Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Why you go from corporations to the hypercorp structure

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
Why you go from corporations to the hypercorp structure
Yesterday, I attended a conference by an economics professor. It was about a game theoretical analysis of how companies carry out divestitures (selling off assets, branches or business units). A very interesting part was a motivation for why you'd sell a business unit: organizational gains. It might be better for the parent company, because the unit incurs costs on the parent, not just money but also taking time away from the executive team. The unit itself might also be better off as independt, because the parent incurred costs on it - it was slow making decisions because there were additional management layers on top as decisions had to go to the parent company, and this also reduced motivation in the unit's executive team as they didn't feel responsible for what happened. In fact, studies show a conglomerate effect - large companies are typically valued 12-15% less on the stock market compared to the expected worth of the company listed as individual units! There was also a lot about information asymmetry - for example, management buy-outs typically performed incredibly well, presumably because the unit executives knows the potential better than the parent's executives, and much better than any other buyer. Again, when a unit is undervalued in the market and internally, the best price and value add, for both buyer and seller, is to divest it. All of this speaks towards the hypercorp model in EP. Of course, there are industrial gains which gives good reasons for already big companies to grow and/or acquire companies - economies of scale, synergies, etc. - and today this means that often an industrial buyer is the one willing to pay the most for the unit*. But if advanced production methods make economies of scale irrelevant, and a highly networked business environment means you can just as well achieve synergies through that, then you're left with no real advantages in being big, only disadvantages. * Interestingly enough, it turns out that low performing units tend to sell for cash, while high performance units tend to sell for stocks in the buyer's company. Again, a networked structure with joint operations.
Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture
Re: Why you go from corporations to the hypercorp structure
Cool. And I would assume in creative industries the economies of scale are really different from industry: a lot of the value resides in social networks and a nimble understanding of them, while issues of web design, hosting etc. can be outsourced. Thanks to advanced manufacturing more and more industry becomes a service or a creative activity, and hypercorps make more sense. The problem and benefit with sf is that it often describes the present more than the future.
Extropian
Quincey Forder Quincey Forder's picture
Re: Why you go from corporations to the hypercorp structure
so, compaired to a traditional corporation, how does the daily operation look like in an hypercorps and/or modular enterprise? What is it like for the baseline employees and blue collars of this or that branch ?
[center] Q U I N C E Y ^_*_^ F O R D E R [/center] Remember The Cant! [img]http://tinyurl.com/h8azy78[/img] [img]http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg205/tachistarfire/theeye_fanzine_us...
Demonseed Elite Demonseed Elite's picture
Re: Why you go from corporations to the hypercorp structure
A lot of the recent articles analyzing Facebook also make me think of hypercorps. In particular, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/technology/facebooks-direction-may-be-... article from the New York Times[/url] about Facebook's acquisition strategy, which largely consists of rapid and nimble acquisitions that focus more on the talent (engineers, software developers) than the product or the company being acquired.
"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards." --The White Queen, [i]Through The Looking-Glass[/i] [img]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_zGgz13n3uzE/TWWPdvGig-I/AAAAAAAACI8/y...
Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture
Re: Why you go from corporations to the hypercorp structure
Quincey Forder wrote:
so, compaired to a traditional corporation, how does the daily operation look like in an hypercorps and/or modular enterprise? What is it like for the baseline employees and blue collars of this or that branch ?
I would imagine it as largely like current work in a project-oriented company. You tend to work together with other people as a module, but this module might actually be a company on its own. In some cases everybody is a consultant or hired out as a temp, put into semi-permanent modules that may (if they are successful) tend to recur or persist, in turn linked into larger projects that may also have their structure reappear if they worked well for some purpose.
Extropian