The story of the hammer and the nail

It is a human behaviour that when the only tool you have/know is a “hammer” that you look at everything like a “nail”. Hitting a nail with a hammer is OK, … at least, most of the time. And for sure if you are using the right hammer (a sledge hammer for a small nail will for sure not deliver the expected result). But just imagine, you are trying to get a screw in a piece of wood or in a wall with a small hammer. The results will not be good: the wood might get damaged and the plaster from the wall might come off. The right tool (a drill, a screwdriver, a hammer …) for the right job will get the right results. It is a fact that with a hammer you can do lots of jobs, and maybe solve the issue partly (with so-so results). Having the right tool, and using it in the right way is the only guarantee for good results.

Similar reasoning goes for software solutions. Depending on the job to be done, the right “tool” and solution needs to be used. The biggest problem is that software companies tend to simplify problems to the “tool” or “solution” they are offering. E.g. not every companies does have a cash management problem, or needs to improve working capital, or has to low inventory turns, … The wrong solution will not get the job done.

The great thing about SAP is that, the “toolkit” of SAP is large. There are lots of different solutions, to help to tackle different kind of challenges/issues. For sure one can find lots of solutions within the SAP solution portfolio. And even then, one needs to use the “tool” in the right way to assure the proper result.

The value of a company

There was a time that I believed it was possible to objectively determine the "value" of a company. I learned at the University and later during my post-graduate education about "valuation models". I have to admit that "projections" about the future cashflows are key to determine the value, and that these projections are not an exact science and biased by the "estimated" future results. So somewhat it is logical that there is a "unknow" (should I call it subjective ?) factor in this.

Today, D-1 for an important Fortis decision, I have difficulties to understand how it is possible that for certain analysts a Fortis share is worth 1 Euro, while other value a share at 10 Euro. (both take a "NO" vote as the basis for their calculation).

For sure somebody will be more "correct" than somebody else, but it puts the whole "valuation" models/techniques/principles once more in a bad daylight. And that after the turbulent period in which we had to admit that for certain assets valuation was basically not possible.

I wonder why I spend time studying this kind of stuff in the past. And if even for me, the whole valuation is hard to understand, I wonder how non-economically educated people look at this?

And the winner is ...

Ever since I was a young kid, I have been confronted with the competitive mind of lots of the people around me (this is probably the reason why I have a competitive nature myself). I found it normal that I tried to be best at school, best in doing sports, best at the scouts. And I was proud when I was "the best" or at least among the bests ...

I have discovered that also in business envrionment, people (and organizations) are trying hard to be the best, or at least to be recognized as such. This probably explains why "elections", "nominations" and "rankings" are so popular also in business environments. If you just see the number of people attending the "manager of the year", the number of votes for "CIO of the year", or the publicity awards like Data News Awards get ... then one can only conclude that "being the best" is really driving people.

In any management book you can read about the importance of "recognition". Being "nominated" or "elected" is a pure form of recognition and for most people a recognition of their performance and achievement. So let's not get rid of all the "top" lists, "awardcompetitions" and " elections". It is important for people, also in business.