Adonis Diaries

Archive for April 27th, 2018

Downgraded Gypsy; (Apr. 17, 2010)

I am a hero… Where’s my people?

I am a traitor… Where’s my scaffold?

I am a pair of shoes… Where’s my road?

I walk Downtown mixing with busy souls

I am in no hurry; the masses don’t carry me:

I am a leader and I am searching for my way.


I rest a while on the pavement; is it illegal?

I rest my eating tin plate by my side;

I learned to recognize the chimes of dimes and nickels falling in the plate

I don’t complain; I say thanks when I feel reprieve tired of my condition.


I am a downgraded gypsy who burned his caravan

Quit my clan, lured by greed in the city.

I extend my arms, feeling for a sheltered wall

What’s a clear stream to a blind deer?

What’s horizon to a caged bird?

My ears learned to screen off piercing sounds

I can’t hear the wailing of bereaved mothers

I can’t hear the howling of frenzied mobs


I hear the moaning of latent pains permeating the smog

I hear the soft whistling of permanent suffering

Converging from all directions

From far away scorched lands.


Slaves chewed off their chains:

They are nostalgic for chains smelling molding bread.

Up north terrors; down south famine;

Dusty winds are clouding the east; and crows are obscuring the western horizon.


A little girl is sitting by this modern gypsy;

She dips her left small hand in a little bag and takes out a handful of dirt;

She grabs the dirt containing a strange specimen of earth wealth;

Dirt holding half a wing of a butterfly, a decapitated bee,

Shreds of shrapnel of cluster bombs,

A whiff of blood, a stench of urine;


Concentrated dirt of fear, human degradation,

Contaminated greed of a dying earth.

No more revolutions, no drastic changes,

No activities demanding eternal God given human rights;

Mankind is on his knees, in abject humiliation

Begging pardon of his executioner

For the swiftest relief.

Note: I borrowed a few images from the late Syrian poet Mohammad al Maghout.

How come the most cultured Syrian Nation failed to stop the successive occupation forces?

Note: The Syrian Nation or Levant (current Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and the western part of the Euphrates River) are homogeneous people with same language, traditions, customs and high level of education and culture. Most warrior empires , since antiquity, managed to occupy the Levant and transferred its talented people to their countries in order to build a civilization they badly needed.

The flourishing dozen of City-States along the Mediterranean Sea and the major rivers were targeted for looting and trading with them. But all these City-States were autonomous and barely constituted a central power to oppose any invading warrior army. In most cases, these City-States became the most valued cities, after the Capital of the invader.

Damascus became the Capital of the Omayyad dynasty.

Aleppo was the second most important city to the Ottoman Empire.

Beirut was the legislating center for the Roman Empire

Tyr was the administrative center for most of Palestine during the Greek/Seleucid Empire

Byblos was the main trading port for Egypt

The Babylonians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Persia, Greek, Rome, Byzantium, Arab, Crusaders, Mogul, Mameluke, Ottoman and French mandated power, as well as mandated England.

The geography (topography) of the land played a major part for easy invasion of well armed invaders:  Once the mountain ranges on the borders are crossed, there are but plains and open land.

The urban centers didn’t manage to conglomerate into a central State, among a spread and range of various religious sects and minorities, due to successive invasions and settlement of the occupiers with their own customs and culture and language and religious beliefs.

The guerrilla warfare being a modern concept.

Saida withstood 13 years of siege by the Assyrians and won.

Tyr withstood 6 months of Alexander siege and was defeated when the surrounding city-states supplied Alexander with a maritime fleet.

Kamal Nader wants to focus on the recent history, since the Mogul till now, and find out , “scientifically and with facts”, why this Nation failed miserably in opposing occupiers?

Actually, Syria confronted the French mandated power, and the French institutions were taught to hate the Syrian people for their opposition. France gave away to Turkey Syrian lands as vast as current Syria State.

England was confronted by the Palestinians and between 1935-38, the Palestinian waged a civil disobedience (Intifada) movement that forced England to dispatch 100,000 troops to quell the insurrection. Nazi Germany learned the torture techniques adopted by the British on the Palestinians.

Currently, the Lebanese resistance movement forced Israel to retreat from Beirut into the south. And the newly founded Hezbollah forced Israel to withdraw in 2000 from South Lebanon without any pre-conditions. In 2006, Israel was Not even able to enter more than 4 km within Lebanon and had to beg USA to agree on a cease fire, after 33 days of fighting.

Hezbollah and the Lebanese army chased out the Islamic terrorist factions of Daesh and Al Nusra from Lebanon eastern mountain chains.

Currently, The Syrian people and its army managed to defeat ISIS and most terrorist factions, and regained most of its territory. This international war on Syria was checked and the re-conquest is moving ahead.

عندما اقرأ تاريخ بلادنا وارى المجازر وحروب الابادة التي تعرض لها شعب هذه البلاد الحضارية الكريمة ، ازداد اقتناعاً واصراراً على تحقيق نهضتها وبناء قوتها في كل المجالات السياسية والاقتصادية العسكرية والثقافية والاجتماعية ، لأن ذلك يكون الامان والحصن لوجودها ولتقدمها وارتفاع مستوى حياتها .
وفي هذه الفترة من الحروب ومن تذكارات المجازر ارى اننا امام اسئلة مصيرية جديرة بالبحث الجدي والعلمي بناء على منهج بحثي رصين وجاد ، وليس من نوع المقال العاطفي السريع الأثر والسريع الزوال .
هنا اطرح عدداً من الاسئلة :
1. لماذا سقطت بلادنا امام الفتوحات والغزوات منذ المغول الى العثمانيين والى اليوم ؟
2. ما هي الصلة بين العثمانيين والمغول ؟
3 . اذا كنا قد فوجئنا بالغزوة الاولى المغولية سنة 1258 فلماذا لم نستعد لما جاء بعدها من غزوتين مدمرتين ، ولماذا استطاع المماليك هزم المغول في عين جالوت بينما الامة السورية لم تشكل اي مقاومة في وجه المغول ؟
4. لماذا جاء الصليبيون الى بلادنا ودخلوها بسهولة قبل المغول ؟
5.عندما قام والي مصر محمد علي باشا بالانفصال عن السلطنة العثمانية ودعمته فرنسا بالسلاح الحديث وارسل حملةً بقيادة ابنه ابراهيم باشا الى بلادنا فهزمت العثمانيين وطردتهم من سنة 1829 الى سنة 1840 ، كيف تصرف ابناء الامة السورية تجاه هذا الصراع ؟
6. وصلت الحملة المصرية الى تركيا وكادت تسقط الآستانة سنة 1839 بعد معركة “قونية ” حيث قتل الصدر الاعظم محمد رشيد باشا ، لماذا توقفت الحملة ولم تسقط السلطنة ؟
7.تدخلت الدول الاوروبية الكبرى ، بريطانيا وبروسيا والنمسا وروسيا واجبرت ابراهيم باشا على التراجع عن اسية الصغرى وعن سورية بعد معاهدة لندن ، واعادت احياء تركيا المريضة والمتهالكة ، فارتد الجيش العثماني علينا وانتقم منا بمجازر حصلت سنة 1840 و43 و1860 وشملت جبل لبنان ودمشق والجبال الساحلية ، فلماذا تركناهم يعملون فينا سيوفهم ولم نقاومهم ؟
8.قتلت تركيا اكثر من 3 ملايين سوري بين ارمني وسرياني واشوري وارثوذكسي ، فلماذا لم يقاوم هؤلاء ؟ ولو ان عشرة بالمئة منهم شكلوا مقاومة لما كانت المجازر تحصد هذا العدد الكبير والمذهل .كما ان اهل جبل لبنان لم يسلموا من الابادة بطريقة الحصار والمجاعة على يد جمال باشا السفاح والسفر برلك خلال الحرب العالمية الاولى .
9. لماذا لم تتدخل روسيا وارمينيا وفرنسا لوقف هذه المجازر ؟
10. اين هم ابناء هذه الامة احفاد ضحايا المجازر من حركة النهضة والمقاومة ولماذا تقتصر المقاومة على شرائح معينة بينما الآخرون يهاجرون او يتفرجون ؟
11. الغزوة الاسرائيلية الاطلسية كررت فصول المجازر والقتل اليومي وها هم العرب يدعمونها بينما ايران الفارسية الاسلامية تدعم المقاومة في لبنان وسورية عموماً والارض المحتلة فما هوسبب الفارق بين الموقف العربي والموقف الايراني والروسي ؟

اعود الى القول اننا بحاجة الى مؤتمر لدرس هذا التاريخ بمنهج علمي وبناء على المعرفة والوقائع وليس على العواطف قهل من يسعى الى تنظيم هكذا عمل كبير وعلمي ومهم ؟

ملاحظة : الرجاء من الاصدقاء على الصفحات ان يلتزموا المنهج العلمي والتأريخي في الردود والتعليقات .

Consulting on the Cusp of Disruption

The pattern of industry disruption is familiar: New competitors with new business models arrive; incumbents choose to ignore the new players or to flee to higher-margin activities; a disrupter whose product was once barely good enough… achieves a level of quality acceptable to the broad middle of the market, undermining the position of longtime leaders and often causing the “flip” to a new basis of competition.

