When asked about some famous instances of matrix structures for a university management course and how have they fared; I immediately though about the macro task force for the Claremont serial murders.

Residing in Western Australia, the Claremont serial killer case dominated the news locally for years and at this time is still unsolved. In 1996, an 18 year old woman disappeared followed by another two disappearances later in 1996 and 1997 from the same location almost without leads despite extensive CCTV technology erected after the first disappearance.

The Western Australian Police Force (WAPOL) assembled a task force after the second attack, to be known as the macro task force. The task force was assembled with personnel from a number of police units to investigate the disappearance of the then two women, with a further third disappearance, who at this time has never been discovered is missing presumed deceased. The bodies of the second and third victims have been discovered.

A criticism of the formation of the macro task force was that a team needed to be assembled from scratch with unfamiliar team members from different units losing essential investigative opportunities when leads with still fresh. At the time, police funding cuts and force structure change did not allow smooth transition due to internal restructuring efforts to achieve organisational and cultural change. The macro task force could be considered a matrix structure; viewed in a similar style to a project team.

Since then, the major crime squad has been reformed in 1997 with personnel holding investigative, forensic and intelligence expertise and skills. The initial leader of the macro task force was also involved in the recent Lloyd Rayney murder trial (no conviction recorded) and the Iveta Mitchell disappearance, presumed murdered but unsolved. The macro task force has been subject to 11 internal and external probes with none reporting errors or oversights.

Room 306 at the Lorraine Motel, Memphis, Tennessee is the site of the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, the prominent civil rights activist. Naturally, I knew of the “All men are created equal, I have a dream” speech. I must profess, I was unaware of sanitation worker’s strike or the events leading up to the fateful day. Today was the day I learned a little of contemporary American civil rights history without even going inside.

I was sitting outside on a retaining wall over the road; I was listening to these elderly southern ladies chatting. In their thick southern accent, I very much enjoyed listening to their colourful stories, they were joyful and happy, some of the things they said were just gold.

As I, she was waiting outside, she didn’t want to go inside to witness the museum for different reasons than me when she came out with “I don’t find this so exciting, I lived through the time, I don’t want to relive this.” I opened my tablet and started tapping keys, this was a defining moment in my United States trip, I wanted to make sure I recorded this moment.

The other lady came out and started describing the museum tour, she didn’t like it much, it was a little crowded and she was unable to go at her own pace when she came out with “I don’t like no confining, I like my freedom.” My blog is observations in an undemocratic world; my short time sitting on that retaining wall outside the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee listening to these two wonderful southern women defines what I am trying to achieve, I only hope I do this moment justice.

Does anyone really seriously believe a diver can not only be awarded an entry-level certification in three days, but a further five dives in two days allows them to be considered an advanced diver?

Apparently PADI, the Professional Association of Diving Instructors does. An advanced diver in less than a week with less than 10 dives logged, all training dives too. But what does this really mean? What do you learn on a PADI advanced diver course to make you an advanced diver? The navigation dive is good, no qualms about that, one dive won’t give you excellent navigation skills, it does introduce the diver to the compass in more detail, navigating a square using distance estimation underwater although I have never used fin strokes in a dive to navigate.

The deep dive is pretty worthless in its current form, anything deeper than 18 metres and no deeper than 30 metres, underwater tasks are more for giving you something to do so you can sell the course as a training dive. Most of the other dives don’t even require in-water or direct supervision. Is a boat dive, underwater photographer dive, fish ID dive, underwater naturalist dive, digital underwater photographer dive, multi-level dive an advanced training dive, the list goes on.

You are only performing only five dives needing a minimum time of 20 minutes per dive and only needing to exceed a depth of 5 metres (with the exception of the deep dive) to log the dive. This is purely a course for dive centres to sell courses to newly certified divers, PADI sells course materials and the certification fee allowing instructors to sell further marginal specialty diver courses. That’s about it.

During business courses, we look at case studies identifying strategy seeking to establish a cause and effect scenario, the question then arose, what then happened to Kodak?

As we know, Kodak was the world’s leading photographic film producer, an iconic global company brandishing a solid reputation before seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States in early 2012. At the height of Kodak’s dominance in the mid 70s; the company held a 90% market share in the United States as well as worldwide market leadership. Eastman Kodak’s main business divisions now include digital printing, graphics, entertainment and commercial film technology, but what happened?

Major rival, Japanese based Fuji Film is not only still operating, the company is actively engaged in the digital photography business. The digital camera market is highly competitive; dominated by the traditional camera manufacturers of Nikon, Canon and Olympus; newer entrants of Lumix, Sony and former competitor Fuji Film add further competitive pressure. Who really uses a Pentax camera anymore?

The modern smartphone boasts an impressive camera and editing options for Samsung, iPhone, Blackberry, HTC and Sony users. Whilst the high quality DSLR will not be replaced for serious photographers anytime soon; both the compact and point and shoot camera market face stiff competition from mobile phone handsets.

Financially struggling throughout 1990s, the severe decline in sales of photographic film coupled with delays transitioning to digital photography technology caused severe financial duress for Kodak. Despite inventing core digital camera technology; Eastman Kodak failed to take advantage of its dominant position rapidly losing market share and revenue – profits diminished quickly.

Nokia is an example of a market leader with a dominant position rapidly losing market share and plunging revenues through slow rollout of technology due to technical issues, Microsoft beat Apple to market setting Apple’s development back years. Microsoft bought out the faltering Nokia handset and smartphone business and has now been eclipsed by Apple.

Early in 2013, court approval was granted allowing refinancing; Eastman Kodak emerged from bankruptcy in mid-2013. Eastman Kodak proceeded to sell numerous patents to competitors including market leaders Samsung, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, HTC and Adobe Systems after attempting to generate revenues through somewhat aggressive patent litigation.

The revitalised strategy now involves Eastman Kodak focusing solely on digital photography and digital printing. During 2012, Eastman Kodak announced the company would no longer manufacture digital cameras, video cameras and digital picture frames, instead focusing on the targeted niche of the corporate digital imaging market.

During 2012, Eastman Kodak announced the sale of photographic film, with the exclusion motion picture film technology, their kiosk operations and commercial scanners to emerge from chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Kodak still exists as a company; however, the restructure saw the company slip from a consumer based enterprise to a business focusing on corporate clients. Will Eastman Kodak under the revamped strategy continue into the future, or will the sale of intellectual property undermine future earnings?

As I travelled through eastern European countries, I became aware a large number of computers were still using the Windows XP operating system. From private shops, hotels and train booking counters; despite the fact Microsoft had withdrawn support for the now outdated software some time ago, the operating system was still in use despite the potential security risks.

Could third parties provide sufficient protection? I work at a state government college, we still used Windows XP right up to just weeks before the Microsoft support ended. I had asked the IT guys two years earlier why we hadn’t upgraded to Windows 7, they replied that this was not a stable platform as yet.

This begs the question, if a company like Microsoft is building obsolescence into their product, why not switch to a provider operating on different fundamentals? Business enterprises like Woolworths are making the switch to the Google operating system, Apple is providing business solutions to rival Microsoft and a host of providers such as Linux and Oracle offer corporate software packages. Why support a company with a business plan that basically shafts you?

I would not consider myself a religious person, the christian organisation World Vision is a worthwhile example of christian principles building hope across the developing world. I view this as an ethical organisation; whilst I don’t identify with their faith but I do identify with the values that this wonderful organisation espouses.

Care Australia, Oxfam, AusAID, Caritas Australia and Childfund Australia are of course worthy charities; I chose World Vision as it sponsors education for children. I feel education will impact on children’s lives leading to improved future outcomes for their regions and a sustainable community. They have low administrative costs, advertising is reasonable, they lose around 21% of funds to internal costs, that offers around 19% to their programs, I am fine with that.

Viewing World Vision’s Australian website, accountability is high as many people are concerned that their donations are spent on high wages and charges in Australia. With slightly under 10% spent on administration, one feels somewhat relaxed in the knowledge the funds are destined for grassroots projects. While I feel people should receive payment for their efforts, no one wants to see a top heavy organisation consisting of highly paid consultants creaming charitable donations – it would appear, this is not the case with World Vision.

Looking at their coverage area, the work of World Vision is truly international, their strategic positioning ensures South America, Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia is represented. I personally believe this is a fantastic organisation, they provide a great service and they look after the needs of children, they are well worth supporting.

This was not my first outing with Bali View Rafting and it is easy to understand why. The hotel pick-up was on time and polite. After a reasonably long drive up to the high ground, checking into the facility is a bit strange. While you receive a small container of bottled water, you just stand around waiting for your guide to introduce himself, formalise payment and provide you with your equipment and the briefing.

That is all forgotten when you shove off and your adventure begins. The guides are good, negotiating their way down the rapids with skill and expertise. At just over 12 km, you can expect to take around 2 hours for your adventure to unfold. Some of the highlights are the stop at the waterfall and the 4 metre drop over the wall. There is a 6 metre drop, however, you disembark just before while the guide pushes the empty raft over the edge and collects it on the other side.

At the end of the trip, a climb up the stairs with paddle and life jacket is all that is needed, the support staff look after the raft while you hit the showers and into dry clothes. Lunch is provided, the guides come around with photographs of your day for sale. I was very happy with our guide and was more than happy to tip him, we had laughs, some spills, plenty of adventure and it was all done safely.

The question of higher education reform initiated through fee deregulation is an emotive issue in Australia, driven by ideological thought, such reforms are not fundamentally about who just pays the bills. It is passionately argued, fee deregulation seeks to change the basic nature of higher education policy in Australia. 

