Archives for posts with tag: change


WSJ’s Jason Gay published a brilliant column yesterday (see below), titled “It’s ok to root for Germany.” In some ways, it reflects my own emotions as a born German. I never rooted for the West-German team growing up. Other teams, like Brazil, played more entertaining football, my country seemed so messed up with the Wall and the discovery of our horrendous past. When you find out as a teenager what happened between 1933-1945, you look at pictures of your grandparents differently: “What did they know and do?”

After years of Holocaust educations programs, after the Wall came down, after Germany became a more multi-cultural and open country; suddenly, I started rooting for the team. I still don’t care to sing the national anthem and find it odd when Americans put their hand over their heart or my kid pledges allegiance to the flag. We used to boo the German anthem. I still don’t understand how people can be proud to be from a nation. I was never proud to be a German. Should I be proud to be white?

But I’m proud of the journey Germany has taken. From a country where darkness was visible to a nation that’s headed in the right direction.

Until 1952, the German anthem began: “Germany, Germany above everything. Above everything in the world.” Since then, the words were changed to: “Unity and justice and freedom for the German fatherland.” Amen.

A very strange thing happened the past two weeks as I traipsed through Poland covering the Euro 2012 soccer tournament.

There I was oohing over the latest Mario Gomez goal for Germany, salivating over the way Mesut Özil quarterbacks the German attack from the middle of the field with grace and calm, and screaming “SCHWEINSTEIGER” inside my head (there is no better name in sports right now) each time the steely midfielder plants for one of his lightning strikes at the goal.

And don’t get me started on the Germans’ dashing, Zen master coach Joachim Löw—the George Clooney of international soccer, only better looking, and seemingly more humble and philosophical.

To understand just how weird a development this is, understand that for Jewish-Americans of a certain age (I’m 42), rooting for Germany isn’t how our fathers, grandfathers and Hebrew School teachers raised us.

Growing up in the 1970s, the wounds of World War II were still raw. I have friends whose parents were Holocaust survivors. They almost never talked about their experiences, but their silent memories hung in their homes. One of my parents’ closest friends spent the war first in the Lodz ghetto in occupied Poland, then survived a concentration camp by lying about his age. His father, mother and brother were killed there. Every so often a local temple would circulate a flier inviting people to come hear another talk from a survivor. “Never forget,” we were told.

For most Americans, the Soviets were the great enemy on the playing fields of international sports during this era. We Jews felt this, too. The Russians hadn’t been very nice to us either, driving so many of our grandparents and greatgrandparents from their villages in Eastern Europe and making it difficult for those still there to practice their religion.

But for young Jewish-Americans, the athletes from what was then democratic West Germany remained a group we met with deep suspicion. Something about the pressed uniforms, the perfect physiques and the trademark efficiency of their performances made them a little scary, even if their political leaders garnered our admiration. Pulling for Willy Brandt and Helmut Kohl was fine. Rooting for Karl-Heinz Rummenigge wasn’t.

And yet, 30 years later, here I am feeling downright giddy at the prospect of the Germans winning their first European title since the 1990s. They play Italy in the semifinals Thursday.

For starters, they are a wonder to watch. While Spain’s “tiki-taka” triangular passing style remains the game’s intellectual apotheosis, the Germans are nothing short of thrilling, combining creative passing with lightning speed and astounding athleticism. If the essence of quality soccer is the “one-two,” the equivalent of basketball’s give-and-go, the Germans have become the masters of the one-two-three-four-and-five.

Midfielder Bastian Schweinsteiger (say it loud! With your best German accent!) wins the ball with a perfect slide tackle. He feeds Özil in the midfield, who passes to a cutting Sami Khedira, who touches it to Jerome Boateng overlapping on the wing, who sends a cross in to Gomez, who heads the ball to Lukas Podolski, who volleys into the net.

No team can deliver the ball from their own end to the back of the opponent’s net so often with the speed of the Germans.

It wasn’t always this way. For years, the Nationalmannschaft, as the team is known, was a pillar of organization and fairly boring soccer played by a homogenous group.

Now the Germans feature a lineup that includes Özil, who is Turkish; Boateng, whose father is Ghanaian; Gomez, who is of Spanish descent; Podolski, who was born in Poland, and Miroslav Klose, who is half-Polish.

Since 2006, this diverse group has been molded together by Löw, the subject of my embarrassing man-crush. Wearing his dapper tailored slacks and open-collared shirts, he celebrates goals with the joy of a child, his hair flopping over his forehead.

Then, just when the Germans appear they are becoming a too predictable and efficient machine, Löw sends out a lineup for the quarterfinal against Greece with three of his stars—Gomez, Podolski and Thomas Muller—on the bench. “We needed to be unpredictable,” he explained. “It’s OK to be cheeky.”

Löw somehow manages to come off more as a supportive parent than a cocky national coach declaring superiority. “I thought we were wonderful tonight,” he said after the win Friday over Greece. He appears the antithesis of all those top college and professional coaches in the U.S. who seem to use their jobs as a means to building a personal brand and gaining $100,000 appearance fees to motivate corporate sales forces.

And yet, there is a part of me that is stricken with guilt about this. Somewhere Tevye from “Fiddler on the Roof” is telling me some traditions must not change. After all, a major part of international soccer—especially European soccer—is the bizarre way it brings up the old geopolitical rivalries from the middle of the 20th century. That can be scary, too, as when Russian fans unfurled the massive banner of a warrior against words “This Is Russia” before the match against Poland earlier in the tournament.

With that in mind, I shared my guilt-ridden admiration for the Germans with my father, who knows nothing about soccer but a lot about history. To my surprise, he said he felt this generation of Germans has earned our forgiveness, and even our support in sports. They had decided to build an education center and monument about the Holocaust on some of the most expensive land in Berlin. That was the turning point for him.

In other words, make room on the German bandwagon. I want a seat.

Sort of.

Clark Kokich, Chairman of Razorfish, speaks with Brian Morrissey, Editor in Chief at Digiday, at the Digiday Agency Summit.

Clark just released an interesting combination of book and app, aptly titled: “Do or die.” (The promotional video of his work is posted below.)

As Clark Kokich describes it, advertising’s past was about communicating emotions to change the minds of prospective customers. The future of advertising is about doing something that helps people, that matters to customers. Agencies used to be about changing perception, in the future they need to change reality.

He explains that agencies are struggling right now because they know in 5-10 years there will be a model for the future of agencies. Unfortunately, we don’t yet what the model will be.  That’s why everybody is muddling along, trying to figure it out.

My favorite quote: “You can’t apply the past formulas to a new problem.” So true.


When my father died a few years back, I spent a long time reliving the past. Many days were spent re-imagining my past. See, I didn’t speak to my father for 15 years. I had opportunities to do so, I knew his phone number, his address, I even stood in front of my old home in Germany 10 years ago but I couldn’t bring myself to ring the bell. I was imagining a past where I rang the bell, picked up the phone and dialed.

When I stopped imagining a different past, I moved on to rationalizing, explaining and finding excuses why I never did what I should have done. You know “My childhood” or “He was supposed to take the first step”. I tried to externalize what was going on, and make it about this or that, as if somehow I hadn’t made the decisions all along.

What is past is prologue – William Shakespeare

We do our best. Until we know better. Focusing on what we should have done, doesn’t change the past.

I write about failures, innovation and taking risks a lot. I know it’s the right thing to do. I know this is the only way to survive in this hyper-competitive world. Still, my heart is not always in it. It’s so much more comfortable not to grow. Actually, I want to grow. But I just want the end product, not going through the process. It leaves me in uncomfortable situations, makes me feel less at home in my skin. I do have to accept that I know nothing while knowing so much and then start all over again, learning, figuring things out, trying new paths, falling down, getting up and experience those new skills to become part of my natural self.

The real challenge is to live with uncertainty. We want to know that if we’re trying something new, it’ll actually work. We know the past. We study the past. We know everything about it, what went wrong. What went right. We can’t study the future. The future is about the unknown. We don’t know if we try something, we’ll be good at it. We might suck. Or become the best in the world. No guarantees, no guidebook, no maps. Maybe we just fail in new ways. Who the hell wants to fail again? My ego might get hurt. People might look down on me. Consider me a failure.

I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past – Thomas Jefferson

We’re living in uncomfortable times. Everything around us screams “change”. Every sign tells us doing business the way it was done the last few decades doesn’t work anymore. The whole culture pokes and tells us to start doing unknown stuff. Still, we tend to think “What if it doesn’t work out, why not stick with what we already know? It doesn’t work that well anymore but it’s doing okay.”