Clayton M. Christensen, Dina Wang, and Derek van Bever published in the October 2013 Harvard Business Review Magazine:

In 2007, after years of debate and study, McKinsey & Company initiated a series of business model innovations that could reshape the way the global consulting firm engages with clients.

One of the most intriguing of these is McKinsey Solutions, software and technology-based analytics and tools that can be embedded at a client, providing ongoing engagement outside the traditional project-based model.

McKinsey Solutions marked the first time the consultancy unbundled its offerings and focused so heavily on hard knowledge assets.

Although McKinsey and other consulting firms have gone through many waves of change—from generalist to functional focus, from local to global structures, from tightly structured teams to spider-webs of remote experts—the launch of McKinsey Solutions is dramatically different:  it is not grounded in deploying human capital.

Why would a firm whose primary value proposition is judgment-based and bespoke diagnoses should invest in such a departure when its core business was thriving?

For starters, McKinsey Solutions might enable shorter projects that provide clearer ROI and protect revenue and market share during economic downturns. And embedding proprietary analytics at a client can help the firm stay “top of mind” between projects and generate leads for future engagements.

While these commercial benefits were most likely factors in McKinsey’s decision, we believe that the driving force is almost certainly larger: McKinsey Solutions is intended to provide a strong hedge against potential disruption.

In our research and teaching at Harvard Business School, we emphasize the importance of looking at the world through the lens of theory—that is, of understanding the forces that bring about change and the circumstances in which those forces are operative: what causes what to happen, when and why.

Disruption is one such theory, but we teach several others, encompassing such areas as customer behavior, industry development, and human motivation.

Over the past year we have been studying the professional services, especially consulting and law, through the lens of these theories to understand how they are changing and why.

We’ve spoken extensively with more than 50 leaders of incumbent and emerging firms, their clients, and academics and researchers who study them.

In May 2013, we held a roundtable at HBS on the disruption of the professional services to encourage greater dialogue and debate on this subject.

We have come to the conclusion that the same forces that disrupted so many businesses, from steel to publishing, are starting to reshape the world of consulting. The implications for firms and their clients are significant.

The pattern of industry disruption is familiar: New competitors with new business models arrive; incumbents choose to ignore the new players or to flee to higher-margin activities; a disrupter whose product was once barely good enough… achieves a level of quality acceptable to the broad middle of the market, undermining the position of longtime leaders and often causing the “flip” to a new basis of competition.

Early signs of this pattern in the consulting industry include increasingly sophisticated competitors with nontraditional business models that are gaining acceptance.

Although these upstarts are as yet nowhere near the size and influence of big-name consultancies like McKinsey, Bain, and Boston Consulting Group (BCG), the incumbents are showing vulnerability.

For example, at traditional strategy-consulting firms, the share of work that is classic strategy has been steadily decreasing and is now about 20%, down from 60% to 70% some 30 years ago, according to Tom Rodenhauser, the managing director of advisory services at Kennedy Consulting Research & Advisory.

Big consulting is also questioning its sacred cows: We spoke to a partner at one large firm who anticipates that the percentage of projects employing value-based pricing instead of per diem billing will go from the high single digits to a third of the business within 20 years. Even McKinsey, as we have seen, is pursuing innovation with unusual speed and vigor.

Though the full effects of disruption have yet to hit consulting, our observations suggest that it’s just a matter of time.

Why Consulting Was Immune for So Long?

1. Management consulting’s fundamental business model has not changed in more than 100 years.

2. It has always involved sending smart outsiders into organizations for a finite period of time and asking them to recommend solutions for the most difficult problems confronting their clients.

3. Some experienced consultants we interviewed scoffed at the suggestion of disruption in their industry, noting that (life and change being what they are) clients will always face new challenges. Their reaction is understandable, because two factors—opacity and agility—have long made consulting immune to disruption.

Like most other professional services, consulting is highly opaque compared with manufacturing-based companies. The most prestigious firms have evolved into “solution shops” whose recommendations are created in the black box of the team room. (See the exhibit “Consulting: Three Business Models.”)

It’s incredibly difficult for clients to judge a consultancy’s performance in advance, because they are usually hiring the firm for specialized knowledge and capability that they themselves lack.

It’s even hard to judge after a project has been completed, because so many external factors, including quality of execution, management transition, and the passage of time, influence the outcome of the consultants’ recommendations.

As a result, a critical mechanism of disruption is disabled.

Consulting: Three Business Models

Clayton M. Christensen is the Kim B. Clark Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. Dina Wang, formerly an engagement manager at McKinsey & Company, was a fellow at the Forum for Growth and Innovation at Harvard Business School and has just returned to the firm. Derek van Bever,a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School, is the director of the Forum for Growth and Innovation and was a member of the founding executive team of the advisory firm CEB.




April 2018

Blog Stats

  • 1,522,330 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 770 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: