Mode Shifting Market Intelligence

Fundamental interpretative context is absolutely the very last thing that anyone, anywhere, expected to be dynamic, but then we were all tightly ensnared inside LEEs Empiricism Trap too. Many, if not most, if not all sizes of enterprise, global or otherwise, usually do their strategy reviews where market intelligence is performed in a focused manner early in quarters of their fiscal cycle. It’s done all the time as competitive dynamics dictate but it is purposefully done as a matter of strategy review early in these cycles. The reason being is that they then have to couple what they are going to do about what they learn to what they are going to do about it plans, which then needs communicating to stakeholders in later quaters in the cycle. Consequently, our apologies because this article then is late for those cycles in most cases, but it could not be helped. We are where we are.

Direct Implications of Apathy

All businesses employing or leveraging the profession of market intelligence in any capacity, direct (e.g. conduct their own market analysis) or indirect (e.g. consumers of analytical reporting done by others) must be critically situationally aware of the foundational intepretative context on which their analytics are grounded. Otherwise their insights stand on quicksand. Rhetorically, what happens if you have a room full of experts, 100% of which believe they are experts in reality relative to their particular domain of discourse suggested by their credentials. Now take that entire room find a random individual to come to the front of the room and explain to everyone how their domain of discourse closes to unification inside the unified Universe (e.g. source truth as a function of the unified Universe).

This is not a discussion about theoretical astrophysics, it is a discussion about sourcing truth in order to establish a common foundation for interpretative context in order to have subsequent analytical discourse in order to make valid business decisions. Having said that the cogent description of The Emergence Model’s logical view M5 is capable of rendering everything real across the entire entanglement gradient in both the emergence and convergence vectors and do so Bang to Bang. Everything the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has done nothing but confirm and strengthen these hypotheses and theories. Including aspects that shock the rest of science. What LIGO detects are waves of Gravitons, not ripples in spacetime. While we can go on, the point is that what we have done has yet to be phased by net new science, included science conducted after we originally published. Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological framework supporting an epistemology whose goal and objective is to reflect truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and which produced the first fully compliant Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) closing to unification: The Emergence Model whose logical view M5 is instantiated by its real view M6. For reasons beyond the scope of this page our focus and attention at this moment in history is M5 and not on M6 until such time as civilization proves its maturity to do so. Those reasons will become clear in the fullness of time. For right here, right now, the discussion is how what we did philosophically impacts the science of argument.

Ramifications

Consider for a moment the ramifications of market intelligence reports ignoring issues of unification. Everyone is looking around for someone else to stand up as the expert, who is that expert now? Are you capable of thinking independently? Do you need someone else to tell you what to think or can you do that on your own? Ok, what industry on Earth does not employ energy of some type? The answer is none. We have said it before but it bears repeating until the implications settle into cognizance. What Albert Einstein created way back beginning about 1905 is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice needed to both perceive and engage the unified Universe. Couple that hard cold fact with another one and the path required becomes ever more clear. Status quo thinking modeling reality employs constructs everyone is somewhat familiar energy, mass, space, time, and likely the speed of light. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Empirical experiments have been performed, repeated, duplicated, and concometantly confirm that the experimental results for the speed of light never change. Not ever. Einstein’s conclusion was the basis, because of those experiments, as what he reported in his first paper, a copy of which is on this website if you’d like to read it. There is a catch however. That famous formula needing no introduction here establishes the relationship patterns between those familial constructs. Those papers and that formula in particular manifest an interface between spacetime and mass. The catch is that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy and that hard cold fact is governed by that famous equation. It’s fundamentally what happens when atomic weapons detonate. As a very real consequence then humanity has been unable to employ a common real geometric basis point for every real object in every frame of reference for exactly these reasons; which oh by the way is a hard requirement to accomplish unification. Does that mean Einstein was wrong? Absolutely not, but it does mean he was absolutely logically correct. The strategic problem is that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. All that is required is that reality instantiate the logical view you hold. It does not mean that logical view is complete, nor does it imply its ability to close to unification.

Wait just a dong-on minute thar, scientists work with reality all the time, don’t they? Actually, no, they don’t. They work with abstractions of reality. The problem arises when you mistake those abstractions for actual reality. That’s when implications creep into your thinking, presumptions, and assumptions. Susanne K Langer wrote, in 1948, that if you make such an error it is epistemologically fatal. To be clear, the problem is not employing abstractions, it is in mistaking them for reality, the distinction between the two situations is knowing whether or not you are inside a logical system vs a real system. Then, of course, the conclusions you draw as a result of your analysis regarding those issues.

Arguably one way one might exemplify discussions about all this might be somewhat analogous to computer systems. Hardware instantiates software operations. Application software instantiates the paradigms employed by particular programs. It is possible to write software detrimental to the hardware, every bit as much as behavior can be detrimental to any biological form. Metaphorical lemmings running off cliffs for example.

The point here is to install software which sources truth as a function of the unified Universe in order to discern fundamental, foundational, interpretative context in order to properly assess reality. In this specific case we are talking about Market Intelligence professionals assessing markets and participating businesses all of whom are working hard to deliver value to consumers within the global economy.

Regardless of who you are, this website will help deliver the necessary processes and technological frameworks necessary in order for you to begin your own personal journey to the precipice from which you can not only perceive but engage the unified Universe in your own life. What those implications and ramifications are only you can determine. All we can do is provide tools for you to employ. You must pick them up and use them to affect. Looking then at the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) the challenge constantly facing us all is in not committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

In Whole Or In Part?

The answer to this question is as simple as considering what unification means. Unification demands the credible manifestation of everything real across the entire entanglement gradient in both emergent and convergent vectors. Unification has been accomplished and while that particular quest may be over, the real work now lay ahead of us all. The answer to the posed question must therefore be holistic in nature. Consequently is most powerful in whole.

Right Here, Right Now

The only time that really exists is now. That’s why the arrow of time is always positive. Market Intelligence professionals are held accountable and responsible for recognizing competitive threats to the enterprise of which they are intrinsically a part. They need to then document that threat, determine courses of action and get all that information to leadership, management and administrators in order to take any needed corrective action in order to remain valid in the marketplace. Mode shifting value derivation will be a key component in that exercise. It will take a comprehensive review of business plans and processes, which is no easy task especially in large organizations. Executive management must understand these various implications and demand their organizations embrace the path forward. Picking the wrong door here will relegate their enterprise to history’s dust heap of failures.

Strategy Execution

Circa 2019 strategy execution was a hot topic in management at the time. So much so in fact, the Conference Board’s Survey of CEOs revealed that chief executives were so concerned about strategy execution that they rated it as both their number one and number two most challenging issue. For anyone who’s tried to execute strategy, this finding should come as no surprise: it’s estimated that more than 60% of strategies are not successfully implemented. What none expected were how commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) affected this whole area of business and certainly not relative to and respective of the unified Universe.

When asked to define strategy execution, most managers respond with statements like, “It’s the successful implementation of a strategic plan” or “It’s getting your strategy done.” While these perspectives are certainly valid, they aren’t very helpful in terms of understanding what needs to be done to actually drive business results. There are so many people who believe that just because they stand next to a podium and speak that the audience learns. Nothing could be further from the truth, certainly not the case of adults. Adult learning principles demonstrate to us all that fully mature adults already in the workplace must experience new concepts a minimum of seven (7) different ways before there is any hope in modification of behavior in order to adopt new knowledge. Consequently just because you walk into a room and wave your hands around has no bearing on whether or not the people in that room will follow your lead.

What is new to the party here that insights only four years ago would have been sound, now need mode shifting. Global enterprise would do well to heed open calls for comprehensive systems reviews into what it is they think they know and why. They need to then take that information and feed it through the processes and framework here and then consider their epistemological conclusions, but this time relative to and respective of the unified Universe.

It will not help anyone’s cause or purpose if large sections of your staff stare back from the audience like deer in headlights. Action is required.

• Strategy execution as a process.  The most notable book to date on strategy execution is Execution:  The Discipline of Getting Things Done,  by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan. Bossidy, a retired CEO, and Charan, a renowned management consultant, make the case for execution as a discipline or “systematic way of exposing reality and acting on it.” While the lists below may look they same or perhaps old, beware taht the context for application just changed, tectonically so.  They explain that “the heart of execution lies in three core processes”:
  1.  People
  2.  Strategy
  3.  Operations

They explain the processes and descriptions managers use to successfully drive business results.

• Strategy execution as a system.  The information presented in Execution is certainly useful, but the authors don’t fully explain how an organization can implement their three core processes to achieve strategy success.  There have been significant advancements in this area since Execution was published in 2002.  In 2008, Harvard Business School Professor Robert S. Kaplan and his Palladium Group colleague David P. Norton wrote The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations for Competitive Advantage.  In it they present their management system, which houses six sequential stages intended to help organizations capture what they call an “execution premium”—a measurable increase in value derived from successful strategy execution. They outline six stages in this system:
  1. Develop the strategy
  2. Plan the strategy
  3. Align the organization
  4. Plan operations
  5. Monitor and learn
  6. Test and adapt

Through detailed subactivities—26 in total— Kaplan and Norton explain how organizations have successfully executed strategy via application of their management system. What is new about this list is the context in which it is considered here and the ultimate source of truth used in the metrics governing its execution. If the answer to those questions is the unified Universe then success is likely to follow your flag. If you can not get status quo thinking to model reality consistent with the unified Universe, then you have work to do.

Note if you have difficulty with the sound on this video click here and then click the speaker to turn the sound on.

[advanced_iframe src=”https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/bfpChH2B”  width=”100%” height=”600″]

We look forward to your mode shifted insights!

Sic’em!

Shop Now

Elegant Reasonism is desgined for exactly these circumstances.