I believe that there are three types of businesses. Please note that these "types" are descriptions of philosophies and principles, not business models. There have been some great small foundry steel shops (which would seem to be the ultimate Machine Age business) that focus heavily on talent (and in fact view the delivery of steel as the delivery of applied content). There are also art firms that are no better than sweatshops. The models described below seek to evaluate the perception of management about how valuable the unique capabilities of human beings are to the long-term success of the company (return to shareholders, including employees).
Machine Age - Companies in this category see human beings as their top liability. Their machines can't run effectively without something with a pulse pulling the right lever, but (in management's opinion) just about any idiot can pull the lever. Since their machines make all the money, the people are the weak link in the economic chain. And since the skill level required is relatively low, people are seen as easily replaceable. Machine Age companies are the reason that corporate America gets the bad rap it so frequently deserves. If you think people are your greatest liability then you should outsource all non-production activities and hope that your shareholders don't notice that you are about to lose all their money.
Information Age - People create and use information, so people are every bit as important as machines. You still run the business to avoid risk to capital, but you get that without people you can't run the business or have much of a market for you goods and services. The cost of delivering value is roughly equal to the cost of developing value. These companies are interesting because they had to take lots of their shareholder's money and plow it into decreasing the cost of communication and delivery infrastructure enough that the Creative Age becomes possible. Information Age companies still do lots of dumb things, but they are usually close to understanding that there is a better way to do it.
Creative (or "Talent") Age -The cost of talent is higher than the cost of capital. The potential return on talent is higher than the potential return on capital (not applied to the purpose of acquiring and growing talent). The cost of developing value for the market is much higher than the cost of delivering it. Content is king, but even more so, the application of content to customer problems and opportunities is where the market value lies. These types of companies will rule the economic world of the future, and represent the light to the Machine Age dark. Its not that capital doesn't matter. It does. But you don' pay attention to trying to manage the risk inherent with employing capital (which is at the heart of so many bad business decisions), but instead focus on how to maximize the value of applied talent, which is inherently risky. But there is no way to get the returns your shareholders demand without taking those risks.
The Creative Age is where economics, humanism and epistemoligcal objectivism all come together. Hard to believe but true.
Comments