4 ms·

Anyone who thinks most companies do things the same ways has never worked more than 1-2 places. The only thing that's the same across companies is some broad g

by Aloha 4y ago

Anyone who thinks most companies do things the same ways has never worked more than 1-2 places. The only thing that's the same across companies is some broad generalizations, basically coming down to GAAP and HR. Everything else varies a whole lot. Even with GAAP there is a large degree of variance, like - how does project accounting work, is it paid at the end or percent of completion? Do you capitalize engineering costs, or is it considered an operating expense? Ordering and ERP is another huge source of variation, do you use dummy (sales) part numbers? Is internal listed cost fully burdened - or is that accounted for separately? How are part numbers organized? Expense and reimbursement policy is another source of variation, a wild amount. Just nuts and bolts about how you book, are all different. Do you use a corporate credit card or get reimbursed? Nevermind entertainment policy. Basic stuff like is your org chart people orientated, job oriented or process oriented? IT policy, internal communications styles and policy, how sales works, it's all different.

vasco 4y ago
I think you underestimate how different it used to be. You're describing variations within the same frameworks. The frameworks didn't used to exist.
- Aloha 4y ago
  I've studied business histories, a bunch of them - they're not just frameworks, they're entirely different ways of thinking about the problem. Business have needed to solve mostly the same internal structural, reporting, accountability and accounting issues since the industrial revolution - none of this is really new. The first great change was double entry bookkeeping, then the telegraph and telephone increased the size and scope of businesses, and allowed centralized control, then tabulating machines allowed easier data processing and statistical analysis, computers came and allowed higher complexity, then teleconferencing allowing more distribution, and so on. If you have an example of what you're talking about I'd love to read it.
  - vasco 4y ago
    Maybe a couple that come to mind: > Businesses reporting GAAP vs before GAAP existed. > Businesses working towards ISO / SOC type certifications vs before these existed Just those two things, financial regulations and compliance frameworks have made businesses operate much more similarly in broad strokes than before these existed. The original argument you replied to is that over time, businesses have become more similar, and I think these things have made businesses way more similar. You're a public company you report on the same metrics now. Before there was any regulation or even a stock market, businesses operated way more differently and you would have to learn everything by being there.
    - Aloha 4y ago
      I've worked in ISO companies and non-ISO companies. ISO 9000 (I think 9000, it might be 9001) is less about standardization and more about documentation - you can use any process you want to produce a result provided it is adequately documented, and reproducible, the process can be anything you like so long as its a documented one. Similarly, you can deviate from that process all you like, provided you document those exceptions and why they were made.
kortilla 4y ago
> Expense and reimbursement policy is another source of variation, a wild amount. Just nuts and bolts about how you book, are all different. Do you use a corporate credit card or get reimbursed? >Nevermind entertainment policy. You’re describing incredibly superficial differences because you’re used to a world where businesses all operate very similarly. Those “broad generalizations” like GAAP you hand-waved over did not use to be standard. One of the early appeals of a company listed by the NYSE was an attempt to standardize some of that so you could even try to guess what you were buying into. That still had to be tweaked after Enron with SOX. The fact that you can generally count on there being an HR or accounting department/role at companies is a form of this standardization.
- Aloha 4y ago
  Before HR there was a Personnel department, and before Accounting there was a comptroller, accountant, or some other person doing the books (even if it was the President of the company. GAAP based on my reading is as much an outgrowth of regulation post 1929 as it is anything else. It's less about standardization and more about accountability. Even now though, with good reason one does not have to comply with GAAP, so long as you have a good reason to depart from it.

by Aloha 4y ago

vasco 4y ago

I think you underestimate how different it used to be. You're describing variations within the same frameworks. The frameworks didn't used to exist.

Aloha 4y ago
I've studied business histories, a bunch of them - they're not just frameworks, they're entirely different ways of thinking about the problem. Business have needed to solve mostly the same internal structural, reporting, accountability and accounting issues since the industrial revolution - none of this is really new. The first great change was double entry bookkeeping, then the telegraph and telephone increased the size and scope of businesses, and allowed centralized control, then tabulating machines allowed easier data processing and statistical analysis, computers came and allowed higher complexity, then teleconferencing allowing more distribution, and so on. If you have an example of what you're talking about I'd love to read it.
- vasco 4y ago
  Maybe a couple that come to mind: > Businesses reporting GAAP vs before GAAP existed. > Businesses working towards ISO / SOC type certifications vs before these existed Just those two things, financial regulations and compliance frameworks have made businesses operate much more similarly in broad strokes than before these existed. The original argument you replied to is that over time, businesses have become more similar, and I think these things have made businesses way more similar. You're a public company you report on the same metrics now. Before there was any regulation or even a stock market, businesses operated way more differently and you would have to learn everything by being there.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    I've worked in ISO companies and non-ISO companies. ISO 9000 (I think 9000, it might be 9001) is less about standardization and more about documentation - you can use any process you want to produce a result provided it is adequately documented, and reproducible, the process can be anything you like so long as its a documented one. Similarly, you can deviate from that process all you like, provided you document those exceptions and why they were made.

kortilla 4y ago

> Expense and reimbursement policy is another source of variation, a wild amount. Just nuts and bolts about how you book, are all different. Do you use a corporate credit card or get reimbursed? >Nevermind entertainment policy. You’re describing incredibly superficial differences because you’re used to a world where businesses all operate very similarly. Those “broad generalizations” like GAAP you hand-waved over did not use to be standard. One of the early appeals of a company listed by the NYSE was an attempt to standardize some of that so you could even try to guess what you were buying into. That still had to be tweaked after Enron with SOX. The fact that you can generally count on there being an HR or accounting department/role at companies is a form of this standardization.

Aloha 4y ago
Before HR there was a Personnel department, and before Accounting there was a comptroller, accountant, or some other person doing the books (even if it was the President of the company. GAAP based on my reading is as much an outgrowth of regulation post 1929 as it is anything else. It's less about standardization and more about accountability. Even now though, with good reason one does not have to comply with GAAP, so long as you have a good reason to depart from it.