Since the mid-1990s academics and business leaders have been striving to focus their businesses on what is profitable and either partnering or outsourcing the rest. I have assembled a long list of quotes that define what a virtual organization is and why it's different than conventional organizations. The point of looking at these quotes is to demonstrate that none of these models or definitions can adequately be achieved without some heavy analytics and integration of both IT (the wire, the boxes and now the cloud's virtual machines) and IS - Information Systems (Applications) with other stakeholder systems and processes. Up till recently it could be argued that these things can and could be done because we had the technology. But the reality is, unless you were an Amazon, e-Bay or Dell, most firms did not necessarily have the money or the know-how to invest in these types of inovations.

With the proliferation of cloud services, we are finding new and cheaper ways to do things that put these strategies in the reach of more managers and smaller organizations. Everything is game... even the phone system can be handled by the cloud. Ok, I digress, Check out the following quotes and imagine being able to pull these off without analytics.

The next posts will treat some of the tools and technologies that are available to make these business strategies viable.

How should you look at processes when designing a virtual organization?

In order to effectively manage activities across organizations' it becomes critical to have certain processes in place to manage as well as measure performance and quality (Hammer, 2001; Champy, 2002; P-CMM v2.00, July 2001). According to Venkatraman (1994), organizations seeking to effectively integrate with business partners must first get their house in order through the use of BPR – Business Process Redesign/Re-engineering. Hammer (2001) says that for those who have re-engineered their internal business processes and extracted most of the value available internally, must now look at integrating and re-engineering externally to yield the next gains in value and profitability.

This article highlights and discusses Venkatraman and Henderson's take on the various vectors of Virtual Strategy.

What is a virtual strategy? What does it cover within the company? Who is affected? Who benefits? Venkatraman & Henderson (1998) reflect these questions in a 3 vector and 3 stages model (presented in Figure 5) that is aligned in spirit with Chesbrough & Teece's view that no one formally defined structure will ensure the success of a virtual organization.

This article covers the competencies, resources and assets that must be developped when making the transition to virtual organizing

A variety of authors have generated lists of firm capabilities and resources that may enable firms to conceive of and implement value-creating strategies (Barney, 1991; Bharadwaj, 2000).

In order to better define Venkatraman & Henderson's virtual organization, we have broken it down into components that are inspired by Barneys' (1991) three generic resource types and Nitin Nohria's (2003) model of organizational competencies; competencies that have characterized firms who performed exceptionally and developed or maintained a leadership position over the last 10 years. Nohria also suggests that to achieve overall success you need to excel in all 4 primary competencies and at least 2 of the secondary (See Figure 3). However Nohria emphasizes execution as primary means of success and differentiation.

Traditional definitions of the Virtual Organization have mostly taken a commodity-based, view of the interactions among partners (Kanter, 1994; Chesborough & Teece, 1996). One of the most notable examples of this type of virtual strategy to produce and deliver a product is the IBM PC. The early success of this venture was based on the same principals as those presented by Chesbrough & Teece's (1996) definition of a virtual organization:

 In this blog entry, we look at the ideas and forces shaping modern collaboration. The new success factors are presented as well as diffentent schools of thought regarding collaboration and alliances.

When building models we are often confronted with assumptions that evolve over time. In most cases it is important to capture these changes to keep our model relevant. Over the last decade, Business Intelligence solutions have created a culture of self-service IS information.  Given this democratization and decentralized access to data has created many opportunities and pitfalls for business analysts and decision-makers. We are going to outline some opportunities and pitfalls relating to shared modeling and a few strategies to get started.

This post presents the opportunities and challenges stemming from moving towards a distributed modeling paradigm in the organization. Also presented is a high-level integrated predictive/collaborative planning process.

For almost 15 years we have been witnessing a fundamental shift in how we do business, how we live and how we envision the world. Some have referred to this as a Paradigm Shift (Senge, 1991) brought on by cheaper and more accessible technologies (Ashkenas et al. 1995). As business people, we are constantly faced with solving problems and driving results, but that task is becoming more difficult because the lay of the land has changed and is going to continue to change – for everybody and every industry.