suchmission)
    • Transparenz des Resultats
    • Tieferer Sinn („Epic Meaning“)
  3. Micro learning
    • persönliche Webblog Einträge
    • You Tube, Webcast
    • Bookmark
    • Bildschirmschoner, die den Benutzer auffordern kurze Folgen von einfachen Aufgaben zu lösen
    • Multiple-choice Quiz auf einem Handy mittels SMS oder mobilen Anwendungen
    • Wort des Tages als täglicher RSS-Feed oder E-Mail
    • Lernkartei-Software zum Merken von Inhalten durch Wiederholung mit Zeitabständen
  4. Blended learning ( integriertes Lernen)
    • combining Internet and digital media with established classroom forms that require the physical co-presence of teacher and students
    • sychrones Lernen und asynchrones Lernen
    • Individuelles und Soziales Lernen
  5. Mobile Learning
    • die Lerninhalte müssen kleine Lernbrocken – man spricht auch von Nuggets – sein, die sich leicht zwischendurch konsumieren lassen
    • Umgebungsgeräusche und Ablenkungen müssen berücksichtigt werden
    • eine Unterbrechung des Lernens muss jederzeit möglich sein und die spätere Wiederaufnahme des Lernens soll ebenfalls problemlos machbar sein
  6. Personalization
    • dynamic insertion, customization or suggestion of content in any format that is relevant to the individual user
    • based on the user’s implicit behaviour and preferences, and explicitly given details
  7. Flipped classroom
    • content aquisition selfaced
    • application in the class room
  8. Learning communities
    •  Group of people who share common emotions , values or beliefs, are actively engaged in learning together from each other, and by habituation
  9. Learning analytics (for individual learners to reflect on their achievements, as predictors of students requiring extra support and attention)
    • SNAPP – a learning analytics tool that visualizes the network of interactions resulting from discussion forum posts and replies.
    • LOCO-Analyst – a context-aware learning tool for analytics of learning processes taking place in a web-based learning environment
    • SAM – a Student Activity Monitor intended for Personal Learning Environments
    • BEESTAR INSIGHT – a real-time system that automatically collects student engagement and attendance & provides analytics tools and dashboards for students, teachers & management

Within the Gemini Alumni community there is an interesting conversation going on what the reasons might be that this great consulting firm went out of the market.

Some believe that CAP, the French IT mother company, destroyed it, others believe that we did not realized the change in customer needs (from process to ERP Systems) and thus our business model did no longer work.

I wanted to add some hypothesis to this conversation which might be helpful to understand the matter.

I joined Gemini as an SVP/officer in 1992 when we sold our GTP companies to Gemini Consulting. Having this as a background for you here is my reasoning:

Quality of officers: During my first attendance in such a meeting (it was in Euro Disney near Paris) some 100 officers tried to built a profitable budget for the coming year. We failed. Reason was that a signicant number of officers had a uitilzation of ZERO. When I raised my voice that I do not want to work with officers which do no work with clients anymore David Tiger pulled me aside and coached me with the words: Believe me no client would pay any money for them.

Profitability: In all subsequent officer meetings I  attended we were telling Jalabert and jpdA we need to pay our folks a bonus but we have not earned the cash to pay it. Please help! Our business model (after all those expensive acqusitions which we paid not with Cap but Gemini money) never generated operating profit which could cover return on equity, interest and bonus. Such companies die sooner or later.

complex organisation: When GTP was bought by Gemini  we we earned interest, return on equity and bonuses (as did MAC, UR Bossard et al). Two years later  we were organized globally  in GMT, Disciplines, Processes and what have you. We were one the few companies in the wolrd which run a mail/repository system on MAC. All great stuff. Profit? Inexistent.

lack of leadership: David Tiger in his UR times was a great leader. I admired him a great deal. But I also hold him accountable for the sequence of poor leadership decisions he and Cap made: Remember: Titze failed to become head of Gemini ( he did not get the  support of the US biased GMT leaders), Valentino made the race but was cornered by Kelly and Titze (office of the CEO), Wallace followed, Davis, Hessler. In one word a nightmare.

In a nut shell: Gemini was a role model for weak leadership succession and expensive M&A.


But: I had a great time there and enjoyed client work with great folks.

Mein erster Chef in der Beratung war ein Freund klarer Worte und überraschenden Vergleichen.

1986. Außendienstanalyse für Bellinda Strümpfe, heute Sara Lee

Wie lesen aus dem Schlußbericht unserer Arbeit vor. Prosa.

In der Besprechung sind der Senior und seinen beiden Söhne.

Bei dem Standardkapitel „Einsatz des Gebietsverkaufsleiter (GVL)“ trugen wir unserer Philosophie, die eigentlich von PG stammte, vor.

Der GVL sei als Manager einzusetzten und nicht der Oberverkäufer des Gebietes sein, trugen wir vor.

Der Senior sah das ganz anders.

Wir gerieten argumentativ in die Defensive.

Mein Chef packte das für diese Situation bewährte Mittel aus. Das Mittel bestand darin mit einem weit hergeholten Vergleich den „Gegner“ zu verwirren und damit die Situation zu entschärfen.

„Das sei so“, meinte mein Chef forsch, “ wie der Unterschied bei der Offiziersausbildung in der polnischen und der Deutsche Wehrmacht.“

Der Senior war nicht beeindruckt. Vielmehr erklärete er ruhig, dass er als Offizier der Wehrmacht, diesen Vergleich für unbrauchbar und nicht zutreffend halte.

Wir blieben in der Defensive.

Diese Form des Entlastungsvergleich habe ich mir gleichwohl gemerkt und mehrfach, wenn auch nicht immer, erfolgreich eingesetzt.

Competition forces companies to synchronize mission, delivery system or design of the value chain and the competitive environment.  

A value chain which is not well tuned absorbs to much management capacity, know- how as well as finacial resources.

C.K. Prahalad and Garry Hamel suggested to think of two families of competences: Core  and complementary competences.

The second family of competences is ideally brought to the company by partners or strategic alliances.

They are non core to the corporation but they leverage to core ones.

Core competences qualify for the following statements:

  1. provides consumer benefits
  2. is not easy for competitors to imitate
  3. it can be leveraged widely to many products and markets.

They are found in various flavours: 

  1. matter know-how
  2. coordinate diverse production skills
  3. integrate multiple streams of technologies
  4. reliable process
  5. close relationships with customers and suppliers
  6. product development
  7. collective learning
  8. commitment to working across organizational boundaries

Companies like the framework alas most of the time they fail to distinct the competenceies in the two families.

In my experience a company is unable to manage more than 6 core competences.


It goes without saying that the key reponsibility of leaderhip is to develop and maintain a unique portfolio of competences and symbiotic realtionships.

A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used. This includes the right to the services of the resource as well as the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines.

The definition, allocation, and protection of property rights comprise one of the most complex sets of issues that an organisation has to resolve.

The market values of property rights reflect the demands of the rest of the market.

The fundamental accomplishment of the concept is that it eliminates destructive competition for control of economic resources. Well-defined and well-protected property rights replace competition by violence with competition by peaceful means.

A corporation is a shared property rights system. 

 In a limited liability corporation, shares are specified and the rights to decide how to use the corporation’s resources are delegated to its management.

Each shareholder has the unrestrained right to sell his or her share. Limited liability protects each shareholder’s wealth from the liabilities of other shareholders, and thereby facilitates anonymous sale and purchase of shares.

In enterprises such as Joint venture or partnerships each member’s wealth is uniquely dependent on each other member’s behavior. Property rights in the group are usually salable only if existing members approve of the buyer.

It is obvious that the property right system faciltates the solution of  key organisational matters such as decentralisation,  profit center, process based organisation, holding design  and core competencies based units.

Alfred Chandler helped us to distinguish different phases in which the cooperation as we know it unfolded. First we saw in the early 1900s the split among ownership and managment. Example being Siemens with the help of Deutsch Bank. In the early 1920 followed the introduction of the command and control organisations which we still find in our days took place. All the tools such as budgets, controlling and the key distiction between policy/startegy and operations were then introduced by du Pont and GM.
Today we  intend to put in place another evolutionary change to our organisations. We depart from the command and control based organisation and move to a knowledged based one.
The challenges for values, behavior and structure are still to be met. The most recent financial crisis provides a great proof how far we are away from the kings road.

Nineteenth century Britain brought together the three big ideas behind the modern company:  it could be an artificial person, it could issue tradable shares to any numbers of investors and those investors could have limited liability.

April 2019
« Mrz    
Letzte Tweets