We love to stay in the place we know. It’s so much easier to keep doing the thing we know to do. We are good at rationalizing these choices. That’s why we find all sorts of excuses: “Let’s not be the first to do it. Let others make mistakes first and we learn from them, just to do it better.” There are some good arguments there, no doubt. In the end, these excuses are just there to mask the fear of change. Fear of the unknown. Fear to face discomfort.

Discovering new ways and new opportunities is risky. We need to put down the comfort food, throw away the pillows, the padding. We need to suck it up. Start the hard work of learning new skills, experimenting with new things. We don’t know if we will succeed. There are no guarantees. Waiting, holding out will not change the present. You know what choices you have to make. Gather the courage and do it now.


There is an alarming trend to remove friction from everything we do. We’re constantly trying to make things easier,faster and so simple that we don’t even have to think anymore. Friction provides barriers towards doing things:

– Forcing me to register for a site before I can  push the purchase button. (That’s why people love Social Log-In.)

– Asking people to click on an ad to get the desired information. (That’s why people love to find all the content inside the banner.)

– Pushing me to to finalize the purchase in the store.

In the digital world, friction means your product is dead. Any barrier will lead me to delete your app, abandon the cart, move on. An armada of engineers, designers and UI/UX practitioners work day and night in Silicon Valley to eliminate friction.

Facebook wants us to share anything we do without us doing anything.

Retailers want us to pay with our phone, no credit cards required.

When there’s no friction in the world, there’s no free will.

You don’t have to make decisions, the app does it for you. You don’t decide what to share, Facebook does that for you. You don’t decide to look for a movie outside of your comfort zone, the Netflix algorithm recommends a movie for you. At one point, the world won’t need our decisions anymore. What happens  when we lose the capacity to make decisions and live in a recommendation world?

We’re building our own broadcast stations on the digital channels. We’re following people that are like us, think like us and agree with us. Where are the debates happening? No wonder there’s gridlock in Washington, we don’t even listen to the other side anymore.

Friction is at the heart of change.

We should not try to eliminate friction from our lives. If everything we do in life is easy, life becomes tedious. Arguments are a form of friction. Debate is a form of friction.

Show me a frictionless marriage and I see a dead marriage.

Show me a frictionless society and I see a dead society.

We should remove unnecessary barriers, absolutely.

But we need to continue to have friction in our lives to move ahead, tackle new problems and make this world an even better place.

One of the good and insightful guys in the business,  Brian Reich, has written an important book, Shift and Reset, which is a MUST READ for anyone who wants to lead/manage an organization in this hyper-connected age.
The slides above should give you an idea what his book has to offer and why you should consider buying the book.
Don’t expect a neat list for things you should do, a plan you can just follow along. Rather, expect conversation starters and ideas how to get real change started.
We don’t need other people telling us what will happen in 2012 or provide you with another forgettable checklist. We need you to be the change.





Even better:

Paradigm Shift

Social Business

Social Business Design: the intentional creation of dynamic and socially calibrated systems, process, and culture.

Changing words is easy.

Many companies call themselves now innovators. They have collaboration sessions, not meetings. They’re working under a new paradigm.

Real change is hard.

The truth is, most companies just change words. They still have meetings, they improve instead of innovating. Changing the words is the easy part. Deploying real change is hard.

And it should feel that way.

How to succeed in the next decade

My presentation at the iMedia Agency Summit at the beautiful Arizona  Biltmore focused on the changing agency landscape and how everyone of us has to adapt and change to succeed in the future.
Jodi Harris wrote a comprehensive overview of the presentation and embedded slideshow should give you a better feel for the emotion that I wanted to convey.
A last thought:
Change is hard. Whole industries are relying on this insight: Weight Watchers, Nicorette, just to name two companies. We say we want to be fit, don’t go to the gym and watch that reality show instead. We want to learn everything there is but we never read that important book your best friend recommended.
Seth Godin calls this the lizard brain, some others the resistance, I call it the negative voice in your head. That voice tells you to be careful, to take it slow, to compromise. It tells you to focus on the easy things first, do the Twitter update, the Facebook interaction, another spreadsheet, another memo before you create something real valuable. The voice in your head is responsible for lengthy meetings, mediocre products, the constant rationalization of everything your company and you yourself produces.
This voice never goes away. It might be a combination of your parents, teachers, friends, books you read and other media you consumed. Your job is to quiet that voice down. And focus on the things you really believe in. It’s a daily effort. Because the voice wants to be heard. But it’s your choice to listen to it and stay in the comfort zone. Or tune it out and change the world.
Below a list of books I mentioned in my presentation (no affiliate links):


