Therefore, according to the FRC they expect Boards of all companies, subject to this code, to be ‘entrepreneurial’? Just stop and think for a moment whether every single Board meeting you attend as a director of a public or private limited liability company has an element of entrepreneurial spirit in its proceedings or on the agenda. If not, why not? This very seemingly austere, formal (and formulaic) governance process should be married and reconciled with being entrepreneurial…?
How do we foster and encourage this ‘status quo’ challenging or disruption creation spirit in formal settings like board meetings; or is it only in the execution or the executive director’s duties that they display this ethos? And what about the Non-executive directors? What is their role in fostering the ‘entrepreneurial leadership’?
The background paragraphs go on to state that “Good stewardship by the board should not inhibit sensible risk taking that is critical to growth.”
Therefore, the counter balance to enthusiastic entrepreneurialism is therefore a measured risk-based approach in underpinning that growth target strategy?
Do you have a framework or measured risk-based approach or methodology in place to serve as the bedrock of your strategic management processes? If not, where do you start?
We find it fascinating, once again, just having skimmed through the Microsoft (MSFT) Earnings Release FY17 Q4 results released on 20 July 2017, how generally in businesses ‘natural’ language is used differently in different sectors.
In general within Commerce & Industry we tend to refer to ‘strategic partnerships’ and ‘supply-chains / arrangements’, etc. Language crafted from legal and contractual relations.
The irony is that it is generally only the Technology sector, possibly as a more recent / younger sector, that crafts its language from the natural world. In technology companies you don’t have supply-chains, but rather ‘ecosystems’, ‘cloud-platforms’, ‘waterfall project’ deployment, etc., etc.
It is both fascinating and ironic that these metaphors for relationships in the technology sector borrow heavily from ‘natural language’ or nature based language; which in turn promotes sustainable business practices (we hope and trust) and sustainability more generally.
Do you find this to be a positive / true reflection of the use of business language? Your comments are very welcome. […and will no doubt be added to our ‘word-cloud’]
If you have not yet filed Annual Accounts for a CIC (Community Interest Company), then please be aware that the process and procedures for filing the Annual Accounts at Companies House is different from normal electronic filings.
Firstly you cannot file electronic Annual Accounts.
Guidance is published here at the Companies House web site.
In order to file the Annual Accounts you will need to prepare a form CIC 34 which can be downloaded from the link.
The completed and signed (by a director or company secretary) CIC 34 form, together with a printed copy of the Annual Accounts and a £15 filing fee must be sent to Companies House well in advance of the filing deadline. This is to avoid any late filing penalties, should Companies House reject the initial filing and you need to make any amendments that might be necessary in order to re-file the Annual Accounts.
Companies House officials were not yet able (during April 2015) to provide us with information as to when the electronic filing of CIC Annual Accounts will be possible.
Hence, just like filing Limited Liability Partnership Annual Accounts, the traditional hard copy and postage paid (preferably recorded delivery) or handing in the documents at a Companies House official Contact Centre office location, is still the only way to get the Annual Accounts filing compliance check done, for the time being.
The next step in the process of defining and designing the appropriate Business Processes to outsource or at the very least re-engineer and run more cost-effectively and efficiently is to draw together the relevant cost information from your existing in-house data sources. Both accounting records and other ‘data-islands’ might have to be investigated, hence the fact that any Business Process redesign effort with entail outreach activity to stakeholders in and around the function, process, team or organisations being considered for this process.
A tool to utilise in this process is something like a Stakeholder Map.
In part 3 we will continue to explore further tools sets and Force Field Analysis in order to document the Business Process Outsourcing road map, prior to influencing decision makers on the merits and demerits of a successful Business Process Outsourcing project.
Business Process Re-engineering Cycle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Some of the key considerations must the the opportunity to redesign and re-engineer processes via process mapping and thorough cost and benefit analysis techniques.
Non of these techniques are new or too difficult to manage, however, having the right mind-set and tools available for the task at hand is essential. If you cannot manage the process on you own, seek help and advice from seasoned professionals.
Even very small organisations engage and master the art of outsourcing. As an example a sole trader or small incorporated business owner will outsource functions like book-keeping, accounting and tax compliance to a professional advisor or support business.