Time for a 3 d organisation structure

Time for a 3-D Organisation Structure

IBCM © Research Page 2 of 13
2-D Organisation Structure
1. From McKinsey Reporti: The CEO asked McKinsey to help undertake a
comprehensive restructuring. His objectives were to bring the leadership closer to the
business, reduce cost, simplify the organization, strengthen performance
management, and improve responsiveness to customers—all in the space of a few
months. This would be a tough challenge, given that the 25,000-strong workforce
was spread across 150 countries. A 5-month restructuring effort reduces
organizational complexity and achieves new efficiencies that help deliver $2 billion in
incremental profit.
• McKinsey also elaborates Organisation Designii by these principles:
• Bring a rigorous approach to organization design:
o design a robust new structure.
o diagnostic tools highlight areas where the organization presents challenges,
which might lie in its structure, linkages, or culture, and help define criteria to
guide the design process
o our design tests help clients make choices on critical questions such as the
optimal business-unit structure; the role of the corporate center and shared
services; and capabilities needed for pivotal roles.
• Link organization to strategy and realize value:
o We make sure the design focuses management attention on the strategic
priorities and critical operations of each business unit, region, or product—be
it international expansion, cost-cutting, or growth through acquisitions.
• Focus head offices on value creation:
• Drive accountability:
o By careful design of performance-management processes, we make sure all
units have clear performance measures.
• Enable enterprise-wide collaboration:
• Deal with complexity:
o Effective organization design must remove complexity that creates
unnecessary cost and organizational friction, and channel what’s left to
employees who are equipped to handle it.
2. Organisation structure has developed over the years primarily in a 2-dimensional
shape of debit and credit, be it Corporate or Government. For a small trader, a petty-
cash-book was sufficient to start with. As and when his firm expanded he added a
column in a spreadsheet. Each column added a limb to the existing organisation
structure. It’s a convenient way of preparing a trial balance of expenses and income.
Tallying a trial balance was easy but found tallying a Balance Sheet became complex.
3. Industry was looking for a better accommodation and a relief, in a Balance Sheet.
During the discussion stage of the exposure draft [Exposure Draft E9, Accounting for
Research and Development Activities] this was very evident. “The main issueiii was

whether to allow or require capitalization of development costs. The influential
aerospace industry in UK argued that capitalization of development costs was
appropriate in some circumstances. Yielding to this pressure, the IASC issued a new
exposure draft, ED 17, in April 1976, which required capitalization of development
expenditures in certain cases. E9 was made final with minor changes as IAS 9 in
March 1978.” Further in Dec. 1993, ‘IAS 9 Research and Development Activities’ was
renamed as IAS 9 Research and Development Costs.
4. In the meantime, the accounting treatment of brands has been a matter of debate
and controversy in many countries, such as Australia and the United Kingdom for
instance, where companies, such as Grand Metropolitan and Rank Hovis McDougall,
decided in 1988 to include the value of brand names, either purchased or internally
developed, in their consolidated Balance Sheetsiv. During the discussion stage of
Exposure Draft E50 [Intangible Assets], brand value being used as a tangible asset
was quite apparent. The importance of brands for the economic development of
certain businesses were forced upon trying to tally the Balance Sheet. IAS 38
Intangible Assets was published on 1 July 1998. IAS 36 Impairment of Assets became
operative from 1 July 1999.
5. During the Exposure Draft discussions, Intangible Assets definition was posing a
problem. That problem was quietly shelved under, by NOT defining the word
Intangible, the one and the only Accounting Standard to be so. IAS 38 Intangible
Assets added fuel to the fire by giving up tallying a Balance Sheet.
6. Quote from a Conference Paper in 2011v:
• Q: Current measures for intangible assets, both financial and non-financial, fall
short. According to a survey by the accounting firm Deloitte, “nearly half of
respondents (48%) said the company’s non-financial metrics were ineffective or
highly ineffective in helping the board and the CEO make long-term decisions.”
(Deloitte, 2004). Report after report has described how financial measures, as
reflected in accounting standards, do not provide adequate information to
managers, investors and regulators. At one point, Cynthia A. Glassman, then
Commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), worried
that because accounting standards are “less effective in providing relevant
information on intangible assets, such as technology rights, human capital, and
innovation, the value of huge sectors of our economy may not be accurately
reflected by financial reports.” …
• “In fact, it is not clear that the so-called GAAP standard is even particularly
meaningful anymore: companies continue to search for beneficial ways in which
to disclose information about themselves with or without formal sanction.”
• On the macroeconomic level, several of the background papers prepared for this
conference refer to the growing body of research that has sought to quantify
total business investment in intangible assets. One among these studies is
Nakamura (2003), which examined the U.S. economy using a broad concept of

