Trying to find the “elementary structuring blocks“ in the businesses, we conclude that Activities are the minor elements. When assembled, we form what we consider a company (a big or small cooperating group of people. i.e., a team). In every “Activity,“ data are consumed to produce new data to be transferred elsewhere to be consumed again. In the case of a manufacturing company, along with the data, materials are also consumed, produced (modified), and transferred elsewhere. The quantitative and qualitative representation of the materials is data again.
Rephrasing the above, we could say that “In companies, the elementary effort is Activity during which we consume data to produce new data to be transferred to another Activity or stored.“ Business Organizers have to provide the necessary organizing infrastructure (tools and advice) so that the Business Directors can coordinate and manage this effort within the given resource limits to achieve specific “strategic objectives“ in a certain timeframe. So it would appear that the business organization requires an initial setup and then works with the daily management and coordination.
Using the above scheme, a poorly implemented “Organizational Theory“ would attempt, after naming the roles and the departments of the company, to give content to the named entities. We are using this “property assignment“ of the roles and positions of the company to define “duties“ for the employees. In one way or another, we try to give content to “elementary structuring blocks“ by the macroscopic observation of the company organization. But the “distant observation“ of a “living creature,“ like a living company, is not the same as an anatomic attempt to the “internal operations“ that take place into the company‘s desks or manufacturing and storage places. We cannot conclude on (y) without examining the functional relations to (x). We could express these relations as:
y = f(x)...or by writing differently
“balanced scorecard values“ = f ( “activities“ )
And thus:
“strategic objectives“ = f ( “activities“ )
Here the “strategic objectives“ and the “balanced scorecard values“ are intangible values. The only tangible values are its “activities.“ (we can directly work on them and change them). So, naturally, we need to achieve optimal values for the “balanced scorecard values,“ but we cannot do anything (we cannot change them directly to the preferred ones!). So our only way is to “discover“ one by one all the functional relations from the bottom level existing “activities“ to the top-level “strategic objectives.“
We build Mykosmos/BOS with a company that we need to organize, coordinate, and manage continuously. Thriving to achieve strategic objectives by optimal restructuring and usage of its resources. In this case, the Directing Board (the company itself!) becomes an “internal continuously re-organizing“ driving force by applying specific Activity-Based Management practices when and where it is necessary. The scheme below shows this continuous process:
Company Organization using kosmos/BOS
The above continuous process scheme reveals that no one other than the Directing Board knows better how to organize a company. No one can optimize the company‘s processes without having an accurate living view of what is happening in front of the company‘s computer workstations, production, and storing places. So, the only real contribution of an external organizing authority-without the above process knowledge-is to give generic advice on best practices and imperative business rules. The drawback is that the company has to spend a lot of money and time to get information on the elementary MBA textbooks content.
Mykosmos/BOS is here to offer companies an infrastructure tool to build and document all their “data production lines.“ Combining the data with the available resources, targeted metrics, and activity-based costing in an overall Balanced Scorecard would result in the sound implementation of Activity-Based Management rules and the realization of the company‘s strategic objectives.