“Complexify Me”
Unified Business Model Canvas (UBMC) (I & II)
Rationale for this second, unified business model
Re the business model canvas in two parts I published not long ago:
The first was located in one or two countries and was entirely architectured on existing infrastructure.
The second scoped the holding, HQ, and research arm, and was to be located in Scandinavia — specifically Sweden.
I'm now developing a unified business model canvas (#ubmc) for an entity still in two parts (subsidiary and holding both), but with the proposal that it be only located in Scandinavia.
This would benefit investment, operations, strategic matters, and business & organisational cultures.
It shall preserve the hermetism proposed between traditional development projects and workstreams and their workforces on the one hand and #secrecypositive researchers on the other, in much the same ways as have already been sketched out in the initial "several countries" business model canvas-set.
This means Workstream A would deliver 100-day rapid app development roadmaps and cycles only, in existing #privacysensitive (or less) frameworks: what IT tech has chosen to deliver for a while, so no culture or praxis problems here.
Meantime, Workstreams C and D will move from #secrecysensitive to #secrecypositive in an ecosystem — both Sweden and a wider Scandinavia — which are capable of embracing such ideas (always within a specification of #totalsurveillance compliance).
It's suggested these latter two will communicate with Workstream A via a hybrid Workstream B.
This will have a #privacypositive mindset and delivery: more in accordance with the pan-European trends triggered initially by movements such as #gdpr, but also by others now directed more squarely at an #ai of automating and copyright-infringing natures.
I've pulled this new #ubmc canvas-set together below.
The what of this second, unified business model for “Complexify Me”
Here I propose a One-Business structure with unitary HQ located in Sweden:
Single Business — Part A. A Swedish-located subsidiary of more or less autonomous entity, exclusively focused on delivering “intuition validation engine”-powered products with existing tech software and hardware architectures only:
Innovation to Invention ratio: 5 to 0
Privacy level: privacy-sensitive (or less) (complying necessarily with GDPR for example, but operating in a global context too as far as product and digital service delivery is concerned)
US big-tech support in respect of infrastructure; Sweden- and Europe-located partners and investment; Sweden-vetted agency & government stakeholders and related clients in respect of other nation-state actors
I'm of a mind for this to be a mostly or entirely autonomous operation of the main AB holding which will be located in Sweden, as long as the focus and mission throughout is sharply on innovating “intuition validation” within the boundaries of total surveillance-compliant technologies, current IT architectures of admin/user, and existing principles of chip architectures and similar
As a result, NO research or radically new IP is to be generated by this entity: 100-day rapid app development roadmaps and cycles only
Business relationship with the main Sweden-located HQ, holding, and research lab: licensee
No cross-pollination between workforces of the two entities as far as praxis is concerned
The function of this first entity is to generate revenues and profitability rapidly using existing software, operating systems, platforms and chip architectures
Single Business — Part Two. The Sweden-located holding itself would then be entirely focused on Workstreams C and D — secrecy-sensitive and secrecy-positive respectively, with their corresponding architectural starting-from-scratch approach:
Workstream B would consequently serve as a point of encounter — and also departure, in a way, for some involved — which would feel comfortable for Workstream A stakeholders and partners in 0 Invention tech spaces, but would equally allow them from their positions of entirely safe orthodoxy to begin to acquire practical notions and interpretations of “intuition validation” principles, being developed more strategically in Workstreams C and D. In D, for example, we're talking of an Innovation to Invention ratio of 0 to 5.
So here we have Workstream B — serving the purpose of a commonality between Ratio 5:0 in favour of Innovation (Workstream A) at one end of the technology-development spectrum and Ratio 0:5 in favour of Invention (Workstream D) at the other:
Business Model Canvas — “Complexify Me” Sweden (100-day rapid app development roadmaps and cycles only)
Business Model Canvas — “Complexify Me HQ, Holding & Lab” Sweden, plus its Partners of choice
Like to find out more — or just engage and comment?
Scroll down and click the contact button — or find me on LinkedIn:
Whether you’d like to join one of the Workstreams or the wider project in some capacity, take part more deeply in some way, or just have some observations you feel could — or maybe should — be made, please do engage in the way you feel most comfortable.
Mil Williams, Founder and Tech Thinker: