2025年3月14日 星期五

器械華麗,傭工賤價?理不通也!

 


器械華麗,傭工賤價?理不通也!

吾讀麥肯錫公司之報告,謂商賈於人力之費,乃器械樓宇之三倍。三倍也!理應視其人如金玉,非耶?以為其人乃造香腸者,非僅香腸機之齒輪也。

然則不然,其所為者何?視勞力為「可削減之成本」。若漏水之龍頭,欲緊之以節數滴。譬如購駿馬,而怨草料之價。馬乃競賽之本也!

此實不合常理。縱有嶄新之電腦,自動之工廠,然出謀劃策者、解決難題者、實踐運作之者,皆人也。彼等器械,豈能自思乎?至少今未然,若觀彼等人工智慧之廣告,或更添煩擾。

此令吾憶及購廉價之物。初覺節省,然則一週即壞,終需費更多以更換。視僱員為可棄之費,亦似短視之舉。短期或可節省工資,然則頻繁招募培訓新人之費何如?當受輕視之人離去,其所攜之知識又何如?

此「人才回報最大化」之論,於吾而言,乃常識也。若於人力費巨資,豈不欲盡其用乎?此非僅望其現身行事而已。乃投資於其技藝,傾聽其見解,使其覺為其中一員也。

憶林肯電氣公司*之士乎?彼等厚待其工,其果如何?得驚人之生產力。非華麗之口號,亦非激勵之海報,乃認可勞動者之價值也。

或彼等商賈應效仿之。勿視其僱員為可擠壓削減之賬目數字,應視其為真正之資產。蓋無良工之商賈,若有華麗菜單而無廚師之餐廳,徒有其表,而無實質。彼等華麗之資本設備,豈能自行運轉乎?




*林肯之恆久經營智慧——製造業成功典範之經理啟示

詹姆斯·奧圖爾著,二零一三年八月二十六日

(原刊於博思公司)

雖近期復甦,然美國工業基礎衰落之論,屢見報端,致使美國經理人專注於當日新聞及當季業績。故鮮有人汲取美國最長久之製造業成功典範之寶貴教訓。近百年來,林肯電氣公司始終位列美國生產力最高之製造企業,六十餘年未曾裁撤一名正式員工,七十五年來,員工紅利平均為年薪之六至十成。然國內竟無他企採用林肯電氣之獨特體系,此體系令股東、經理及員工皆有強烈動機,協作以滿足顧客需求,延續成功。

一九一一年,詹姆斯·林肯創立林肯電氣公司,至今仍為世界最大電弧焊機製造商。今林肯電氣已為市值二十九億美元之跨國企業,雄踞全球市場。林肯早年洞見深刻:「吾知若能使公司上下皆欲如吾般成功,則無難題不可共解。」林肯雖為堅定之資本家,然覺華爾街之短期指令乃體系之最大威脅。其書曰:「今以股東利益運營產業之策,實不合理……尋常之不在場股東,於效率毫無貢獻。彼等朝買暮賣,多不知公司所產何物。」故林肯力求公司股票由經理及員工掌控。

林肯信奉經營之道,在於以最低價格生產最高品質之產品,服務顧客。而實現此目標之途,乃使全體員工參與其中。為使參與成真,林肯創立包含四項要素之組織體系:

一、溝通與參與。林肯信人受尊重,得機會發展及運用其才幹,則受激勵。其予員工查閱管理數據之權,鼓勵其尋求提高生產力及效率之法。近百年來,民選員工顧問委員會每兩週與林肯高層會晤,管理層與員工共同決策公司發展方向,包括海外擴張製造業務。管理層保留否決權,然因管理層與員工利益一致,故從未行使。

二、計件工資。林肯之製造工人非按時、週、資歷計酬。管理層與員工協商客觀標準,按實際產出計酬,多產多得。基本工資與當地工會工人持平,然林肯工人收入無上限,且可自主管理,自由組織生產方式。

三、績效獎金。公司三分之一利潤以獎金形式發放給生產工人,依其產出、品質、適應性、可靠性、團隊合作、創意、協作及遵守環境、健康、安全標準而定。二零一一年,美國林肯工人平均年收入約八萬美元。

四、保障就業。服務滿三年之生產工人,保證每週至少工作三十小時,以換取產品需求旺盛時加班。二零零八至零九年經濟衰退期,公司被迫實行三十小時工作制,然通常工人每週工作五十五小時。為履行保障就業之承諾,工人同意調任不同崗位,甚至低薪崗位。經濟低迷時,管理層及薪酬員工減薪,其職責轉為尋求使計時工人恢復全職之法。林肯各級員工皆言:「吾等同舟共濟。」

此體系基於數十年來,公司在順境逆境中皆堅守其道所積累之信任與社群感。此帶來之益處,乃對俄亥俄州克利夫蘭林肯工廠周邊社區之積極影響。縱使該市遭遇鐵鏽帶地區之命運,林肯員工亦為本將被棄之社區提供社會及經濟支撐。今林肯電氣作為俄亥俄州最大出口商,仍為克利夫蘭困境中之亮點。

公司持續發展、創新,獲穩定利潤(二零一二年銷售額二十九億美元,利潤二億五千七百萬美元)。然近年有二事變更。雖公司股票多數仍由員工及林肯家族基金會持有,然公司於一九九五年上市,在納斯達克交易之股份比例日益增長。同時,公司多數增長來自海外,常在法律禁止實行林肯獨特僱傭制度之國家。林肯電氣能否在這些變化下,延續詹姆斯·林肯所創之文化,令人拭目以待。

Fancy Equipment, Cheap Help? Doesn't Add Up!

 

Fancy Equipment, Cheap Help? Doesn't Add Up!

So, I'm reading McKinsey & Company that businesses are shelling out three times more money on people than they are on all their fancy machines and buildings. Three times! You'd think they'd treat those people like gold, wouldn't you? Like they were the ones actually making the sausages, not just the cogs in the sausage-making machine.


But no, what do they do? They see labour as a 'cost to cut'. A leaky tap they need to tighten to save a few drops. It's like buying a prize-winning racehorse and then complaining about the price of the oats. The horse is the reason you're in the race in the first place!

It just doesn't make any sense. You can have the shiniest new computers and the most automated factories, but it's the people who come up with the ideas, who fix the problems, who actually make the thing work. Those machines don't think for themselves, do they? Not yet anyway, and if those AI advertisements are anything to go by, maybe that's more trouble than it's worth anyway.

It reminds me of when you buy something cheap. You think you're saving money at the time, but then it breaks down after a week, and you end up spending more in the long run replacing it. Treating your employees like a disposable expense seems like the same sort of short-sighted thinking. You might save a bit on wages in the short term, but what about the cost of constantly hiring and training new people? What about the knowledge that walks out the door when someone who feels undervalued leaves?

This idea of 'maximizing returns on talent' sounds like common sense to me. If you're spending that much money on people, wouldn't you want to get the most out of them? That means more than just expecting them to show up and do the bare minimum. It means investing in their skills, listening to their ideas, and making them feel like they're actually part of something.

Remember that fella at Lincoln Electric*? They paid their workers well, and what happened? They got incredible productivity. It wasn't about fancy slogans or motivational posters; it was about recognising the value of the people doing the work.

Maybe these businesses need to take a leaf out of that book. Stop looking at their employees as just numbers on a spreadsheet to be squeezed and trimmed. Start seeing them as the real asset they are. Because at the end of the day, a business without good people is like a restaurant with a fancy menu but no cook – it might look good on paper, but it's not going to deliver anything worthwhile. And all that fancy capital equipment isn't going to run itself, now is it?




*Lincoln Electric is a well-established and prominent company in the manufacturing sector. Here's a breakdown of what they do and how they operate:   


What Lincoln Electric Does:


Manufacturing:

Lincoln Electric is a global manufacturer of welding products, arc welding equipment, welding accessories, plasma and oxy-fuel cutting equipment, and robotic welding systems.   

Essentially, they provide the tools and technology used for joining metals.   

Global Presence:

They have a wide network of distributors and sales offices, serving customers in over 160 countries.   

They operate manufacturing locations across North America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America.   

Business Performance:


Established Company:

Founded in 1895, Lincoln Electric has a long and successful history.   

Publicly Traded:

They are a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq (LECO) and are a component of the S&P 400.   

Financial Success:

Lincoln Electric is a financially strong company, with billions of dollars in revenue.

How Lincoln Electric Treats Its Workers:


Performance-Based Culture:

Lincoln Electric is known for its unique performance-based culture. They have a system that rewards employees for their productivity.   

This system has historically been a key factor in their success.

Emphasis on Productivity:

They have a strong focus on employee productivity, and their compensation structure reflects this.   

Long-Term Employment:

Historically, they have had a very strong record of long term employment for their workers.   

The Lincoln Electric System:

The "Lincoln Electric System" is a well known management system that heavily relies on incentive based pay, and a strong company culture.   

In summary, Lincoln Electric is a major player in the welding industry, with a long history of success. Their approach to employee relations, particularly their performance-based system, has been a distinctive feature of their business.

闢林築道,議論樂土?

 

闢林築道,議論樂土?

噫嘻!果真耶?欲於亞馬遜雨林中,闢四車道,以便諸公往貝倫城,議氣候峰會。此實匪夷所思也。

天下領袖,號稱五萬,飛抵此地,欲論救地球之事。首行之事,竟准許一項工程,毀林中要地。譬如旱中鑿井,欲言節水。其理,吾實難解。

言其為解城中交通,以供十一月之盛會。五萬人聚於一城,必有擁堵。然氣候峰會之意,豈非思慮如何減少築路,抑制車行乎?

此令吾憶及彼等「主題餐廳」。費盡心思,擬作海盜船或飛機之形,令人忘其本為供食之所。今則耗費環境,以供諸公論環境。亞馬遜之濕熱,恐不及此諷刺之濃烈。

一旦此路既成,則永存矣。峰會既畢,豈能捲之而藏?必將引發更多車行,更多開發。

此舉實本末倒置,非耶?譬如欲節紙張,而印六份節紙備忘錄。令人撓首,疑其是否深思熟慮。或可舉行視頻會議。雖不若親臨之盛,然林木必感其惠。


https://youtu.be/DYtmc2JPIfM?si=3Cc09TK0Ch-YJnDZ

Paving Paradise for a Meeting About Paradise?

 

Paving Paradise for a Meeting About Paradise?

Well, I'll be hornswoggled. They're going to cut a four-lane highway through the Amazon rainforest so that all the important folks can get to a climate summit in Belém. You can't make this stuff up, can you?

Here we have all these world leaders, fifty thousand of 'em they say, flying in to talk about saving the planet, and the first thing they do is okay a project that tears up a chunk of one of the most important parts of it. It's like saying you're trying to save water while drilling a new well in the middle of a drought. The logic of some people just escapes me.

They say it's to ease traffic to the city, which is going to host this big conference in November. Fifty thousand people descending on a city is bound to cause a bit of a jam, I suppose. But isn't the point of a climate summit to maybe think about ways we don't have to build more roads and encourage more driving?

It reminds me a bit of when they build those "theme restaurants". They go to all sorts of trouble to make it look like a pirate ship or an airplane, and you sort of forget they're supposed to be serving you food. Here, they're going to this great environmental expense so that everyone can talk about the environment. You'd think the irony would be as thick as the humidity in the Amazon.

Once that highway's in, it's in. It's not like you can just roll it up and put it away after the summit's over. It'll be there encouraging more traffic, more development.

It all feels a bit backward, doesn't it? Like trying to save paper by sending out six copies of a memo about saving paper. You scratch your head and wonder if anyone's really thought this through. Maybe they should have just had a video conference. It might not have been as grand, but I bet the trees would have appreciated it.


https://youtu.be/DYtmc2JPIfM?si=3Cc09TK0Ch-YJnDZ

凡物皆賦智AI乎?

 

凡物皆賦智AI乎?

近世啟電視,輒聞士人衣冠楚楚,言其新製洗衣機,以人工智慧為力。人工智慧!吾憶昔日,洗衣機唯需水、皂、電而已。今竟有腦乎?將自理吾襪乎?吾甚疑之。

凡物皆然,非耶?廣告充斥「智」事。新車有智,助爾泊車;恆溫器有智,知爾暖時;縱至牙刷,亦有智,責爾刷牙不善。若謂吾輩皆愚鈍,不能自理簡事。

憶昔日,唯言物之所能。此車引擎良善,此皂潔淨。簡而明。今則皆言「尖端智算」、「智技無縫」。聞之似甚奇,然吾吐司,因烤箱有智而味更佳乎?吾未覺也。

此令吾憶昔日,凡物皆言「新而益善」。購舊物,異匣裝之,輒冠以「新而益善」,若世間奇珍。此「智」事,亦似如是,新詞以掩凡物之常也。

然此智若有誤,將若何?鄰人「智」電視,惡其觀視之習,輒易頻道。此物「智」有瑕疵,誰將修之?將需智工乎?皆似徒增煩擾。

或吾已老矣。然吾愛物之本質,鏟即鏟,器即器,各司其職,無需數腦。此廣告之智,令人疑物之本質已衰,故以技語粉飾之。但求物之實用,智則免之,謝矣。

Everything's Got Brains Now, Hasn't It?

 

Everything's Got Brains Now, Hasn't It?

You can't switch on the television these days without some fella in a crisp shirt telling you how their new washing machine is now powered by artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence! Last time I checked, my washing machine just needed water, soap, and to be plugged in. Now it's got a brain? What's it going to do, start sorting my socks by itself? I doubt it.

It's the same with everything, isn't it? The advertisements are crawling with this 'AI' business. Your new car has AI to help you park, your thermostat has AI to figure out when you like the heating on, even your toothbrush probably has AI to tell you you're not brushing properly. You'd think we were all a bunch of nitwits who can't manage simple tasks anymore.

Remember when they used to just tell you what something did? This car has a good engine, this soap gets you clean. Simple. Now, it's all about the 'cutting-edge AI algorithms' and the 'seamless integration of intelligent technology'. Sounds impressive, I suppose, but does my toast taste any better because the toaster has AI? I haven't noticed.

It reminds me a bit of when everything was 'new and improved'. You'd buy the same old product in a different box, and they'd slap 'new and improved' on it like it was the eighth wonder of the world. This AI thing feels a bit like that, a new buzzword to make the ordinary sound extraordinary.

And what happens when this AI goes wrong? My neighbour's 'smart' television decided it didn't like his viewing habits and kept changing the channel. Who's going to fix these things when their 'intelligence' has a glitch? Will we need AI mechanics now? It all sounds like more trouble than it's worth.

Maybe I'm just getting old. But I liked things better when a spade was just a spade, and my appliances just did what they were supposed to without needing a digital brain. All this AI in advertising makes you wonder if the products themselves aren't all that impressive anymore, so they have to dress them up with a bit of technological mumbo-jumbo. Just give me something that works, and leave the artificial intelligence out of it, thank you very much.

2025年3月13日 星期四

Top MBA Programs around the world That Emphasize Systems Thinking

Here are some top MBA programs that emphasize Systems Thinking, TOC, Lean, and holistic business management. These programs integrate cross-functional learning, feedback loops, and system optimization, making them ideal for leaders who want to manage complexity rather than just optimize isolated functions.


🎓 Top MBA Programs That Emphasize Systems Thinking

1️⃣ MIT Sloan School of Management (USA) – MBA & Executive Programs

Why?

  • Home to Peter Senge's Systems Thinking (The Fifth Discipline).
  • MIT Operations Research Center integrates Lean, TOC, and Cybernetics.
  • Strong focus on Supply Chain as a System (SCM), Dynamic Systems Modeling, and Agile Innovation.
  • Ties with MIT Engineering enable real-world systems-driven problem-solving.

