The Village Voice‘s Tony Ortega reveals how uber-media mogul Harvey Weinstein organises his priorities, in-progress projects and key stakeholders:
(1) a “Calls you owe” and “Need to call” daily telephone list
(2) a one-line summary of contactees and their needs
(3) a coterie of personal assistants to handle those sensitive emails
The first two are sparse and remind me of David Allen‘s productivity/workflow heuristics Getting Things Done.
Ortega cites an email to Weinstein by former Weinstein Company employee Lori Sale as a model of succinct communication management:
(1) a one-line summary of the background context for negotiations
(2) the deadline for a decision to be made
(3) the spread of negotiation offers made — with financial details and impact
(4) any counterparty offers and response relevant to (2) and (3)
(5) contact protocol and email signature
M&A communication streamlines (1) – (3) while game theory, negotiation and risk management provide frameworks and methodologies for (4).
Ortega’s garbological adventures to discover Weinstein’s strategies for management (communication,
priority & stakeholders) are on par with
HBO’s Entourage television series on deal-making in Digital Hollywood and Nikki Finke’s blog Deadline Hollywood Daily.
The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States plans to adopt the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in order to enhance US competition in global markets. The IFRS would be harmonised with, and may even replace the existing US accounting rules, the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) oversees.
Critics are concerned the shift from GAAP to IFRS is an ill-fated intervention by US regulators comparable to the administrative burdens of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance. The perceived ‘institutional creep’ taps deep US fears on the potential for global governance institutions like the United Nations to interfere with US legal jurisdictions, Administration policies and national will.
To manage this resistance the SEC released a public roadmap and conducted a roundtable in December 2007. However the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson upstaged this initiative in the issues-attention cycle due to their attempts to dampen the fallout in financial markets from the 2007 subprime crisis. Collectively the SEC, Federal Reserve and US Treasury proposals signal major changes to the US financial system’s regulatory framework.
The SEC’s initiative has (at least) three possible side effects.
The planned harmonisation with IFRS will increase the tension between the SEC and US business leaders and policymakers over gaps in the IFRS, cultural differences, and the compliance mechanisms for regulatory oversight. The coevolution of the US financial system and global governance will need to be reframed as a systems-level opportunity to overcome partisan interests.
The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) may be the ‘test case’ for US implementation of IFRS accounting rules. AUSFTA establishes a bilateral framework on intellectual property rights and strengthens the positive correlation between the US and Australian financial markets. If it’s really ‘outsourcing’ the US accounting/taxation regulatory regime as its critics believe the SEC is doing so to a ‘friendly’ nation-state.
Enterprise Resource Planning vendors such as Infosys and SAP could also benefit in the SEC’s shift to IFRS. ERP systems enable trans-national corporations to be scalable and integrate their subsidiaries’ financial reporting through a centralised database, called master data management. SAP for instance has business rules that harmonise the taxation reporting of different countries. If the SEC’s roadmap unfolds then SAP and other ERP vendors will have to update their configurable platforms. IFRS rules could reinvigorate the ERP market for enterprise application integration which uses systems architectures to integrate different computer systems, software, and data.