Corporate Cockpit Technologies as a Natural Monopoly

Arguably the most significant impact of CCTT on corporate management worldwide is establishment of a natural monopoly on corporate management technologies.

CCTT building blocks – corporate objects – have been around for a long time. So are their KPI. And optimal corporate processes based on best corporate management practices. And the bulk of CBA questions as well – as they are based on more or less established due diligence process (although we did significantly expand and modified the CBA questionnaire).

The key advantage of CCTT is the way to structure these building blocks into a standard type- and industry-specific corporate objects repository (SCORE) and a system of visual diagrams that together constitute a comprehensive corporate cockpit solution for a particular organization that allows it to make a quantum leap in its aggregate performance.

In this particular context, natural monopoly means that it makes practical (operational and economic) sense to have just one such system to be used by organization and management consultants to make a quantum leap in corporate performance via CBA and SCR.

The proof that CCTT are, indeed, the natural monopoly in the area of corporate management technologies (CMT), is provided by answers to two fundamental questions. First, is there any other CMT on the market capable of facilitating truly comprehensive CBT and SCR and thus a truly radical quantum leap? And second, will someone come up with an alternative CMT after CCTT are made public and introduced into corporate management? The one that can be introduced and promoted without violating copyright restrictions?

The answer to the first question is a firm No. We have conducted and extensive study of CMT worldwide and are completely confident that there is no such technology on the market today.

The second question is just a little bit trickier. In order to not violate copyright restrictions, the alternative technology must both be radically different from CCTT and produce the same result. The first issue is that it is far from certain that such a feat is, indeed, possible. The second issue is it most likely will take at least as much time and effort to develop an alternative technology as it was to develop the original one (which took 15 years, mind you).

The third issue is essentially a question: who would want to undertake such an endeavor and, most importantly, why? The only realistic developer of an alternative CMT would be an individual or a small team of management consultants and/or software developers, they might be interested in incorporating these technologies in their software product (alternative to Sophie) to either attract venture investment or sell it outright to a major buyer. 

Their success is highly unlikely because (as this project is extremely complicated) it will take them years to come up with the workable alternative. And by that time CCTT will already rule the world. And for an organization – management consulting company or a software vendor – it will be far easier to license CCTT as an “early bird” or buy it outright than to spend a lot of time, money and effort on an alternative technology.