Images: Courtesy of artbyphil

By now, it’s gone. A temporary city that forms during the annual Burning Man event is fading back into the nothingness of a remote desert. Most inhabitants are back in their normal life, and within weeks, the entire city will have disappeared. It’s an interesting way for a city to exist – once a year, just for a few weeks. People will talk about their experiences for months (just follow the hashtag #burningman to get a sense of the enthusiasm) and start making plans for next year’s event.

This was my second time at Burning Man. It remains one of the most bizarre, creative, inspiring, breathtaking and weird events I ever attended. Whatever you heard about Burning Man: It’s true. And, it’s completely false. You have to experience it to really understand it. It’s like having a kid, running a marathon or writing a book: Everything you heard about it is true. And, completely false at the same time.

On my way back from Black Rock City, I reflected on the lessons marketers can learn from Burning Man:

1. The paralyzing fear of change is far more inhibiting than the actual experience of change:

I’ve been a runner for more than 15 years. The first 5 years, I never ran more than 6 miles per day. A marathon was completely out of my reach, even though I was intrigued by the idea. “How do they run 26 miles?”, I asked myself many times, envisioning images of pain and agony. I tried to run 10 miles, never able to do it. Started walking after 6-7 miles, my usual comfort zone. Until one day, I decided to run 15 miles that day. No particular reason, just the feeling that I was sick of not being able to break that 7-mile barrier. And, I didn’t want to just break it. I wanted to shatter it. And so I did. Just to finish a marathon 3 months later.

Many marketers feel the same way: They want to break with the old model of marketing but they feel stuck in their old ways, the outdated processes and the aging model of broadcast marketing. They wait for someone to have the courage to change. The truth is: Nobody gets courage and then changes everything. First you change everything and then get the courage.

2. Don’t give up too early

The first time you try anything new, your senses are under attack. You don’t even know if it’s good or bad. You just know it’s new. You don’t know yet how to put it into perspective and add it to your experiences. The first time is the basic foundation of the overall process. The best advice for the first time in everything: Hang in there. Do whatever you can, the best you can. The second time is different: You have now one experience to compare your second experience to. And your second experience might be good or bad. Better or worse. It helps you to avoid bad experiences and to top good experiences. The third time is where it gets interesting. That’s when you become part of the context, when you can apply some of your experience history to the current experience. The third time gives you enough time to analyze incoming data.

This is true for visiting new cities. New countries. Starting a new job. And it’s true for marketing.

The first two digital campaigns/social media initiatives won’t be featured in any award book. I worked hard, I tried my best, I just didn’t have the proper context to deliver the best work possible. With the third campaign/initiative, I felt more grounded, more experienced. When you experiment with new platforms, new ideas or a new brand that just decided to run their marketing with you, just know you’re not going to ace it with the first idea/initiative. The fear of failure is looming large but you need to beat it by accepting this normal process.

3.) Give people a sense of ownership

The creativity and passion people pour into Burning Man has nothing to do with monetary rewards. It has a lot to do with a sense of ownership of the event. Sure, the man will burn, there will be coffee and ice, basic structures. The rest of the event is up to each one of the attendees.

Advanced managers base their ethics on fairness, harmony and gratitude to inspire a sense of achievement to goes beyond profit. Modern employees expect more from companies than just a paycheck. The work place should provide an avenue for employees to build knowledge, skills and experience.

The same is true for marketing: It’s not enough to have an offer or a discount coupon anymore. Customers review and recommend brands with a sense of ownership never seen before. Brands need to identify the best way to engage these passionate stakeholders. The future doesn’t belong to broadcast. The future belongs to companies that share values with their customers, that build platforms where all stakeholders can co-create and collaborate, and give people a sense of ownership.

4. Passion has real value

You can feel real passion. Just watch an artist or a kid immersed in something they are passionate about. Objects are not important at Burning Man. We are in the age of transition: From the economy of objects to the economy of people. Just look around: Everyone is starving for meaning. We’re meaning-making machines. All of us experienced how quickly the focus on profits can turn into an economic disaster. Instead, people want to do meaningful stuff that matters.

