Corporate Happiness and E-Business Technologies:

How to Achieve a Radical Breakthrough in Knowledge Management & Business Processes Automation

(c) Oleg Cheremnykh, 2005. All rights reserved


This article defines the concept of a “happy company” and establishing building a happy company and achieving “corporate happiness” as the fundamental objective of business management. It then presents key methodologies and tools for building and maintaining a “happy company” – Business Engineering (BE), Business Description Language (BDL), Business Engineering & Management Portal (BEMP), Enterprise Objects Management System (EOMS) and Standard Business Objects Repository (SBOR).

Need for building a ‘happy company’

Importance of pursuit of happiness in the workplace Pursuit of happiness is one of the most fundamental human rights and desires (in the U.S. Constitution it is recognized as the third most fundamental human right after the rights to life and freedom). Naturally, human beings want to be happy not only at home and in their social relationships, but also in the workplace and in their professional relationships.

As it has been proven many times before (and beyond the reasonable doubt) that (1) all business activities and objectives are ultimately accomplished by human beings that long for happiness; and (2) “a happy worker is a productive worker ”, one of the most fundamental objectives of business management is creating and maintaining an environment which will make happy all company stakeholders (shareholders, employees, clients, suppliers, partners, community, etc.); in other words, creating a happy company.

Definition of a “happy company”

To come up with a proper definition of a happy company, it is necessary to start with asking ourselves a couple of simple questions: “Why do entrepreneurs start businesses?”; “Why do business owners own businesses?”; “Why do employees work for the businesses?”; “Why do business stakeholders (suppliers, customers, partners, government entities, etc.) interact with businesses?”. Interestingly enough, answers to these most fundamental questions of business management are not that difficult to find.

First, the abovementioned activities are undertaken for financial reasons (in other words, to create and, hopefully, maximize financial value of these activities and corresponding objects created, modified or consumed in these activities). Entrepreneurs start businesses (and shareholders own business) to make money; employees work for businesses to earn money; suppliers sell their products to businesses also to make money and government and non-government entities also want to get money from businesses (in taxes, charitable contributions, etc.)

Second, these activities are undertaken to satisfy functional needs of businesses (external and internal), individuals, government entities and other stakeholders (in other words, to create and, hopefully, maximize functional value of these activities and corresponding objects created, modified or consumed in these activities). Individuals and businesses buy products and services to satisfy their functional needs; businesses create functional positions, workgroups and departments to generate internal products and services that satisfy corresponding functional needs; government and non-government entities require certain products or services from commercial enterprises (information, donations in-kind, pro bono services, etc.) to satisfy their functional needs.

Third, it has been long known that human being are not machines and in addition to satisfying their financial and functional needs, they also want to satisfy their emotional needs (in other words, to create and, hopefully, maximize emotional value of these activities and corresponding objects created, modified or consumed in these activities).

Certain products, business objects and services, consumed by individuals, satisfy exclusively emotional needs (brands, movies and other entertainment services, etc.); entrepreneurs start, own and develop businesses and employees work for businesses to enjoy what they are doing (i.e. to get emotional satisfaction out of their activities and corresponding objects) and all business stakeholders want to make relationships with business enterprise emotionally valuable and fulfilling.

From the abovementioned realities it immediately follows that managing a business enterprise is essentially managing aggregate value of this enterprise with an objective of maximization of the aggregate value of the business.

Therefore, the definition of a “happy company” is very simple:

A happy company is a business enterprise that maximizes its aggregate value – financial, functional and emotional – for all stakeholders of the company.

It can be also argued that aggregate value of the company exhibits the synergy effect between different categories of value (financial, functional and emotional). In other words, if understood and managed correctly, maximization of one category of company value both requires and assists maximization of two other value categories.

Need for maximizing the efficiency of utilization of fundamental business resources

Naturally, maximization of aggregate value of a business enterprise requires maximization of efficiency of utilization of fundamental business resources – tangible and intangible assets/capital, human/intellectual assets/capital as well as information/knowledge assets/capital.

It should be noted that in the modern informational/knowledge economy and society human/intellectual assets/capital and information/knowledge assets/capital the importance are becoming more and more important compared to tangible and other intangible assets/capital (which in industrial and post-industrial society were considered to make the highest contribution to the aggregate value of the company).