knowledge investments. These investments included R&D, advertising and
marketing, software, financial activities, and the creative activities of writers,
artists and entertainers. Nakamura estimated the value of U.S. gross investments
in intangibles in 2000 to be at least $1 trillion annually. More recently, Corrado
and Hulten (2010) estimate that in 2007, by omitting investments in intangibles,
$4.1 trillion was excluded from published national accounts data in the United
States. Yet only a small part of these intangibles investments is captured in
national accounts data, leaving policymakers with an incomplete view of the size
and dynamics of the economy. UQ
7. In this context, McKinsey’s comprehensive restructuring for their clients help deliver
$2 billion in incremental profit is indeed impressive. Quite impressive indeed!
Restructuring within the debit-credit 2-D framework? This arises out of new
efficiencies that help deliver $2 billion in incremental profit. Point must be taken that
2-D framework consistently being inefficient year by year, offers a good incremental
profit, should there be an effective restructuring. 5-months duration is necessitated
in ferreting out the inefficiencies that are built-in to the 2-D framework. However,
this 2-D framework should have costed the company much, much beyond $2-billion
over the years, that incremental profit of $2 billion sounds remarkable.
• In Margin Call movie, said to be an extract of real events, Peter Sullivan says:
Well... sir... if those assets were to decrease by just 25 percent, and remain on
our books... well... that loss would be greater than the current market
capitalization of this company. Again answering, what do you have in exposure
now tonight? Peter says: $1.215 trillion.
• Pension fund assets in OECD countries hit a record USD 20.1 trillion in 2011 but
return on investment fell below zero, with an average negative return of -1.7%,
[Japan -4%, US -3.1%, UK -2%] according to the OECD’s Pension Markets in Focus.
(Source OECD – 21/09/2012)
8. Corporate tries to rule its conduct by means internal to itself, by technique not self-
control. Profit motive not ethical motive dominates corporate objectives and power
to operate them. For Corporate, there is a tendency to overlook ethical responsibility
and extol its own intellectual superiority. Not until a OECD study is published, the
Society does not come to know of a (-)3.1% return on an investment of $20.1 trillion.
Not until Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison, his Ponzi scheme was made
aware to the public. Corporate history since the industrial revolution has been an
enormous growth in freedom of enterprise, economic prosperity, innovation,
technical and intellectual advancement but it has also been, stoking the passions of
greed, a slow and sure decay of morality and social order culminating in high
unemployment and Occupy Wall Street movements.
9. 2-D framework is convenient for Corporate to promote Profit motive, only. Ethical
Motive is the internal validity of external dignity, of Society. They need to be
measured and validated. Profit Motive overwhelms internal scrutiny. There is no
place for ethical motive being measured in a 2-D debit-credit organisation structure.

Measuring Ethical Motive is crucial to bring the abstractions into reality,
acknowledge value where value is due, and deconstruct what is valueless.
Efficiencies truly brings in profits whereas sustainability of profits is possible only by
sustainability of value system, as Volkswagen has found out recently losing $15
billion. 2-D Framework has enabled Volkswagen to suppress for a long-time the
manipulations, at a high cost.
• McKinsey has delivered the goods but retained the 2-D framework. McKinsey who
are quite capable in their consulting business, I enjoy reading their reports, can bring
in incremental profits for Corporate in trillions of $. To do so, they must switch over
to 3-D Framework, for that matter all corporate, as I am proposing hereinafter.
3- D Organisation structure
10. One Organisation structure forever - This would be a tough challenge, given that the
25,000-strong workforce was spread across 150 countries. A 5-month restructuring
effort reduces organizational complexity. Indeed yes. The 2-D Framework besides
being flat is asymmetrical. The greatest failure of debit-credit structure is its lack of a
hypothesis. Balance Sheet tallying is an onerous task trying to accommodate several
hypotheses within a single transactional operation. A square-peg in a round hole.
That apart what could somehow be accommodated is indeed minimal, the last one
being Intangible Asset. In my analysis, hardly 10% of process blocks get represented
in a Balance Sheet. The rest get reported as a side issue but they i.e. 90% of process
blocks represent the organisational complexities. A 5-month restructuring effort is
indeed laudable considering connecting dots being in knots. Restructuring therefore
is a point of contention so long the 2-D framework remains untouched. Why there’s
a clamour for restructuring? Can’t we have a robust organisation structure for all,
that is truly forever? Why would a strong Organisation structure be different from
one to the other, Corporate or Government?
11. n-dimensional problems converted to n-problems of one dimension: The purpose of
Organisation Structure - 25,000-strong workforce, an MNC, spread over 150
countries portray the enormity of the exercise dealing with data analytics supported
by diagnostic tools developed by firms like McKinsey. The entire organisation is
found asymmetrical of disparate elements that an organisation structure has
inherent n-dimensional problems to be addressed. What is crucial in the exercise is
to simplify the structure to the least number of manageable levels. This is to say n-
dimensional problems that Corporate faces quantitative as well as qualitative
elements of management be converted to n-problems of [?] dimension[s]. The least
number of dimensions is 1. That’s to say: i. Rigorous approach to organisation
design, ii. linking organisation to strategy and realize value, iii. focus head offices on
value creation, 4. drive accountability, 5. enable enterprise-wide collaboration and 6.
Deal with complexity, with all the sub-systems percolating all the time, must be
brought under a single denominator. It’s the corporate goal congruence, achieved by