The new marketing reality implies that brands need to take a hard look at themselves and decide what they stand for. What is the inner truth of your company? What is your purpose? The foundation of any successful company in the future is purpose, passion and integrity, coupled with empathy and care for all stakeholders. It goes way beyond any CSR initiatives or charitable donations. The new marketing reality requires companies with big hearts.

5. The world needs more kindness

Tim Ferriss (The 4-hour workweek) discovered kindness in a sand storm. And, he shared a poem by Naomi Shinab Nye, entitled “Kindness”:

Before you know what kindness really is
you must lose things,
feel the future dissolve in a moment
like salt in a weakened broth.
What you held in your hand,
what you counted and carefully saved,
all this must go so you know
how desolate the landscape can be
between the regions of kindness.
How you ride and ride
thinking the bus will never stop,
the passengers eating maize and chicken
will stare out the window forever.

Before you learn the tender gravity of kindness,
you must travel where the Indian in a white poncho
lies dead by the side of the road.
You must see how this could be you,
how he too was someone
who journeyed through the night with plans
and the simple breath that kept him alive.

Before you know kindness as the deepest thing inside,
you must know sorrow as the other deepest thing.
You must wake up with sorrow.
You must speak to it till your voice
catches the thread of all sorrows
and you see the size of the cloth.

Then it is only kindness that makes sense anymore,
only kindness that ties your shoes
and sends you out into the day to mail letters and
purchase bread,
only kindness that raises its head
from the crowd of the world to say
it is I you have been looking for,
and then goes with you every where
like a shadow or a friend.


When your dreams turn to dust, vacuum.

tumblr_ky7r79jz2W1qzhdtio1_500Image: Courtesy of

Enterprises change at a breathtaking pace, reorganizing too often. Wasting a lot of time, energy, money and morale in the process. in the middle of a market tornado, enterprises try to reach a “stable state”. We would argue, enterprises should strive to reach a dynamic state. A state where adaption doesn’t equal reorganization. Such an organizational design is already being utilized.

The Multidimensional (MD) Design

The Multidimensional Design was originally developed at Dow Corning. It eliminates the need to reorganize when faced with a significant internal or external change.

The need to organize comes from the need to divide labor. To organize is to divide labor among different individuals or groups and to coordinate their activities in such a ways as to obtain a desired output. The more divided the labor, the more coordination is required. There are only three ways of dividing labor, meaning only three types of organizational unit:

a)    Functionally defined units (Purchasing, R&D, Industrial Relations, etc.)

b)   Product- or service-oriented output units (the magazines of a publishing company, the coffee of Starbucks)

c)    Market- or user-defined units (units defined by the geographic areas they sell in)

Most enterprises have all three types of units. Their importance is often ordered in the structure of most organizations. If product uniqueness is most important, then product-defined units dominate. If costs are the primary concern, functionally defined units rise to the top. All reorganizations involve changing the relative importance of the three criteria used in dividing labor, that is, changing the organizational levels at which units of the three types appear.

If units of all three types are established at a particular level of an organization, as their relative importance changes all that is required at that level is a reallocation of resources among them. Their reorganization is not required. Therefore, if the three types of unit are established at every level of an organization, the need to reorganize at any time is completely eliminated. Units of any of the three types can be added or subtracted without requiring reorganization; the organization’s structure remains the same.

Conventional representations of organizational structures do not indicate the interactions of the units. Three-dimensional representation of an organization makes it possible to show explicitly the interactions that should or do take place between units.

Product- or Service-Define Output Units

In a multidimensional organization, product- and service-defined (output) units consists of a management and only a small supporting staff, but no other personnel, and no facilities other than what is required to house this small staff of people. They are responsible for providing or arranging for all the activities required to make their products and services available to customers. These units obtain income from sale of their products and services. If they require more capital than they generate or accumulate, they can apply for it from a higher level of the organization. They are expected to treat such funds as loans or investments. They must pay for their use, one way or another.

Function-Defined Input Units

Units whose outputs are consumed primarily by other internal units are functionally defined , or input units. Functional units are often divided into two types, one defined as “operations” and the other as “service”. Operation units are ones that have a direct effect on the output (operations) of the organization, for example, manufacturing, maintenance, and purchasing. Service units have no such effect; they affect the nonoperational behavior of other units; they affect the nonoperational behavior of other units. Functional units are free to both purchase whatever they need and to sell whatever they produce or provide, either internally or externally. Their purchasing and selling decisions are subject to intervention from above and to compensation for such intervention when appropriate. They receive the income that their sales generate, and they pay the cost of whatever they purchase.