Therefore, the happy company can be defined in the following way:

A happy company is a business enterprise that maximizes the efficiency of utilization of all of its fundamental resources - tangible and intangible assets/capital, human/intellectual assets/capital as well as information/knowledge assets/capital.

Key importance of e-business technologies for building a ‘happy company’

To maximize the efficiency of utilization of fundamental business resources (and, therefore, to maximize the aggregate value of a business enterprise and to build a truly happy company) it is absolutely necessary to utilize the most effective and efficient business management methodologies, tools and technologies. In today’s intellectual/knowledge-based economy and society the most important business management methodologies, tools and technologies are, naturally, electronic business (or simply e-business) technologies.

E-business technologies typically fall into one of the following two categories:

  • Business processes automation technologies (tools & technologies for automating business processes – strategic and operational)

  • Information/knowledge management technologies (knowledge is information which allows to make decision and/or perform action which, in turn, create additional aggregate value – financial, functional and emotional – compared to the decision/action possible without this information)

The key objective of the project (Stage I and Stage II) is to make e-business deliver – finally – on its promises, to fully unlock its enormous value-generating potential; to create a vast amount of aggregate value – financial, emotional and functional (for both users and providers of e-business solutions) – and to share in this newly-created value thus making a very healthy return on investment in this project.

The key controversy of e-business technologies

The key controversy of e-business technologies is an enormous gap between its promises and deliveries: a an immense potential for generating financial, emotional and functional value for users and providers of e-business solutions and a relatively minor real impact on efficiency, competitiveness, profitability and aggregate value of business enterprises and on the business community as a whole compared to this gigantic potential.

Indeed, e-business technologies offer enormous opportunities for a radical reduction of internal and external business transaction costs by building a transparent electronic company, electronic marketplace and an electronic business community (intra-industrial and cross-industrial, domestic and global); radical improvement in innovation generation & implementation capabilities; radical improvement in the efficiency of utilization of human capital (radical decrease in wasted time and effort); radical improvement in decision-making and decision-executing quality (through a radically better knowledge management); radical improvement in client- and other stakeholder satisfaction (external and internal) – radical increase in functional & emotional value generated by the company.

Unfortunately, this potential has not been realized and to this day remains largely untapped (in other words, e-business technologies ‘promised, but did not deliver’ – to both users and vendors of these technologies). According to PC Week, 40% to 50% e-business & other corporate IT projects end up losing money for the company (instead of making it).

An important reason for such an unfortunate situation is a simple fact that deployment of a corporate information management system takes on average 12-18 months which makes the system obsolete way before it is deployed, tested and made operational.

Another important reason for such an enormous gap between promises and deliveries is that IT people and information system vendors on one side and business managers and owners on the other speak totally different languages and have totally different mindsets. As the result, the deployed system rarely does what its users want it to do – with the resulting disastrous consequences for the ‘bottom line’ of the business that uses the system.

Situation on the ‘supply side’ is not much better: “burst of the bubble” in e-commerce stocks on the stock market, bankruptcies, profit plunge, massive layoffs, etc. indicate that IT industry is at least in the state if confusion (if not large-scale crisis). And despite development of certain integrating structures (both internal and external), e-company, e-marketplace and ‘electronic business communities’ are nowhere in sight.

Key ‘stumbling block’ on an ‘e-business road’

The most fundamental reason for the above-mentioned ‘e-business controversy’ is that unlocking the enormous e-business potential requires development and implementation of a comprehensive, standardized (or at least compatible) and tightly integrated (vertically & horizontally) ‘e-business suite’ which has to include the following key components (in ‘bottom-up’ order):

  • Computer and telecommunications hardware

  • Systems software (desktop and network operating system)

  • General-purpose application software (word processors, spreadsheets, etc.)

  • Business management software (BMS), typically referred to as Management Information System (MIS) or Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP) system, although it should be probably best named Business Knowledge Management System (the difference between knowledge and information is that knowledge allows to create additional value – financial, emotional and functional – by allowing to making better decisions and executing them in a better way compared to decisions and actions without that knowledge)

While modern e-business technologies succeeded in developing and integrating the first three components of this ‘e-business suite’, the fourth one – business management software – leaves much to be desired. Current MIS/ERP systems are little more than (often primitive) transaction processing systems (OLTP) with some analytical capabilities (OLAP) instead of comprehensive business knowledge management systems that they should be.

Also, unlike in three other areas of ‘e-business suite’, there is practically no standardization and very little compatibility and integration between BMS from different vendors (as they are based on usually very different – and often informal – principles and methodologies).

Therefore, the roots of the ‘e-business controversy’ lie in the area of business management software and to unlock the full potential of e-business technologies, it is necessary to make changes (possibly radical) to this segment of ‘e-business suite’ (in other words, to develop radically new business management software (which will include both business processes automation and information/knowledge management components) based on radically new and radically more efficient principles and methodologies).

Need for Object-Oriented Scalable Business Architecture (SBA)

Three of the most important (and valuable!) keyword of e-business technologies are ‘compatibility’, ‘integration’ and ‘standardization’. In other words, every component of ‘e-business suite’ is based on a relatively small number of principles & methodologies (‘standards’) which can be collectively referred to as ‘architecture’ of this component.

Naturally, e-business solutions to business systems of various size and type (i.e. of different industries) have to be structurally and conceptually similar to each other (to ensure seamless and efficient compatibility, integration and standardization). Which means, that corresponding architecture must be ‘scalable’ (horizontally and vertically).

Therefore, we can look at the ‘comprehensive e-business suite’ required for unlocking the enormous value-generating potential of e-business technologies as a ‘scalable architecture suite’. Naturally, architectures of different components (‘layers’) of this suite have to be tightly vertically integrated. Which means that the ‘architecture view’ of the ‘e-business suite’ will consist of the following layers:

  • Scalable Hardware Architecture (computers & telecommunications)

  • Scalable Systems Architecture (operating systems)

  • Scalable General Purpose Software Architecture (office software, browsers, e-mail clients, etc.)

  • Scalable Business Management Software Architecture (SBMSA) – for both business processes automation and information/knowledge management components

Architectures for the first three layers already exist while the last one – SBMSA – is still nowhere in sight. As business management software technologies, principles and methodologies, by definition, has to mimic/emulate corresponding business management technologies, principles and methodologies, it will be safe to say that Scalable Business Management Software Architecture (SBMSA) is equivalent to Scalable Business Management Architecture (SBMA) or simply Scalable Business Architecture (SBA).

Therefore, to unlock the enormous value-generating potential of e-business technology, it is necessary (1) to develop a Scalable Business Architecture (SBA), tightly integrated with other components of an ‘e-business suite’ and (2) to build an SBA–based Comprehensive Business Automation System (CBAS), which will include both business processes automation and information/knowledge management components.

As the hardware world is object-oriented by nature (it consists of very tangible and material objects) and both systems and general-purpose application software are object-oriented, SBA and SBA-based CBAS simply have to be object-oriented as well. Which fits well with the current and future business requirements, as object-oriented architecture offer much more rapid and efficient capabilities for adjusting a business system (and its knowledge management system) than alternative (functional, procedural, structural and other) architectures.

Need for Formal Business Engineering and Re-Engineering

Another important source of the infamous ‘e-business controversy’ is lack of formal description & development tools for its ‘highest’ (and the most important!) level – Business Architecture (in other words, lack of reasonably formal business management system description methodology). It is true that any structure of business management system (BMS) and corresponding business management technologies (BMT) have to be able to account for an inevitable ‘degree of chaos’ inherent in any business system and its environment.

But the problem is that existing BMS & BMT are much more chaotic and much less orderly than they should be in order to (1) maximize the aggregate value (financial, emotional & functional) of a business enterprise and its value-generating capacity – VGC; and (2) to be compatible with lower-level components of ‘e-business suite’ which do have the necessary formal description & development tools (and it is precisely this lack of vertical compatibility and integration that prevents e-business technologies from unlocking its full aggregate value-generating potential).

The process of description & development - analysis, design, ‘coding’ (implementation) and deployment of a system at each level of the ‘e-business suite’ or ‘e-business hierarchy’ is typically called ‘systems engineering’. And the need of making periodic radical improvement to the system to accommodate for often radical changes in the external (and sometimes internal) environment of the system is rightfully called ‘systems re-engineering’ (simply stating the fact that modern information/knowledge management systems can be engineered and re-engineered almost like a manufacturing plant or factory with the proper level of ‘chaos’ inherent in business systems).