The higher education funding system, implemented by Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies saw the then majority state-funded public universities empowered with the prerogative to serve the public; the argument against private corporations acting as universities, business schools and colleges selling qualifications consumed solely as an individual benefit is somewhat mute. Worldwide data refutes such claims with French provider INSEAD, Swiss IMD, Spanish IE Business School and Lese all well received in the corporate world. Private universities currently operate in Australia, Notre Dame University and the newly certified Torrens University are well received, as are private business schools, such as, the Australian Institute of Business.

The Menzies government more than quadrupled higher education investment; dramatically expanding available provision, building new universities, enhancing existing facilities. Menzies fully understood advancing learning outcomes was socially and personally productive. All Gough Whitlam did was continue carry through with the Menzies government core policy platform, claiming credit along the way. Whitlam’s core principal was to make higher education free for all, an interesting note, it was the Hawke government and not Malcolm Fraser that brought back student fees for higher education.

It is claimed universities serve the public good with a to pursue unprofitable truth, however, we all understand universities are currently run as businesses. After all, they churn out great volumes of business and commerce degrees coupled with highly paid MBAs and Master of Management, lets not forget accounting majors. Menzies argued cultural awakening, rigorous social analysis and scientific discovery would be distorted if approached solely in terms of future financial interest. The last boom turned out graduates walking straight into triple figure salaries, at first opportunity they are lured overseas not paying tax in Australia accumulating personal wealth. These graduates are recruited directly from university, the quality and range of recruitment alone is a selling point for degrees.

But who is subsidising university graduates? It is, of course, the taxpayer, who more than likely never having the opportunity to attend university themselves pays for the individual to increase their personal earning potential. Now, if we have a system where the graduate must work in the public service at a certain (lower) pay grade for a qualifying period or serves the public interest through community work, then yes, I’m all for it. That is the basic nature of an apprenticeship, after all, why should the trades people of Australia subsidise university graduates after four years of low wages themselves, paying tax along the way to give the more fortunate a free ride?

Working at a large government training provider; one would immediately identify a bureaucratic organisation. The first distinction identifies an equal number of public servants as academic staff; the second would be the organisational structure including a governing council, numerous committees with five divisions across six campuses. Ultimately, the frontline services of academic staff actually derive income for the organisation whilst public servants may be viewed as a cost to the organisation; mostly generating no revenue for the organisation.

Moving to an operational level, training delivery is organised in strategic business units (portfolio teams) that operate with a high degree of autonomy. The portfolio teams are very functional in nature, able to quickly respond to the external environment with little input from the formal management. The teams are internally managed in regards to budgets, staffing, rostering and industry liaison. The success of the individual strategic portfolios does not impede the strategic direction of the college.

Furthermore, the divisional directors have a purely strategic role taking a very hands off approach to management issues. As such, the divisional directors do not deal at an operational level taking a more financial role in the organisation. A successful strategic portfolio generally funds the less successful strategic portfolio units in the divisional directors division as money is shuffled around.

A successful strategic portfolio unit loses all of its revenue to a struggling portfolio area. This has a negative effect on the successful portfolio as it loses most opportunities to invest in further growth impeding a sustained income stream over various economic cycles. The greatest motivation for frontline staff is they are generating income for the division; the divisional director does not interfere in a successful strategic business unit for fear of destroying the value the portfolio generates.

The less successful strategic portfolio unit may be unsuccessful for a number of reasons such as it may be part of a declining industry. But the portfolio may also be poorly managed in regards to student contact hours, class sizes, teaching aids, staff development or staff motivation. In such a case, the unsuccessful strategic business unit is rewarded to the detriment of the successful strategic business unit. In terms of pay levels in such a large organisation, the unsuccessful business unit may have the majority of its staff on higher pay levels than the staff of the successful business unit.

The long term effects of a successful strategic business unit propping up an unsuccessful business unit decreases motivation in both business units. The successful business unit sees no advantage to operational efficiencies resulting a decline in innovation, efficiencies and motivation. The question always asked is “why should we work harder when we seen no benefit for our effort?”

Having just completed my latest online course on Foundations of Business Strategy at the Darden School of Business of the University of Virginia, I feel the ongoing experiment of online learning is gaining traction.

While I may not have engaged in the case studies directly due to backpacking through Europe at the time, I feel I reinforced already gained knowledge through strategic management courses previously undertaken. I downloaded and watched all video lectures when offline on planes, buses and trains; I read the downloaded chapters made available from the reference book and reviewed the discussion forums when online.

For the six weeks the course ran a weekly case study from Google Inc, Redhook Beer Company Inc, Apple Computer Inc, Sony Playstation 4, Piaggo and The Walt Disney Company ensured the class applied the learning in a traditional business educational environment. Analysis included SWOT, value chain, competitor, environmental, five forces, competitive life cycle, capability, strategy maps and diversification matrices.

The class had in excess of 90,000 enrolled students across the globe, the discussion forums were lively reinforcing learning with such a diverse backgrounds. I found this course beneficial as much of my personal strategic management learning was done via textbooks, this was reinforcement and I was glad I spent the time to review current business strategy.