Paul Roberts has an interesting post on Value Chain 2.0: the use of Web 2.0 methodologies and platforms in value chain analysis, process redesign and supply chain management (SCM).
Value Chain 2.0 transformations actually predate Tim O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 term but this is largely hidden from non-domain experts. One reason why is the historical influence of engineering and mechanistic models on public perceptions of SCM. Logistics, operations and industrial economics all moulded Michael Porter‘s value chain model. Mainframe interfaces shaped SAP‘s materials management and enterprise resource planning systems. A climate of downsizing and recessions influenced how business leaders applied Michael Hammer and James Champy‘s business process reengineering. SCM has evolved yet the public perceptions remain.
There’s a broader context and history to Value Chain 2.0 that some Web 2.0 descriptions may not do justice to. Some of the more well-known examples: Eric von Hippel cast the die in The Sources of Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) about 3M‘s ideation, innovation and new product development processes; von Hippel elaborated on discussions which occurred since the mid-1970s. SAP and other ERP vendors have had end-user case studies in conferences for over a decade. Dell‘s dotcom era choiceboard for consumers to customise their orders meant more efficient throughput and higher inventory turnover. Lego Mindstorms builds on decades of insights in constructivist learning and robotics. Procter & Gamble‘s Connect + Develop initiative reflects P&G’s expertise in brand development and consumer goods marketing, and leverages decade-long trends in knowledge management and information systems. This suggests a deep history or a path dependence to many ‘new new’ Web 2.0 cases and trends.
Perhaps Value Chain 2.0’s initial contributions are to make these initiatives more explicit to non-domain experts and to provide an accessible interface for consumers.
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.