Therefore, an e-business suite/hierarchy has to have the tightly vertically integrated methodologies, principles, tools & technologies to support the vital engineering and re-engineering activities:

  • Hardware system engineering & re-engineering

  • Operating systems engineering & re-engineering

  • General application system engineering & re-engineering

  • Business management system engineering & re-engineering

In reality, due to high level of standardization, systems engineering at three lower levels is carried out for the most part not by developing and integrating components (objects) ‘from scratch’, but rather by selecting standard objects from ‘object banks’, adapting/customizing them for specific systems and integrating the customized versions of objects into a specific system.

Principles, methodologies, tools & techniques for the three lower levels of ‘e-business hierarchy’ have already been developed and integrated between each other (for example, in the .NET architecture developed and marketed by Microsoft). Unfortunately, this is not true for the ‘highest’ and the most important level of the hierarchy - Business Management System (BMS).

Moreover, ‘business re-engineering’ has been tried (sometimes very successfully, but most often not at all) in the 1990’s using mostly the process-oriented (‘procedural’) approach to business management and the corresponding modeling tools and techniques (SA/SD, SADT, IDEF0, etc.) mostly obtained from information systems engineering technologies.

With the business processes reengineering (BPR) projects failure rate running as high as 75-80% (according to the estimates of pioneers of these technologies) the idea was rather quickly rejected by the mainstream business community (despite of a number of impressive advantages & capabilities). In short, ‘as usual’ the BPR methodology did not deliver on its promises and perceived enormous potential.

This spectacular failure is, in fact, a strong argument for – not against – the need for formal business system engineering methodology as this failure can be attributed to just three fundamental reasons: (1) total absence of a formal engineering methodology – in other words, proponents of this methodology tried to re-engineer the system without first engineering it – an obvious exercise in futility; (2) a procedure/process-oriented approach which immediately makes modeling of large systems prohibitively expensive in terms of time, financial expenses and manpower (and often simply technically impossible) and makes the system totally obsolete before it is even properly described/modeled (let alone deployed) and (3) makes business re-engineering models developed using procedural methodologies totally incompatible with information systems engineering models developed using object-oriented methodologies.

Therefore, unlocking a full potential of e-business technologies requires development of object-oriented business system engineering and re-engineering principles, methodologies, tools & techniques fully compatible and tightly integrated with the corresponding tools for engineering and re-engineering lower levels of e-business hierarchy. Naturally, these tools must be based on a Scalable Business Architecture (as other tools are based on other – lower-level – scalable architectures).

As most business objects, methods and relationships are more or less standard, development of object-oriented business system engineering and re-engineering tools will allow for development of ‘business object banks’ (general, industry-specific, country-specific, etc.) which will allow entrepreneurs and business managers to simply ‘download’ (naturally, for a steep fee) necessary business system objects, instead of developing them ‘from scratch’ thus radically reducing the ‘reinventing-the-wheel’ activities (and corresponding business management costs) and thus dramatically increasing the efficiency, competitiveness and value of a business enterprise. No other architecture offers such an enormous opportunity.

Need for Object-Oriented Business Description Language (BDL)

Another important reason for the ‘e-business controversy’ is the fact that development of ‘e-business suite’ of technologies occurred in the direction opposite to the business information system engineering direction (bottom-up vs. top-down).

Indeed, business information system engineering, though iterative, typically is broken down into the following consecutive stages:

  • Business system analysis & design

  • Information/knowledge system analysis & design

  • Information/knowledge system implementation (which in the electronic era is the same as business system implementation)

Therefore, to facilitate efficient information system engineering and to build a truly ‘electronic company’ one needs (1) to have engineering tools for each stage of the process and (2) to make these tools compatible with each other (in other words, outputs of each previous stage become inputs for the next stage).

Hence, the ‘complete system engineering toolbox’ has to include the following sets of tools:

  • Business system analysis & design tools

  • Information/knowledge system analysis & design tools

  • Information/knowledge system implementation tools

Unfortunately, as formation of the ‘e-business suite’ happened in the ‘bottom-up’ direction, currently the ‘e-business system engineering toolbox’ contains only tools for the two lower levels. IS analysis and design stage is dominated by the object-oriented Unified Modeling Language; while the situation at IS implementation stage is totally different as different categories of IS components require different implementation tools.

Stand-alone application packages are typically developed using C++, Visual Basic, Delphi or similar object-oriented programming languages (labeled ‘fifth-generation languages’ or 5GL for short). Web-based systems (Internet and Intranet) solutions are engineered with XML and HTML languages used for defining hypertext documents and their relationships (links) and a number of programming languages – J++, Java, VBScript, CGI scripts, Perl, etc. (other system objects and methods used to manipulate these objects and hypertext documents).

Modification and customization of general office software (being dominated by Microsoft Office suite of application programs) is carried out using a special programming language – Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) built into a Microsoft Office system. And modification and customization of ERP system is achieved by using a development/programming language built into this system (for example, X++ in Microsoft Dynamics).

Structured data (as opposed to unstructured or loosely-structured hypertext documents) are typically arranged in relational tables and manipulated using a standard language – Structured Query Language (SQL). Unfortunately, this large collection of lower-level tools is impressive, but not very efficient in terms of engineering the whole e-business system as this toolbox lacks the component for the third - highest level – Business Description Language (BDL).

It is precisely the lack of BDL that makes it so difficult for IS developers and its users – business managers and professionals to understand each other. IS developers think and present their thoughts in terms of UML – a visual modeling language totally incomprehensible to practically all business managers and professionals while the latter think in terms of a highly informal and unstructured business management paradigm (BMP). In addition to this problem, BMP varies greatly between industries, between companies in the same industry (of different and even similar size) and even inside the company (the financial management paradigm is highly different from sales management paradigm).

Due to the lack of BDL, IS developers have to perform business system analysis and design using tools ill-fitted for this purpose – IS analysis and design tools – which significantly increases the length of IS engineering project and often makes the system obsolete way before it is completed (with the corresponding negative effect on the bottom line of the project).

Therefore, development of object-oriented and UML-compatible BDL is one of the key objectives that needs to be accomplished to make e-business technologies unlock their full value-generating potential. In addition, as e-business technologies are to a significant extent Internet/Intranet technologies, BDL also needs to be made XML-compatible (either directly or through a set of corresponding UML templates).

In addition, BDL needs to be able (through the system of business objects attributes) to bring the ideas of Balanced Score Card (BSC), Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and Strategic Maps (SM) to their logical completion (‘logical end’).

While perfectly reasonable and in some cases highly valuable, these approaches have one fundamental problem – the system of performance indicators generated by these methods remains highly arbitrary and, therefore, neither comprehensive nor balanced and, therefore, subject to the possibility of gross errors.

Building a truly comprehensive, adequate and balanced system of business performance indicators requires the development of BDL – a reasonably formal (less formal than UML) but still much more formal than BSC/KPI/SM ‘languages’ and the description of the whole business system with BDL (taking into account the inevitable degree of chaos in the business system and the cost/benefit ratio).

Naturally, BDL has to be easily understood and used by business owners, managers and professionals and by the IS development professionals making it a much-needed (and even vital) bridge between the currently very different worlds of business management and information technologies.

Need for Enterprise Object Management System (EOMS)

Sometimes it appears that the whole history of information technologies is the history of ‘broken promises’ (technologies promised but did not deliver) and of expectations not met.

As the ultimate objective of e-business technologies is to build a highly efficient electronic company and ultimately an electronic marketplace, electronic business community and even electronic society, it could be expected that e-business technologies should created a seamlessly integrated electronic working environment (both internal and external).

It could be also expected that an ERP system, judging from its very name Enterprise Resources Planning (although it probably should have been called Enterprise Resources Management - ERM) System should have become this kind of integrator – the core of the electronic working environment into which all other electronic systems would be integrated.

Unfortunately, it did not happen. Despite its name and promises, an ERP system still remains little more than a rather primitive transaction processing/analysis system (OLTP/OLAP) instead of an Aggregate Value Management Support System that it should have been and still generates mostly ‘tombs of data’ instead of the ‘gems of business knowledge’.

Therefore, an ERP system still remains just one of the ‘islands’ of the ‘IS archipelago’ that needs to be transformed into an ‘e-business continent’ to allow e-business technologies to unlock their enormous value-generating potential.

To facilitate this transformation, it is necessary to develop a successor to ERP systems which will be able to deliver on initial promises of such systems and to become the core of the electronic company and of the business knowledge management system by connecting all business objects & methods into single business objects management system aimed at maximizing the aggregate value – financial, emotional and functional – of a business enterprise.

Consequently this system will be most appropriately called Enterprise Object Management System (EOMS). Naturally, to be able to deliver on its promises, EOMS has to be based on SBA & BDL.