everyone. Irrespective of which department each belongs to in the debit-credit
columnar structure each focuses on task accomplishment as set by the Corporate.
Therefore, n-dimensional problems be converted to n-problem of one-dimension the
denominator being the pulsating energy force. The pulsating energy force is for the
Subject whereas n-dimensional problems are related to the Object. 25,000
workforce spread over 150 countries work in unison and accomplish tasks entrusted
to them to achieve set goals. A potter and a nuclear scientist are the same, each
according to their capability, as in case of 25,000-strong workforce taking
responsibility for multifarious tasks having the capability related to the tasks
assigned. That capability is constant which is 1, the pulsating energy within each. The
numerator is the task assigned. When task assigned is completed the numerator is 1.
With constant pulsating energy force being the denominator task accomplishment
returns the value of 1. If there is no action taken the numerator is 0. Numerator is
either 1 or 0. The result is a binary value of tasks entrusted and accomplished or
simultaneously not-accomplished. That pulsating energy force is the Intangible. The
equation therefore, is Return on Intangible [RoI] = [Action or Inaction]/Intangible.
Action is the effort by each and Inaction the state of insentience. Connected to the
time factor dT/dT series of tasks accomplished in specified time turns out the RoI at
any given point of time.
12. Symmetry
• There’s an interesting Walt Disney Cartoon called Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land,
wherein Donal Duck guides us to innumerable number of instances where
Mathematics forms the basis of understanding Nature, from Music to man-made
and Natural Objects to even playing billiards. A cosmologist should be able to help
corporate on symmetry to consolidate and crunch data to a single digit,
understanding what Keynes says: animal spirits – a spontaneous urge to action
rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative
benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities. Universe is certainly well organised
and well run than corporate.
• Universal Law of Nature: For the universe to exist as it does require that hydrogen be
converted to helium in a precise but comparatively stately manner - specifically, in a
way that converts seven one-thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value
very slightly - from 0.007 per cent to 0.006 per cent, say - and no transformation can
take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else. Raise the value
very slightly - to 0.008 per cent – and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the
hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest
RoI – Return on Intangible
In the Subject-Object distinction of Quantitative and Qualitative elements of
Corporate Management Intangible is the Subject, that brings in the 3-D
Framework for the Organisation Structure

tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here.
[Martin Rees]
o Corporate: Corporate is a mass and its objective is to convert part of it into
energy in a precise but comparatively stately manner. Every component
needs to convert into energy. There is no room for inefficiencies. The Object
is not only machineries but also IPRs, UNCAC, UNGC 10 Principles, ISO, COSO
framework, Code of Business Principles, Conflict of Interest, Conflict of
personal interest, conflict of conscience, Insider Trading, whistleblowing etc.
etc. that need to be converted to energy.
• Universal Law of Nature: I should say that everything is just right so far. In the long
run, gravity may turn out to be a little too strong; one day it may halt the expansion
of the universe and bring it collapsing in upon itself, until it crushes itself down into
another singularity, possibly to start the whole process over again. [Martin Rees]
o Corporate: When USD20.1 trillion of Mutual Funds returns negative,
Hydrogen in it fails to convert into energy. Holding such a mass of $20.1
trillion turning no energy where light does not emit, it pulls the rest nearby to
become a corporate black hole.
• Universal Law of Nature: On the other hand, it may be too weak, in which case the
universe will keep racing away for ever until everything is so far apart that there is no
chance of material interactions, so that the universe becomes a place that is very
roomy, but inert and dead. [Martin Rees]
o Corporate: It is like having enough Hydrogen to spend on CapEx but none for
the working capital to make the mass run. These towers of Babel are seen
world over calling themselves as NPAs, inert and dead.
• Universal Law of Nature: The third option is that gravity is perfectly pitched - 'critical
density' is the cosmologists' term for it - and that it will hold the universe together at
the just right dimensions to allow things to go on indefinitely. Cosmologists, in their
lighter moments, sometimes calls this he 'Goldilocks effect' - that everything is just
right. [Martin Rees]
o Corporate: This is what McKinsey has brought in to the 25000-strong
workforce spread over 150 countries - Corporate Critical Density, a
‘Goldilocks effect’, sans a 3-D ROI, the pedometer tracking walk the talk. With
a CAGR set for 5-years from now, converted to CDGR [D – daily] a 25000-
strong workforce spread over 150 countries moving towards targets, set for
everyone, yoked together as a team but work independently, at an optimised
level of performance, converting mass into energy, it would be getting into
the groove of 007 factor of corporate critical density.

13. Corporate Atomic Structure
• Every one of us abide by Universal Law of Nature but not Corporate and
Government. They are exceptional. Everything, however complicated - breaking
waves, migrating birds, and tropical forests - is made of atoms and obeys the
equations of quantum physics. If we do find ET, we will at least have something in
common with them. They may live on planet Zog and have seven tentacles, but they
will be made of the same kinds of atoms as us. If they have eyes, they will gaze out
on the same cosmos as we do. They will, like us, trace their origins back to a 'Big
Bang' 13.8 billion years ago. [Martin Rees]
• Nature: Every atom is made from three kinds of elementary particles: Protons, which
have a positive electrical charge; Electrons, which have negative electrical charge;
and Neutrons, which have no charge.
o Corporate Atomic Structure: Every substance is made up of three kinds of
elementary particles: Corporate Policies, which has a positive charge;
Practices, which has a negative charge; and the Society, which has no charge.
• Nature: Protons and Neutrons are packed into the nucleus, while electrons spin
around outside.
o Corporate Atomic Structure: Corporate Policies and the Society are packed
into the nucleus, while Practices spin around outside.
• Nature: Neutrons don't influence an atom's identity but they do add to its mass.
o Corporate Atomic Structure: Society doesn't influence the identity of
Corporate but they do add to its mass.
• Nature: (e = mc2): e in the equation stands for Energy, m for mass and c2 for the
speed of light squared. In simplest term, what the equation says is that mass and
energy have an equivalence. They are two forms of the same thing: energy is
liberated matter: matter is energy waiting to happen. Since c2 (speed of light by itself)
is a truly enormous number, what the equation is saying is that there is a huge
amount - a really, huge amount - of energy bound up in every material thing.
o Corporate Atomic Structure: (e = mc2): e in the equation stands for Energy, m
for mass and c2 for the speed of light squared. In simplest term, what the
equation says is that mass and energy have an equivalence. They are two
forms of the same thing: energy is liberated matter: matter is energy waiting
to happen. Since c2 (speed of light by itself) is a truly enormous number, what
the equation is saying is that there is a huge amount - a really, huge amount -
of energy bound up in every material thing.

• Untapped energy within is indeed huge, really huge that given a 3-D Framework
support the output would be truly huge, really huge.
14. Process
• 99.99% of all species that have ever lived are no longer with us. [Bill Bryson]
• Nature: Creative Process and Action Process – Nature shows the way of 6 stages of
development from out of nothingness to create a substance. Creative Process is
identical to every created substance, Nature or man-made. A baby or a diamond has
its own specified time and progress, from nothingness to become a substance. The
process steps within are the same, however.
o Corporate: Corporate also follows the same principle. Creative Process and
Action Process. Creative process starts at subtler than the subtle level. Then
the idea forms. Cling, sound a single element as in space; Corporate
communicates this idea, two elements air. Corporate then forms a team,
three elements fire; Corporate team discusses threadbare the idea, 4
elements water; Corporate issues a definitive strategy paper, 5 elements
Earth.
• Strategy paper or policy or IPR is created signifying the quality of the created
substance. A well discussed plan enables Action process to perform without a
hurdle. Action process starts from gross substance and follows the same 6 stages of
development, beginning from the state of insentience. Action process ends in task
accomplishment.
• In Corporate both the processes are the responsibility of individuals entrusted with a
specific task. dT/dT series of Tasks/ accomplished in respective Time gets rated in
line with Creative Process. Collectively the status of each task in Corporate be rated
to arrive at a single rating for the corporate. A consistent rating of 5 means every
task given to each person is completed as on date.
• Growth is linear and triggered by an individual. Antimatter must collide with matter
for a pure energy to be formed. In Corporate the individual entrusted must take an
effort to move the idea in the creative process from one stage to another and in
action process move the substance from one space to the other. RoI is a binary value
of performance of each person, of what is moved from one space to the other.
Corporate holistically and comparatively stately manner pushes the Object or rather
converts the mass into energy, at every process block.
15. Consolidation of 3-D Framework
• Prepare an overall umbrella under Corporate Social responsibility

a. Split the same into two: a. Corporate Fiscal responsibility and b. Corporate
Ethical Responsibility
• Prepare ground for CREAM Analytics. 1. C – Corporate Governance, 2 – Risk
Management, 3. split E into 3.1 P&L and 3.2 Balance Sheet, 4. A – Accounting Quality
and 5. M – Management Quality
a. 1, 2 and 3.1 would be for Corporate Fiscal Responsibility and 3.2, 3 and 4 for
Corporate Ethical Responsibility.
• Process Blocks for each would consist of Corporate Atomic Structure.
a. Corporate Atomic Structure is governed by its characteristics of converting
mass into energy
• Two processes Creative Process and Action process would be the only process
platform by which any of the process blocks would fit in.
a. For Creative Process the VIP is the manager in-charge of the specified
Corporate Atomic Centre.
b. Creative process headed by CEO encourages innovation, strategies, project
management, CapeEx, forward planning, technology direction etc., for each
Atomic centre with a team of 5 people,
c. Among five one will be ethical responsibility personnel ensuring compliance,
2 to 5 of fiscal responsibility team – 2. Man in-charge of the process block
who is the VIP, 3. a higher up as a facilitator ensuring the VIP gets what is
needed, of line function 4. & 5: Staff function Finance, HR, Technology
ensuring service to the facilitator.
d. For Action Process the VIP is in the lowest rung, a salesman or a worker who
will be 2 as above. 1, 3,4,5 would form a team for each process block.
• RoI with its binary value of performance measures, indicate the status of the day.
• Entire organisation RoI is calculated with a single digit 0-5 rating system.
• Prepare an Index of Inactivity for each process block. Since optimum is 5 anything
below will form part of Index of Inactivity.
Based on the 3-D Framework McKinsey’s formula for Organisation Design shall be verified.
• Bring a rigorous approach to organization design:
o 3-D Framework would be applicable to all corporate thereby enhancing the
design input.
• Link organization to strategy and realize value:
o Strategy is a Creative Process, with an integrated approach to the Corporate
Atomic Structure converting mass into energy value is realised.
• Focus head offices on value creation:
o Focus on Creative Process where managers head each process block.
o Head offices will be the prime mover of Policies [Protons], joining hands with
the Society [Neutrons] forming a nucleus provides the impetus for Practices
[Electrons] to spin around the nucleus to consistently optimise their
performance.
o Protons has 1837 times mass of electron, so would be the value created
Policies of Corporate. The Society does not change the identity of Corporate
but adds mass to it.

