Facilitating
the Executive Routine |
Acacia
NavCenter - 1982
Jim Toohey, Architect
|
How
Is Executive Augmentation Done? |
| This
question has been front and center in our work for
25 years. The sketch, above, was developed in 1982
for a company in Washington DC in conjunction with
the Taylor CyberCon
Executive System. It illustrates the basic augmentation
processes we have been developing, testing and deploying in
parts since the founding of MG Taylor. |
| In
2001, the maturity of our business, the evolution
of Internet technology and new market/user demands
will see the emergence of the full system for the
first time. And, in a timely manner, our Patent will
be issued. Convergence 20 years later. Not really
bad when you think of the myriad of processes, technologies,
environment components and market trends that had
to be developed. |
| The
focus of this piece is the issue of executive augmentation.
What is the requirement? What constrains executives?
What have we discovered in a thousand multi-day sessions
and the management of a dozen NavCenters about how
executives really work? What is the technology
state-of-the-art? What SYSTEM can be put in
place today? What would a full Level I system
cost? How can a modern enterprise employ it? |
| As
background, the follow links are useful: |
| First,
a description of what has not been done. We have
expedience in nearly all the components and dimensions
that make up a Level I executive augmentation environment.
There are a few technology pieces that cannot yet
be produced but there functionality can mostly be
covered. What has not happened is that the full range
and scope of the tool kit, process and application
has not been applied over a continuous and lengthy
period of time. We have simulated this for short
periods of time in our own environments. To date,
most client NavCenters had chosen to employ a limited
tool kit, process venue and application focus. However,
there has been enough diversity in these field tests
that, combined with our own experiments and applications,
we have a robust confirmation of the overall system
that makes up Level I. |
| The
reasons we have never ourselves built out the full
Level I system is capital constraints and the requirements
of our client/customer base. It accomplishes little
to build too far ahead of your market. |
| There
is strong evidence now that the pressures on organizations
today are pushing them to look at the next level
of creative, collaborative and work augmentation
environments. Recent advances in technology have
brought many essential tools into the realm of affordability
and a new generation of leading edge software and
media to the demonstration level. Our own work has
exposed over 50,000 people, largely in the last 5
years, to our present generation of environment.
The time is right to finally accomplish our founding
concept. |
| What
is the difference between Level I and current practices?
Very little on the surface and a great, great deal
in terms of the final result. A quantum difference
in performance over time is the expected result.
Level I - the first full implementation of our System
and method - is predicted to be as much advance on
human productivity as our present environments are
to the standard ways of working. |
| With
this background in mind, the following comments describe
the scope of the full system in the concrete terms
of what is possible today. |
| First
off, we do not confine the concept of executive augmentation
toEXECUTIVES as they are defined today.
The focus is on the executive routine - not
a position within a corporate structure. This is
an important distinction. The executive routine exists
in all species and in many layers of recursion that
makes up their natural and built organizations. |
| Also,
the executive routine is closely aligned with consciousness.
Another aspect of this approach is to materially
broaden the range of what is considered an executive
routine. It generally is thought to be limited to
decision making, command and control, and so on.
I argue that this is a highly truncated view. Designers,
for example, make literally thousands of decisions
on the way to a finished idea or work. Design is
not often though of in this way. Nor is design often
included in concepts of the executive routine. But
what is the development of strategy if it is not
design? These are important distinctions as will
be revealed later as we get deeper into the system
specifications. |
| Both
the executive and the executive routine as exercised
by everyone though a variety of personal, work and
organizational contexts, has been to narrowly approached.
In addition, the work processes that have been employed
in the name of the executive function have become
a straight jacket. They lack scope, range and variety. |
|
Matt
Taylor
February 14, 2001
Palo Alto

SolutionBox
voice of this document:
ENGINEERING STRATEGY PRELIMINARY
|
|
posted:
February 14, 2001
revised:
March 15, 2003
20010214.282335.mt 20030315.222209.mt
•
(note:
this document is about 10% finished)
Matt
Taylor 615 525 7053
me@matttaylor.com
Copyright© Matt
Taylor 1982, 1984, 2001, 2003
|
|
|