Market- or User-Defined Units

Market units – units that are defined by the users by the users they serve – have two complementary functions. First, they sell the outputs of any other unit in the organization that wants to use their services, as well as selling outputs externally. Second, market units also serve as advocates of the users in the markets for which they are responsible. They should not only represent the company in the market, but also the market in the company.

Market units evaluate the activities and outputs of other internal units from the point of view of potential and actual users of the organization’s outputs, who are outside of the organization and are affected by these outputs. For that reason, market units operate as consultants to the executive office and other unit heads.

Performance measures

A uniform, explicit, and operationally unambiguous measure of performance – which incorporates some function of the amount of profit generated, for example, return on capital employed – can be applied to units at every level, including the executive office. This makes possible comparison of the performances of units at all levels and discourages make-work and bureaucracy. However, profit is by no means the only important performance characteristic. Recall that in socially-systematically conceived organization, development of the organization, its stakeholders, and its containing system are its overriding objectives. Although profit is necessary for corporate development, it is not sufficient.

In our next installation, we discuss a plan being a system of solutions.

Previous installations can be found here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6 and Part 7, Part 8, Part 9.


Image: Courtesty of

“It turns out that an eerie type of chaos can lurk just behind a facade of order – and yet, deep inside the chaos lurks an even eerier type of order.” – Douglas Hofstadter

One of the fundamental characteristics of today’s enterprise environment is change. Today’s rate of change can often be experienced as chaos. All of us are grappling with the implications of technology, demographic changes and the impact of the human race on the planet. And we have an armada of experts that tell us how it will affect us physically, psychologically, socially, and organizationally. The fact and necessity of change needs to be a major consideration in the management of any enterprise. In addition, it is imperative for executives to be competent in introducing, responding to, or coping with fluctuations in the environment.

Before an enterprise can deal effectively with chaos and the always-present change, it needs to craft a situational analysis. It provides a comprehensive view of the system they manage. It also helps with determining its projected future, where it will be if it continues on the current path and be prepared for situation where the unexpected happens. These projections are imperative to understand how the enterprise will be affected unless it changes.

Situational Analysis Content

The situational analysis needs to contain at minimum:

  • Flow of business transactions from initial order to final delivery
  • Information flow required by underlying business transactions
  • Flow of financial resources
  • Culture of the enterprise. Differentiating between real culture and externally communicated culture (Policies)
  • Conflicts within the enterprise and between the enterprise and other stakeholders
  • External Trends and implications to the performance of the enterprise

This situational analyis is a much more in-depth look at the overall health of the enterprise compared to the typical SWOT analysis. In addition, we do recommend enterprises developing an ultimate apocalypse scenario.

Ultimate Apocalypse Scenario

The goal of the ultimate apocalypse scenario is to understand when and how the organizational system will break down if there are no adjustments. We all know that enterprises will eventually intervene and adjust. (Often too late or not early enough.) To be clear, this scenario is very unlikely to happen. But it helps enterprises to understand when and how the system will break down if no changes are implemented.

Fact is, the majority of organizations will not change their course unless they are in a state of crisis. Let’s just have a look at the current state of the U.S. government: For how many years have we heard we need to change fiscal direction? For how many years have we listened to politicians talking about the crisis of entitlements? Only after we stepped away from the brink of the financial abyss, we started to have an intelligent discussion about fiscal policy. Projections about our impending bankruptcy revealed the crisis of of our fiscal policy unless we change our behavior.

The ultimate apocalypse scenario should be communicated through a lively narrative. Humans react favorably to real stories, to vivid images. Just explaining the the federal deficit might reach 50% of GDP doesn’t evoke any emotions. A scenario where nobody will buy our debt and bond vigilantes will run the fiscal policy of the US evokes strong emotions.  The ultimate apocalypse scenario provides an enterprise with an opportunity to control and influence a significant part of its future. The goal of the enterprise is to influence the future and not be influenced by the interventions of others.

In Part 5, we will discuss Pie in the Sky planning.

And, in case you missed the first three parts, you can find them here: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.