July 30, 2008 by fbk.

One of my favorite topics is how organizations adapt.  I think there will be an excellent chance to watch forced adaptation in progress with the franchisee-run Bennigan’s and Steak & Ale restaurants. 

When a parent organization dissolves, but several children are left, there is heavy pressure for speciation.  Years ago, an international organization went into receivership.  It had many local chapters, where the members wanted to continue their local activities.  One of the chapters bought the name from the creditors of the parent organization.  Several others changed their names slightly, incorporated as independent organizations, and continued.  Some affiliated with other large organizations.  Over time, developments continued.  Some chapters kept the original focus.  Some others went defunct.  Still others changed focus.  One of the chapters that became independent, over the next several years, moved its focus from business strategy to public sector strategy.

Another example would be when AT&T was broken up.  What were the long-term effects?  For me, my current local and long-distance carrier is now AT&T.  There were name changes along the way: AT&T ==> Michigan Bell ==> Ameritech ==> SBC ==> AT&T.  While some of the children might still be running loose, many of them consolidated into the same entity.  Of course, the Ma Bell breakup wasn’t natural, in the way that Bennigan’s and Steak & Ale could be seen as natural.

In the Bennigan’s / Steak & Ale situation, I expect several responses from the independent franchisees:

• Affiliate with another chain, such as TGIF or Applebee’s,
• Try to continue to operate independently, perhaps combined with a name change,
• Some might try to band together as an association to save the Bennigan’s and Steak & Ale names from the liquidating corporation.
• Where operations were marginal, this might be a final impetus to go under as a business.
• Other miscellaneous strategies that I haven’t thought of, perhaps.

I don’t have the time or funding to study the long-term effects of this liquidation on the market and the adaptive strategies it engenders, but perhaps someone else does?

Posted in Ideas | Print | No Comments »

July 24, 2008 by Les Smart.

     The American people should be absolutely terrified about the possibility that Barak Obama could be elected president of our country based entirely on the type of Supreme Court Justices he would appoint.  Why? 

     Look at the recent case involving limiting the rights of Americans to bear arms.  Four Liberal justices voted against the small majority of five to allow states (in this case the Washington, DC) - John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Berger.  Had Bush not made the last two appointments, we would all soon be turning in our rifles and hand guns. 

     My fellow Americans read the constitution:

Article the fourth [Amendment II] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How can this be misinterpreted?  Does this speak of only the rights of the people to have a militia?  It would take a real stretch to read “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” as only implying to the masses as a whole.  The tradition of common law that has protected an individuals right to own and bear arms is as old and established as the constitution itself.

Also, Mr. Obama went to Iraq.  However, first he made an announcement about his policy there.  He went and observed what every-other politician of both sides admitted was great progress following the surge but Mr. Obama would not acknowledge that fact.  His position is purely political.

His immaturity and inexperience has been abundantly displayed and, were the national press not in his back pocket or if he were a Republican, he would have been vilified numerous times to date.  He is the darling of Democrats, Liberals, and the Press.  It is most fair that his opponent fight the first two but his need to fight the third is an embarrassment to the journalism.  Conservative claims that the national news media is prejudice can no longer be argued against.  They are now showing it openly.

Mr. Obama is of the party that has restricted this country from drilling oil finds in many parts of the country.  They have prohibited the building of nuclear power plants and refineries.  Had all this have been allowed and encouraged would we be in the mess we are today?  Even now they claim it is too late, drilling oil and getting it ready to distribute would take too long.  Well, I say close the barn door.  We lost a lot of the animals but there are still more we can save.

Unless we totally ban the use of petroleum products we will be using oil by-products for many, many years to come.  Yes we have to conserve, yes we have to find alternate sources of energy but that will also take time.  Our politicians promised us that we would be less dependent on oil back in the 70s.  Do any of you remember waiting in line?  Only being allowed to purchase gas every other day based on your license plate number?  Fights in the gas lines?  Having the station run out of gas just before it is your turn and you are on empty?  What have they done in 30 years?  In our new National language “nada”.

Wake up Americans.  It is not that we need McCain.  It is that we can not survive Obama.

Posted in Politics | Print | No Comments »

July 23, 2008 by fbk.

Victor Davis Hanson had a post on The Corner recently that reminded me of some old spiritual teachings.  Here is the money quote:

“What is fascinating about the tingly-leg press is that they are exhibiting the very symptoms of arrested development and star-struck immaturity that they always accuse America in toto of suffering. The usual critique of the elite media is that we are a nation of mindless followers, who go from one fad to another, and value looks, youth, and pizzazz over substance.”

I’ve long found the best measure of a man is what he says about others.  Dr. Hanson seems to be seeing an example of the old spiritual teaching that the outer world is a reflection of the inner world.  What we see outside of us is what is actually within us and what we are.  Pay attention to what politicians say about others:

“That’s not the man I knew all of these years.”  Sounds like a man who will be different than what you have seen on the outside, doesn’t it?

Posted in Politics, Human Nature | Print | 1 Comment »