Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “Australia's missing productivity link”, 5/04/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/TLS-Telstra-Orica-productivity-survey-CEO-pd20110405-FLS68?OpenDocument&src=rot
Here there is an interesting divergence between certain economists including some commentators who focus on the theoretic concept of productivity or the improvement of it on the one hand, and business people and entrepreneurs who are focused on the real world of profit and losses.
The claim that "unless you measure it you can’t improve it" is obviously a fallacy and the wrong type of characterisation or conceptualisation of the issue. It is nonsense to say if you don't measure it, you can't improve it.
It is just like if you don't understand the complex internal mechanics of a car, you can't drive it!
For businesses, understandably profit is the key - without it or without making it business people would fail and bankrupt, irrespective how they have or have not measured and / or improved productivity.
Presumably, there are many businesses that are quite profitable and well managed among those that have not "actually measure it (productivity)". Once you are focused on the essence and the key of business, productivity and the improvement of its may naturally fall into its proper place.
Equally, there must have been some failed businesses that did "actually measure it (productivity)".
In essence, let's not be too mechanical in business and become "commercially politically correct".
Showing posts with label business administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business administration. Show all posts
2010-08-16
How to make Telstra profitable?
Comments on Alan Kohler “Telstra's dividend danger”, 16/08/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/telstra-nbn-google-android-apple-pd20100816-8CSYJ?OpenDocument&src=rot
No doubt Telstra has to change its business model altogether. It should move beyond the traditional communication infrastructure provider and focus on how to be a successful service provider.
It could also move to other businesses than communication, as long as it increases its value and profits.
For example, when in the height of the GFC, had Telstra moved to invest in Rio Tinto using its revenue and finance available, what would have been its bottom line now? That would not need too much experience and business acumen!
It should abandon the current rigid thinking, management and operations.
Telstra has been draining shareholders; value for too long.
Its board and management must change their mindsets. They need to be innovative and creative.
They need to combine technical engineering with financial engineering!
No doubt Telstra has to change its business model altogether. It should move beyond the traditional communication infrastructure provider and focus on how to be a successful service provider.
It could also move to other businesses than communication, as long as it increases its value and profits.
For example, when in the height of the GFC, had Telstra moved to invest in Rio Tinto using its revenue and finance available, what would have been its bottom line now? That would not need too much experience and business acumen!
It should abandon the current rigid thinking, management and operations.
Telstra has been draining shareholders; value for too long.
Its board and management must change their mindsets. They need to be innovative and creative.
They need to combine technical engineering with financial engineering!
2010-04-15
Modern business management - Telstra needs to be more strategic
Comments on Paul Budde “COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN - Telstra's home phone hopes”, 15/04/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/article/will-t-hub-be-able-to-make-a-difference-pd20100414-4h8hd?opendocument&src=blb&is=non-industry&blog=communication%20breakdown
While it is important for Telstra to be innovative in its products and overall strategy for communications in Australia, it should be more strategic than that.
It should consider going beyond communication and take the advantage of its stable revenue to invest in other sectors. An option is to partner with an investment advisor or bank to seek and optimise capital return opportunities.
It has obviously lost opportunities last year when the financial market was highly depressed. For example, it could invest in Rio when the latter desperately needed capital injections. It could have avoided the unnecessary Rio Chinalco drama last year.
Instead of just negotiating with the federal government on communications and the NBN issue, it could look at other opportunities, so leave the NBN exposed to its bone.
It is a pity that some corporate Australia are so rigid and not flexible and strategic enough.
If I were a part of a corporate Australia, I would try to eliminate the existing sector “silos” to seek and maximise any strategic cross sector synergies.
Modern business management should have this mindset.
While it is important for Telstra to be innovative in its products and overall strategy for communications in Australia, it should be more strategic than that.
It should consider going beyond communication and take the advantage of its stable revenue to invest in other sectors. An option is to partner with an investment advisor or bank to seek and optimise capital return opportunities.
It has obviously lost opportunities last year when the financial market was highly depressed. For example, it could invest in Rio when the latter desperately needed capital injections. It could have avoided the unnecessary Rio Chinalco drama last year.
Instead of just negotiating with the federal government on communications and the NBN issue, it could look at other opportunities, so leave the NBN exposed to its bone.
It is a pity that some corporate Australia are so rigid and not flexible and strategic enough.
If I were a part of a corporate Australia, I would try to eliminate the existing sector “silos” to seek and maximise any strategic cross sector synergies.