📌 Relevant Courses & Research Centers:

  • System Dynamics (John Sterman’s work) – Used in business simulations for real-world decision-making.
  • Lean Operations & Continuous Improvement – Often tied to Toyota Production System (TPS).
  • Supply Chain Systems – A global leader in logistics systems.

💡 Best for: Those who want to integrate operations, supply chains, and strategy using systemic methodologies.


2️⃣ Stanford Graduate School of Business (USA) – MBA & MSx (Executive Program)

Why?

  • Strong focus on complex systems, adaptive organizations, and innovation ecosystems.
  • Incorporates design thinking, organizational learning, and business ecosystems into leadership training.
  • Ties with Stanford d.school (design thinking + systems).

📌 Relevant Courses & Research Centers:

  • The Human-Centered Systems Approach to Business – Integrates organizational behavior and systems science.
  • Strategy Beyond Markets – Understanding regulatory and social systems in business.
  • The Stanford Digital Business Initiative – Systemic digital transformation strategies.

💡 Best for: Leaders who want to integrate strategy, technology, and innovation with a systems perspective.


3️⃣ University of Michigan – Ross School of Business (USA) – MBA & Tauber Institute for Global Operations

Why?

  • Lean Systems Thinking embedded into MBA (ties with Toyota, GM).
  • The Tauber Institute for Global Operations offers real-world industry projects using TOC, Lean, and Supply Chain Optimization.
  • Uses action-based learning—students work directly on system-wide improvements in real companies.

📌 Relevant Courses & Research Centers:

  • Operations & Systems Thinking – Uses TOC, Lean, and Deming principles.
  • Global Supply Chain & Logistics – Strong systems-based curriculum.
  • Multi-Disciplinary Action Projects (MAP) – Students solve real system constraints in partner companies.

💡 Best for: Those who want hands-on experience improving business systems in operations, logistics, and supply chains.


4️⃣ INSEAD (France & Singapore) – MBA & Executive Programs

Why?

  • Focuses on business as an ecosystem, not just internal operations.
  • Strong emphasis on dynamic strategy, process improvement, and global systemic challenges.
  • Blue Ocean Strategy (Developed at INSEAD) – Focuses on system-wide market creation.

📌 Relevant Courses & Research Centers:

  • Strategy & Systemic Decision-Making – Real-world strategy with complexity thinking.
  • Operations & Process Management – Uses Lean and TOC principles.
  • Global Leadership as a System – How multinational firms balance global and local system constraints.

💡 Best for: Those looking for a global perspective on business ecosystems and systems thinking in leadership.


5️⃣ Carnegie Mellon – Tepper School of Business (USA) – MBA with Systems Thinking & Analytics

Why?

  • Strong focus on cybernetics, decision science, and analytics-driven system optimization.
  • Incorporates AI, systems modeling, and feedback loops into business strategy.
  • Ties with Carnegie Mellon's engineering & AI research labs → Business leaders learn to think like system designers.

📌 Relevant Courses & Research Centers:

  • Dynamic Systems & Decision Science – Focuses on cybernetics and modeling.
  • Operations Research & Business Process Systems – Uses Lean, Six Sigma, and TOC.
  • Tepper Analytics & Optimization Lab – Real-world system simulations.

💡 Best for: Leaders who want to integrate data, AI, and systems thinking into operations & strategy.


6️⃣ Arizona State University – W. P. Carey School of Business (USA) – MBA with Systems Engineering

Why?

  • Strong collaboration with ASU's engineering & sustainability programs → Business leaders are trained to think in systems.
  • Supply Chain Systems & Process Innovation – Uses TOC, Lean, and Six Sigma principles.
  • Real-World Consulting Projects → Students optimize real business systems as part of the curriculum.

📌 Relevant Courses & Research Centers:

  • Enterprise Systems & Innovation – Covers business ecosystems & adaptive systems.
  • Process Management & System Optimization – Hands-on experience in real-world constraints.
  • Digital Transformation & Business Models – AI and automation as system enablers.

💡 Best for: Those who want a strong focus on business system optimization, engineering approaches, and practical problem-solving.


7️⃣ Warwick Business School (UK) – MBA with System Dynamics Focus

Why?

  • One of the few MBA programs that explicitly teaches System Dynamics & Business Process Engineering.
  • Faculty includes experts in complexity science and cybernetics.
  • Strong ties with UK industries for real-world application.

📌 Relevant Courses & Research Centers:

  • Systems Thinking for Business Leaders – How to model and analyze complex systems.
  • Strategic Operations & Lean Enterprise – Applies TOC and Lean principles.
  • Warwick Business Analytics & AI Systems Lab – Uses AI for system optimization.

💡 Best for: Those looking for a deep dive into system modeling, complexity, and adaptive business strategies.


📝 Final Thoughts: Which One is Right for You?

🔹 Want an engineering-driven approach?MIT, Carnegie Mellon, ASU
🔹 Want a global systems view?INSEAD, Warwick
🔹 Want real-world hands-on TOC & Lean experience?Michigan (Ross), Arizona State
🔹 Want strategy & ecosystem thinking?Stanford, INSEAD


MBA in Systemic Business Management

If we were to redesign an MBA program to fully embrace business as a system, it would need to:

  1. Eliminate silos between business functions—integrating finance, operations, marketing, and leadership into a single system-focused framework.
  2. Teach decision-making based on system optimization, not local efficiency.
  3. Use real-world methodologies like TOC, Lean, Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge, and Systems Thinking to analyze and improve organizations.

🎓 MBA in Systemic Business Management (SBM)

A Two-Year MBA Curriculum Designed for Systems Thinking

Central Theme:

Business is a system of interdependent processes, not a collection of independent departments.
Decisions must optimize the whole system, not just individual parts.
Continuous learning, feedback loops, and systemic change drive long-term success.


📅 Year 1: Foundations of Systemic Thinking in Business

The first year builds core knowledge while ensuring every course connects to the idea of business as a system.

📌 Term 1: Foundations of Systems Thinking in Business

1️⃣ Introduction to Systems Thinking in Business

  • Key frameworks: TOC, Lean, Deming, Cybernetics, and Viable System Model
  • Feedback loops, constraints, and unintended consequences.
  • Case Study: How Toyota’s Lean System works holistically.

2️⃣ Decision Science & Complex Problem-Solving

  • How mental models and biases affect system-wide decision-making.
  • Thinking Processes from TOC: Current Reality Tree, Future Reality Tree.
  • Case Study: How Amazon uses systems thinking for logistics and operations.

3️⃣ The Economics of Flow: Value Creation in Business Systems

  • Why throughput matters more than cost-cutting.
  • The flow of money, products, and services through a business system.
  • Case Study: Why Southwest Airlines' systemic approach outperforms competitors.

📌 Term 2: The Interconnected Functions of a Business System

4️⃣ Operations & Supply Chain as a System

  • Lean, TOC, and Demand-Driven MRP (DDMRP) principles.
  • Managing constraints across global supply chains.
  • Case Study: Zara’s fast fashion supply chain as a system.

5️⃣ Finance Beyond Cost-Cutting: Throughput Accounting & Long-Term Value

  • Why traditional cost accounting leads to bad decisions.
  • Throughput Accounting (TOC) vs. traditional accounting.
  • Case Study: Tesla’s financial system—why it works differently.

6️⃣ Customers as a System: Marketing, Sales, and Customer Flow

  • Marketing and sales as part of the operational system—not separate silos.
  • Demand-driven systems: How pricing, branding, and service impact operations.
  • Case Study: How Apple integrates marketing, supply chain, and customer experience.

📌 Term 3: Managing Human Systems & Organizational Flow

7️⃣ People Systems: Leadership, Culture, and Learning Organizations

  • Peter Senge’s learning organization principles.
  • Organizational psychology and system-wide motivation.
  • Case Study: How Netflix structures itself as a system.

8️⃣ Beyond Bureaucracy: Agile, Holacracy, and Adaptive Business Models

  • How organizations can be self-regulating systems.
  • The failure of traditional command-and-control management.
  • Case Study: How Haier’s "Microenterprise Model" replaced hierarchy.

📅 Year 2: Applying Systemic Thinking to Business Challenges

The second year shifts toward application, requiring students to work in teams on real-world business challenges.

📌 Term 4: Systems Thinking in Real-World Applications

9️⃣ Strategy as a System: The Role of Ecosystems, Networks, and Platforms

  • Business ecosystems vs. competitive strategy (Beyond Porter’s Five Forces).
  • How Apple, Google, and Amazon use ecosystem strategy.
  • Case Study: The battle of open vs. closed systems (Android vs. iOS).

🔟 Resilience, Risk, and Crisis Management as a System

  • Why companies fail when they optimize for efficiency instead of resilience.
  • How feedback loops create financial crises, supply chain disruptions, and market crashes.
  • Case Study: Why Toyota recovered from COVID-19 faster than competitors.

📌 Term 5: Systems Thinking in Innovation and Business Transformation

1️⃣1️⃣ The Future of Work: AI, Automation, and Systemic Change

  • How AI and automation impact organizational systems.
  • Why automation without systems thinking causes chaos.
  • Case Study: The rise (and struggles) of fully automated warehouses.

1️⃣2️⃣ Sustainability as a System: People, Planet, and Profit

  • Why most sustainability efforts fail without systemic alignment.
  • Circular economy models and regenerative business strategies.
  • Case Study: How Patagonia designed its business system for sustainability.

📌 Term 6: Capstone – The Systemic Business Challenge

  • Students work in teams to analyze and optimize a real business system.
  • Companies submit real-world problems (e.g., supply chain bottlenecks, poor product-market fit, broken workflows).
  • Teams present TOC-based solutions using system diagrams, feedback loops, and constraint analysis.

🎯 What Makes This MBA Unique?

No isolated courses. Everything is interconnected.
Every course ties back to systems thinking and flow.
Emphasis on real-world applications, not just theory.
Uses TOC, Lean, Deming, and Systems Thinking methodologies.
Prepares leaders to manage complexity, not just optimize parts.


Final Thought: The Future of MBA Education

🚀 This MBA would create leaders who understand how businesses truly function—as interconnected, adaptive systems.

Where an MBA course Treats Business as a System

An MBA curriculum in the USA is typically structured around different functional areas of business, and whether a program treats business as a system or as disconnected parts depends on the specific course and teaching approach.

Some courses and frameworks naturally emphasize interdependencies and system-wide thinking, while others focus on optimizing individual components without much regard for the whole. Let’s break it down:


Where an MBA Treats Business as a System

These courses or concepts emphasize interdependencies, feedback loops, and holistic thinking, aligning with TOC, Lean, and Deming principles.

1. Strategy & Competitive Advantage (Can Go Either Way)

  • Systemic View (When Done Right):
    • Some strategy courses focus on ecosystem thinking, showing how businesses succeed through supply chain coordination, customer relationships, and internal alignment.
    • Example: Blue Ocean Strategy (Kim & Mauborgne) emphasizes creating new markets rather than just competing in existing ones, which requires thinking beyond departmental silos.
    • Porter’s Value Chain Analysis (when properly applied) considers how different business functions interact to create customer value.
  • Non-Systemic View (Traditional Focus on Competition):
    • If Porter’s Five Forces is taught in isolation, it can create a zero-sum view of business (treating suppliers, customers, and rivals as opponents rather than system partners).

💡 Look for MBAs that include "ecosystem strategy" and stakeholder collaboration rather than just competitive strategy.


2. Operations & Supply Chain Management

  • Strong Systemic Thinking:
    • Lean, TOC, Six Sigma, and supply chain management courses explicitly teach interdependencies.
    • Topics like Just-in-Time (JIT), Total Quality Management (TQM), and Demand-Driven MRP (DDMRP) align with TOC, emphasizing flow efficiency over local optimizations.
  • Example of Systemic Learning:
    • A case study on Toyota’s Lean Production System teaches how inventory, supplier collaboration, and production processes must be aligned as a system.
  • Non-Systemic Pitfall:
    • If supply chain courses focus only on cost reduction (e.g., bulk purchasing, outsourcing for cheap labor) without considering flow disruptions, risk, and resilience, they fail as a system approach.

💡 Look for MBAs that emphasize "Supply Chain as a Competitive Advantage" rather than just cost-cutting.


3. Systems Thinking, Organizational Behavior, and Leadership

  • Some MBA programs (especially top-tier schools like MIT Sloan, Stanford GSB, and Harvard Business School) teach Peter Senge’s Systems Thinking, including:
    • Feedback loops and unintended consequences in decision-making.
    • Cross-functional collaboration and breaking down silos.
    • Complex adaptive systems theory (common in innovation-focused programs).
  • Example of Systemic Learning:
    • A case study on W.L. Gore & Associates (maker of GORE-TEX) shows how its flat hierarchy and decentralized decision-making create an adaptive organization.
  • Non-Systemic Pitfall:
    • If leadership courses only focus on individual leadership styles rather than how leaders must manage systems, they miss the big picture.

💡 Look for MBAs that include "complexity theory" and organizational systems instead of just leadership frameworks.


4. Entrepreneurship & Innovation

  • Systemic Approach (Ecosystem Thinking):
    • The best MBA entrepreneurship courses teach that startups thrive within ecosystems—they need strong supplier relationships, investor networks, customer development, and team alignment.
    • Steve Blank’s Lean Startup Model and customer development frameworks reinforce systemic thinking.
  • Non-Systemic Pitfall:
    • If the course only focuses on the founder's vision without teaching how all business components interact, it creates a heroic entrepreneur myth rather than a scalable system approach.

💡 Look for MBAs that teach "business model ecosystems" instead of just business plans.


Where an MBA Treats Business as a Collection of Parts (Non-Systemic Thinking)

These courses tend to optimize individual functions rather than seeing business holistically.

1. Financial Accounting & Managerial Accounting

  • Why It’s Non-Systemic:
    • Traditional accounting courses divide business into cost centers and revenue units, often ignoring system-wide effects.
    • Example: A company cuts R&D expenses to boost short-term profits, but this harms long-term innovation and competitiveness—a classic case of local optimization over systemic thinking.
  • How It Could Be Systemic:
    • Some advanced courses integrate Beyond Budgeting or Activity-Based Costing (ABC), which aligns costs with system performance rather than arbitrary cost-cutting.

💡 Look for MBAs that include "Strategic Cost Management" rather than just GAAP-based accounting.


2. Corporate Finance & Investment Strategy

  • Why It’s Non-Systemic:
    • Many finance courses prioritize short-term shareholder value, which leads to:
      • Cutting costs without considering system effects.
      • Prioritizing quarterly earnings over long-term resilience.
      • Stock buybacks instead of investment in operational improvements.
  • Example of Non-Systemic Thinking:
    • A CFO outsources manufacturing to save costs, but later, supply chain disruptions cause major revenue losses—a failure to think systemically.
  • How It Could Be Systemic:
    • Some finance courses integrate Triple Bottom Line (People, Planet, Profit) and Sustainable Finance, which consider long-term system health.

💡 Look for MBAs that include "Sustainable Finance" and stakeholder-driven financial models.


3. Marketing & Sales Strategy

  • Why It’s Non-Systemic:
    • If marketing is taught as a separate function, companies often focus on demand generation but fail to align marketing with production capacity, supply chain, or pricing strategy.
    • Example: A company launches a massive sales campaign without checking whether production can meet demand, leading to customer frustration and backorders—a lack of system thinking.
  • How It Could Be Systemic:
    • If marketing is integrated with operations, finance, and customer experience, it ensures consistent value delivery rather than just demand creation.

💡 Look for MBAs that teach "customer-centric business models" rather than just promotions.


Final Thoughts: Systemic vs. Non-Systemic MBA Thinking

Courses That Teach Business as a System:

  • Operations & Supply Chain (when focused on flow efficiency, not just cost)
  • Systems Thinking, Organizational Behavior, and Leadership (if they teach feedback loops)
  • Strategy (if it includes ecosystems, not just competition)
  • Entrepreneurship (if it includes startup ecosystems, not just founders)

Courses That Often Treat Business as Parts (Non-Systemic):

  • Accounting (if it focuses only on cost centers and profit)
  • Finance (if it focuses only on short-term shareholder value)
  • Marketing & Sales (if it ignores production capacity and supply chain)

💡 If you're choosing an MBA, look for programs that emphasize "cross-functional integration" and "business as a system" rather than just optimizing individual functions.


Are ERP Systems Systemic or Not?

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are often marketed as systemic solutions, but in practice, whether they truly function as systems depends on how they are designed, implemented, and used


Are ERP Systems Systemic or Not?

1. ERP as a System (The Ideal View)

In theory, ERP systems are designed to integrate business functions into a single, interdependent system.

  • They centralize data across departments (finance, supply chain, HR, production, sales) to enable real-time decision-making.
  • They aim to reduce silos, improve coordination, and optimize cross-functional workflows.
  • If implemented correctly, ERP systems support systemic thinking by providing a single version of the truth, reducing misalignment between functions.

🔹 Example of ERP Working as a System:

  • A TOYOTA-style Lean manufacturer implements an ERP integrated with Just-in-Time (JIT).
  • The system automatically adjusts production schedules based on real-time customer demand, ensuring smooth flow across the entire supply chain.
  • Inventory is minimized without stockouts, supporting Lean’s "optimize the whole" approach.

2. ERP as a Non-System (The Reality of Many Implementations)

In practice, many ERP implementations fail to function as true systems because:

  • Departments still operate in silos despite the shared database.
  • Rigid ERP structures force standardized processes that may not fit actual business needs.
  • Local optimizations occur, with departments using ERP to track their own efficiency rather than overall system performance.
  • ERP implementations often focus on cost-cutting, not systemic improvement.

🔹 Example of ERP Failing as a System:

  • A large retail chain implements SAP ERP to standardize operations.
  • The finance team forces strict cost controls, pushing procurement to buy in bulk to save per-unit costs.
  • This conflicts with Lean inventory principles, causing excess stock, higher holding costs, and cash flow issues—a classic case of local optimization harming the system.

TOC, Lean, and Deming’s View on ERP Systems

🔴 TOC Perspective: ERP Often Ignores Constraints

  • TOC focuses on optimizing the system’s constraint, not every process equally.
  • ERP treats all processes as equally important, often automating inefficiencies rather than solving bottlenecks.
  • Example: A company installs ERP and sees data from all departments, but if the real bottleneck is an underutilized machine, ERP won’t fix the issue unless management actively applies TOC thinking.

💡 TOC Advice: Use ERP only to enhance constraint-focused improvements, not as a one-size-fits-all solution.


🟢 Lean Perspective: ERP Should Support Flow, Not Control

  • Lean emphasizes flow and continuous improvement.
  • Many ERPs overcomplicate processes instead of making them simpler and faster.
  • Example: A car factory using ERP to plan production in advance ignores real-time demand signals, leading to overproduction and waste—the opposite of Lean thinking.

💡 Lean Advice: Use ERP to support pull-based flow, not rigid scheduling.


🔵 Deming Perspective: ERP Often Violates Quality Thinking

  • Deming stressed understanding variation and improving processes based on feedback loops.
  • Many ERPs lock companies into rigid structures, limiting experimentation and continuous improvement.
  • Example: A bank installs ERP for loan approvals, but strict automation removes flexibility, frustrating customers and staff.

💡 Deming Advice: ERP should enhance learning and improvement, not enforce rigid rules.


Conclusion: Is ERP a System?

ERP can be systemic if:

  • It is used to support cross-functional collaboration rather than just control individual departments.
  • It enhances real-time decision-making at the system level, not just the local level.
  • It adapts to business needs instead of forcing standardized but inefficient workflows.

ERP fails as a system if:

  • It enforces rigid structures that prevent flexibility and learning.
  • It optimizes parts over the whole, leading to silos despite integration.
  • It automates processes without solving real bottlenecks or systemic inefficiencies.

💡 Final Thought:
ERP can be a system or a non-system, depending on how it is applied. The key is to align ERP with systemic thinking principles like TOC, Lean, and Deming, rather than treating it as a magic fix.


Management Philosophies That Treat an Organization as a System

Management Philosophies That Treat an Organization as a System

These philosophies recognize interdependencies, feedback loops, and the need to optimize the whole rather than individual parts.


1. Theory of Constraints (TOC) – Eli Goldratt

How It Treats Business as a System

  • TOC sees organizations as interconnected systems with a constraint (bottleneck) that determines overall performance.
  • Instead of optimizing individual parts (departments, processes), TOC emphasizes improving the system’s constraint to maximize flow and throughput.
  • The Five Focusing Steps help organizations continually identify and elevate constraints to improve system performance.
  • The Thinking Processes (Evaporating Cloud, Current Reality Tree, etc.) help analyze cause-effect relationships and systemic conflicts.

Example

  • In manufacturing, a factory struggling with late deliveries might assume the issue is with low worker productivity. However, TOC would analyze the whole system and find that the real constraint is an overloaded machine, not worker speed. Instead of pushing everyone to work harder, TOC focuses on improving flow through the constraint.

2. Lean Thinking – Toyota Production System (TPS)

How It Treats Business as a System

  • Lean views an organization as a value stream, where different parts must work in harmony to eliminate waste (muda), variability (mura), and overburden (muri).
  • Instead of optimizing individual processes, Lean emphasizes flow, pull systems, and continuous improvement (Kaizen) across the entire value chain.
  • It encourages cross-functional collaboration (e.g., production, supply chain, customer service working together).

Example

  • A car manufacturer trying to reduce costs might traditionally cut labor or material costs.
  • Lean, however, would analyze the whole system and find that reducing batch sizes and improving supplier coordination could reduce inventory costs without layoffs or quality issues.

3. Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge – W. Edwards Deming

How It Treats Business as a System

  • Deming emphasized variation, psychology, system interactions, and learning as key to quality and performance.
  • His 14 Points for Management encourage long-term systemic thinking, not short-term gains.
  • The PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycle promotes continuous improvement by analyzing feedback loops within the system.

Example

  • An airline suffering from frequent delays might blame employees for not working fast enough.
  • Deming would advise examining the whole system—perhaps the root cause is unreliable scheduling software or poor communication between ground staff and pilots.

4. Systems Thinking – Peter Senge, Russell Ackoff, Stafford Beer

How It Treats Business as a System

  • Systems Thinking emphasizes feedback loops, unintended consequences, and emergent behavior.
  • Ackoff advocated "idealized design", where businesses don’t just fix problems but rethink entire systems.
  • Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM) describes organizations as adaptive, cybernetic systems.

Example

  • A healthcare system struggling with overcrowded emergency rooms might think the problem is a shortage of doctors.
  • Systems Thinking could reveal that patients visit the ER due to lack of primary care access, so fixing the upstream issue (better primary care) improves the whole system.

5. Agile & DevOps Thinking

How It Treats Business as a System

  • Agile frameworks (SAFe, LeSS) and DevOps break down silos between software development, operations, and business teams.
  • DevOps emphasizes continuous delivery, automation, and fast feedback loops to optimize the whole system.

Example

  • A company struggling with slow software releases might blame developers.
  • DevOps would look at the entire system, possibly finding that bottlenecks exist in testing, deployment, or decision-making processes.

6. Baldrige Performance Excellence Model & ISO 9001 (Quality Management Systems - QMS)

How They Treat Business as a System

  • Both models emphasize process integration across departments for sustainable performance.
  • ISO 9001’s process-based approach ensures that departments work in sync rather than in isolation.

Example

  • A logistics company with high delivery failures might focus only on driver training.
  • A systemic approach would analyze supply chain coordination, order accuracy, and IT systems to find broader inefficiencies.

Management Philosophies That Minimize or Reject the "Business as a System" View

These philosophies tend to focus on individual components, short-term efficiency, or competition, sometimes at the expense of system-wide performance.


1. Scientific Management (Taylorism) – Frederick Taylor

Why It Doesn’t Emphasize Systems

  • Taylorism focuses on individual task optimization rather than system-wide improvements.
  • It assumes that workers are isolated units, rather than parts of an interdependent process.

Example

  • A factory increases worker speed but doesn’t consider that faster production creates excess inventory, leading to bottlenecks.

2. Shareholder Primacy (Milton Friedman’s Capitalism)

Why It Doesn’t Emphasize Systems

  • Prioritizes shareholder returns over long-term system health.
  • Often leads to cost-cutting, layoffs, and outsourcing without considering systemic impacts.

Example

  • A retail chain cuts customer service staff to boost quarterly profits, leading to lower customer satisfaction, lost sales, and long-term brand damage.

3. Command-and-Control Bureaucracy

Why It Doesn’t Emphasize Systems

  • Rigid hierarchies create silos with poor communication between departments.
  • Prioritizes rules, compliance, and top-down control over adaptation and system-wide learning.

Example

  • A government agency experiences slow decision-making due to excessive approval layers, preventing timely responses to public needs.

4. Competitive Strategy (e.g., Porter’s Five Forces in an Extreme Form)

Why It Doesn’t Emphasize Systems

  • Views business as a battlefield where competitors, suppliers, and customers are often seen as adversaries.
  • Can lead to zero-sum thinking, ignoring how collaboration might strengthen the system.

Example

  • A supplier squeezes customers for higher margins, causing clients to seek alternative providers, ultimately damaging the entire supply chain.

5. Business Process Reengineering (BPR - When Misapplied)

Why It Sometimes Ignores Systems

  • In extreme cases, BPR focuses on radical change without considering systemic interdependencies.
  • Can lead to cost-driven layoffs and restructuring that create new inefficiencies.

Example

  • A bank automates customer service to cut costs, but fails to consider how it reduces customer trust, leading to account closures.

Conclusion

  • TOC, Lean, and Deming recognize that optimizing parts can harm the whole and advocate system-wide optimization.
  • Taylorism, shareholder primacy, and extreme cost-cutting strategies often neglect interdependencies, leading to unintended consequences.