o Society is the provider for mandatory provisions for the organisation whereas
Policies coming out of the head offices provide the non-mandatory initiatives
and create policies.
o With a 3-D Framework incidents such as Volkswagen fiasco could never
happen.
o Governance is not compliance and ethics, Joseph Murphy says, and disputes
OECD's conclusion that companies generally have adequate internal
compliance controls. He continues in the same breath: One need only look at
the record at Siemens (whose code of conduct was described as the ―read,
laughed and filed code), or the long, legalistic (and ineffective) code that
existed at Enron to see the great danger in such sweeping conclusions.vi
o I can only quote Deming: “It isn’t necessary to change, survival is not
mandatory.” And remind
o 99.99% of all species that have ever lived are no longer with us. [Bill Bryson]
• Drive accountability:
o RoI is the accountability
o Corporate Atomic Structure achieves self-governance. There is no need for
supervision, as much as Hydrogen is not supervised.
• Enable enterprise-wide collaboration:
o Achieving large-scale collaboration across the entire enterprise—on
customer solutions, product development, innovation, and the like—can
unlock tremendous value.
o 3-D Framework enables a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction,
and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits
multiplied by quantitative probabilities.
• Deal with complexity:
o n-dimensional problems are converted into n-problems of one dimension
with RoI.
o No room for complexities, eclipses are predictable. Even school children can
learn management techniques playing a game of hopscotch.
16. The 3-D Framework is the extract of my work on IBCM1 – Inactivity Based Cost
Management. Activity has a cost incidence whereas Inactivity a Cost Consequence.
Cost Consequence is valid for only one-day, i.e. today, neither by the dateless past
nor of the infinite future. Measure then and there before it escalates. The 5-
principles IBCM affirms:
1 COPYRIGHT
IBCM - Inactivity Based Cost Management - Copyright ˝ REGN. NO. L-27490/2006 DATED December 1, 2006
Govt. of India, Copyrights Office, by the Author, Jayaraman Rajah Iyer

• 1. What gets measured gets managed; what you don’t measure you can’t improve,
o Cost Consequence is difficult to measure. However, each Corporate Atomic
Structure is self-governed by its inherent mass being converted to energy.
The 007 factor is crucial and hence governing becomes the responsibility of
the person or VIP or one may call the owner entrusted with the specified
structure. Non-performance is simultaneously brought out. In an organisation
like 25000-strong workforce spread over 150 countries, each with 200+
process blocks, each teamed up in a 3-D, a single person’s non-performance
brings down the rating of the group.
• 2. Measure what is measurable make measurable what is not so;
o establish relationship between Nature, Atomic Structure and Corporate
Atomic Structure enabling ‘goldilocks effect’;
o P&L and Balance Sheet cover hardly 10% of the total process blocks which
are quantitative, whereas the rest 90% belong to qualitative aspects of
management. Volkswagen is a good case study how its Management Quality
failed miserably. Corporate Atomic Structure related to Nature clearly defines
each aspect of management of corporate affairs. Enron, Volkswagen, Toshiba
cases can never get repeated that they could escape early warning system is
because of the current 2-D Framework of Organisation Structure, that these
companies adopt.
• 3. How to measure?
o the driver that drives the inference engine, is derived from Nature.
o Both Creative Process and Action Process are spot on identifying the status of
its movement. Object is inanimate, Subject is the pulsating energy that
moves the Object from one space to the other. Pedometer to walk the talk
measures precisely.
• 4. Return on Intangible
o who moved what? Simultaneously an Index of Inactivity – establish who
failed to convert the specified mass into energy? Accountability leading to
self-governance, a simplistic concept understood by an uneducated ordinary
person within a company;
o Return on Intangible is connected to the Subject and is finite whereas Return
on Investment is connected to the Object that is infinite.
• 5. Emergent Property Phenomena
o Nobel laureate Murray Gellmann describes beautifully on what emergent
property means?
o You don’t need something more to get something more. That is what
emergent property means.
o That’s what 3D-Framework is.

Contact:
Jayaraman Rajah Iyer
CEO, Founder
IBCM© Research
+919487390439
jayar@ibcm.in
Reference:
i Rapidly simplifying an organization turns around performance, http://www.mckinsey.com/business-
functions/organization/how-we-help-clients/rapid-restructuring
ii http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/how-we-help-clients/organization-design
iii Financial Reporting and Global Capital Markets: A History of the International Accounting Standards Committee, 1973-
2000; By Kees Camfferman, Stephen A. Zeff; Published by Oxford University Press, 2007 p 113
iv Accounting for brands in ED50 of IASC [Intangible Assets] compared with French and German practices – An illustration
of the difficulty of International harmonization.; For Presentation at the 19th Annual Congress of the European Accounting
Association Bergen, Norway, May 2-4, 1996; Dr. Herve.L Stolowy and Dr. Axel Haller page 7
v New Building Blocks for Jobs and Economic Growth May 16th-17th 2011 Background paper for the conference session:
“Global Competition and Collaboration” p-3
vi Mr. Joseph E. Murphy (Corporate Compliance and Ethics Professional): Review of the OECD antibribery instruments:
compilation of responses to consultation paper: 31 March 2008

Time for a 3 d organisation structure

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

More from JAYARAMAN IYER

More from JAYARAMAN IYER (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Time for a 3 d organisation structure