In addition, due to its comprehensive nature, EOMS will become a foundation for a so-called ‘situation room’ or ‘simulation center’ allowing to run several business development scenarios for selecting the best one from the standpoint of value maximization (including developing and managing radical business innovation).

Selected scenario can then be implemented by creating first ‘virtual reality’ (an electronic version of the would-be business management system structure) and then by gradually replacing the existing system with the new one (making the ‘as is’ -> ‘to be’ transition).

Standard Business Objects Repository

Due to its comprehensive nature, EOMS will be able to develop and maintain a Standard Business Objects Repository (SBOR) - a library/bank/repository of standard business objects (to be used for assembling and customizing business automation and information/knowledge management systems, instead of development systems from scratch), incorporating general and industry-specific “best practices” in business management.

Business Engineering & Management Portal

Origins of Business Engineering & Management Portal

The concept of Business Engineering & Management Portal (BEMP) is based on the two tools rather common in present-day business management and intends to overcome their limitations:

  • Information/investment memorandum used as one of the key instruments in business valuation projects (whether for raising capital from direct equity investors, executing an IPO or selling a company to a strategic buyer)

  • “Classic” strategic business plan

Unfortunately, none of these documents/tools takes into account the need to design a comprehensive business system aimed at maximizing financial value (which is the primary objective of capital raising and M&A projects and is supposed to be – but rarely is - the primary objective of a “classic” business plan) and built around information/investment memorandum or a business plan.

Naturally, this business system must be supported by adequate business management system as well as (in the contemporary electronic society) by proper business automation and information/knowledge management system.

It will be only natural to expect that to facilitate maximization of financial and aggregate value of a business enterprise, analysis, design and implementation of these systems must be based on a reasonably formal methodology for developing the corresponding system.

It was exactly the lack of such methodology or a tool for business systems development (whether outside or inside the field of development of information/investment memoranda or “classic” business plans) that prompted the project leader to develop Business Engineering & Management Portal.

Essence of Business Engineering & Management Portal

Therefore, Business Engineering & Management Portal is essentially a software tool for analysis, audit, design and implementation of business systems aimed at maximizing financial and aggregate value of the corresponding business enterprise. BEMP is based on the methodology of Business Engineering (presented in an article on business engineering and available upon request) and, in a more narrow sense, on certain components of Business Description Language.

Value of BEMP to its user

BEMP is highly valuable to its potential user as it

  • Focuses the whole business management system (as well as the whole business system) towards the most fundamental business objective – financial value maximization

  • Allows to maximize not just financial, but also functional and emotional value of a business enterprise

  • De-fragments the existing business system (it has long been known that deep fragmentation of existing business management system is probably the key impediment to maximizing financial and aggregate value of a company) by providing a comprehensive business analysis, design and management tool

  • Allows to create and execute truly dynamic business plans by providing the company management with rapid adjustment capabilities

Competitive advantages of BEMP
  • Provides a truly comprehensive vision and “control panel” for designing and managing a business enterprise as a coherent business system

  • Is developed in a “top-down” direction (starting from the most fundamental questions and objectives of a business enterprise) rather than a more typical “bottom up” direction (starting with low-lever transactions and/or operational/tactical business processes)

  • Unique aggregate value maximization approach to optimizing the whole business system and its components:

    • Financial value maximization
    • Functional value maximization
    • Emotional value maximization
    • Aggregate value maximization
  • Utilizes a “common sense” (as opposed to 'textbook') approach to strategic business management

Strategic influence of business engineering tools on worldwide business community

As business engineering tools (BDL, EOMS, BEMP and SBOR) are based on a radically more efficient business management paradigm than existing products and tools, they have the potential for making a significant (and positive!) difference on the way businesses are managed worldwide:

  • Instigate a worldwide radical “paradigm shift” in business management methodologies and in the minds/mentality of entrepreneurs, business owners, investors and business management professionals towards maximization of aggregate value of business enterprises (financial + functional + emotional) and towards building and maintaining truly “happy companies”

  • Radically increase efficiency of utilization of the fundamental business resources (aggregate business capital): natural, financial/material, human/intellectual, information/knowledge – worldwide

  • Transform business enterprises worldwide into “happy companies”, where the aggregate value of a business (financial, functional and emotional) is maximized

changed January 7, 2008