Modern business management should have this mindset.
2009-06-10
Same colleagues with quite different approaches to OZ minerals
Comments on Stephen Bartholomeusz “Money or the box for OZ Minerals?” 10/06/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/OZs-search-for-value-pd20090610-SV5QV?OpenDocument&src=sph
Bartholomeusz's article is more objective and much sensible than that of Gottliebsen's.
There are uncertainties associated with the latest offers. Also, why could those offers have been made earlier? Are there some tricky nasties in those offers? What is the probability or likelihood of failure of the last minute proposal? Those are the issues the board has to work out or make a judgement. You can't just refuse the Minmetals offer without calculating the risk weighted value of the other offer.
Gottliebsen has been acting hysterically with high emotion and no rationality and common sense. Gottliebsen needs to be a fair dinkum and should not be acting as an irresponsible outsider to tell either the board or the shareholders what they should do.
Bartholomeusz's article is more objective and much sensible than that of Gottliebsen's.
There are uncertainties associated with the latest offers. Also, why could those offers have been made earlier? Are there some tricky nasties in those offers? What is the probability or likelihood of failure of the last minute proposal? Those are the issues the board has to work out or make a judgement. You can't just refuse the Minmetals offer without calculating the risk weighted value of the other offer.
Gottliebsen has been acting hysterically with high emotion and no rationality and common sense. Gottliebsen needs to be a fair dinkum and should not be acting as an irresponsible outsider to tell either the board or the shareholders what they should do.
2009-06-09
Frustrated Gottliebsen is desperate now!
Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “OZ in self-sabotage?” 8/06/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/OZ-in-self-sabotage-pd20090608-STFB8?OpenDocument&src=sph&alerts&loc=center
Mr Gottliebsen has now gone a step further along his chosen road of interfering OZ businesses, after his earlier failed attempts to do so. He is advocating for OZ to go into administration.
Mr Gottliebsen, aren't you ashamed that you have failed so miserably on this issue? Now you still can’t face up with and don’t concede your failure, and are resorting to a disgraceful public sabotage of the OZ board you have consistently said that it did a good job just because it has not listened to your failed idea or advice?
You really think you alone are better than the board, don’t you? Who and what has given your that right and self confidence or indulgence?
You self-claim that you are for the shareholders of OZ. Why don’t give those shareholders a fair chance for them to decide what is best for their interest and the best course to take by themselves, rather than messing up and confusing the issue, mudding the water, stirring up irresponsibility?
There are significant uncertainties surrounding the mere survival of OZ. Commonwealth Bank of Australia is just one of the syndicate as the creditors to OZ. Morris oral saying is not good enough for the board to take it as a secure undertaking of all creditors. You yourself said that there are some rebel creditors. Who can guarantee the finance can be secured with certainty?
You advocated for administration. Have you calculated what that means for the shareholders?
It is interesting what you real motives are and what purpose you want to achieve. I think you should shut up and mind your own business. Don’t talk nonsense and vent your frustration. You are not a board member and have no responsibility for the shareholders of OZ.
Mr Gottliebsen has now gone a step further along his chosen road of interfering OZ businesses, after his earlier failed attempts to do so. He is advocating for OZ to go into administration.
Mr Gottliebsen, aren't you ashamed that you have failed so miserably on this issue? Now you still can’t face up with and don’t concede your failure, and are resorting to a disgraceful public sabotage of the OZ board you have consistently said that it did a good job just because it has not listened to your failed idea or advice?
You really think you alone are better than the board, don’t you? Who and what has given your that right and self confidence or indulgence?
You self-claim that you are for the shareholders of OZ. Why don’t give those shareholders a fair chance for them to decide what is best for their interest and the best course to take by themselves, rather than messing up and confusing the issue, mudding the water, stirring up irresponsibility?
There are significant uncertainties surrounding the mere survival of OZ. Commonwealth Bank of Australia is just one of the syndicate as the creditors to OZ. Morris oral saying is not good enough for the board to take it as a secure undertaking of all creditors. You yourself said that there are some rebel creditors. Who can guarantee the finance can be secured with certainty?
You advocated for administration. Have you calculated what that means for the shareholders?
It is interesting what you real motives are and what purpose you want to achieve. I think you should shut up and mind your own business. Don’t talk nonsense and vent your frustration. You are not a board member and have no responsibility for the shareholders of OZ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
