82,465
edits
Scale: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
But ''O, Paradox'': the COO unit ''itself'' can become so complex that it presents its own scale opportunities. Beyond a point, it becomes so complex, so inefficient, that one should appoint a [[chief operating officer]] ''for the chief operating officer’s office'', tasked with consolidating all the diaspora of COO functions groups, initiatives and change managers into a single function. | But ''O, Paradox'': the COO unit ''itself'' can become so complex that it presents its own scale opportunities. Beyond a point, it becomes so complex, so inefficient, that one should appoint a [[chief operating officer]] ''for the chief operating officer’s office'', tasked with consolidating all the diaspora of COO functions groups, initiatives and change managers into a single function. | ||
As you know the [[JC]] is principally concerned with the management of in-house legal. Once upon a time the [[legal department]] itself | As you know, the [[JC]] is principally concerned with the management of [[in-house legal]]. Once upon a time, the [[legal department]] was itself a kind of operating office, there not to dispense its own legal advice so much as manage the outsourcing of legal advice from law firms... and, of course, check the firm’s name was spelled and punctuated correctly on the [[football team]]. That’s “Wickliffe Hampton S.A., acting through its London Branch”, everybody! | ||
So it is some irony that its scale has become such — bigger operations may have the thick end of a thousand lawyers in-house — that firms are forming operations teams to manage the legal teams. | |||
===Scale and rent=== | |||
It could be argued, and the JC ''does'' argue, that the yen for scale in modern commerce is driven not by an aspiration for economy, much less to save a customer money, but for the opportunities it affords to extract rent. However many thousands of organisations make you the financial services sector; however many hundreds of thousands are employed, directly or indirectly servicing those organisations, there are orders of magnitude more putting their hard-earned dollars into that system in the hope of some kind of return. | |||
The point where scale becomes really exciting is where the cost of rent extraction, per dollar, is so minimal that the hosts — beg your pardon, customers — don't even notice it. Scale then becomes free money; you don't need to reduce your rate because the customers will pay it anyway. | |||
This is why hedge fund managers with 5 billion AUM are happier than those with 500m. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{br|Finite and Infinite Games}} | |||
*[[Redundancy]] | *[[Redundancy]] | ||
*[[Scale paradox]] | *[[Scale paradox]] | ||