M.I.R.A.G.E

“The Art of Persuasion - How to Influence People and Get What You Want” is written by an international communication coach named Juliet Erickson. In this book the author tries to show how one can use their powers of persuasion to achieve whatever one wants. It is quite general in its approach with strategies, guidelines and concrete tips on the field of communication that can be applied in various kinds of situations. But the need for good communication skills and the essence of it in the area of marketing and selling is a major focus throughout the entire book. Since marketing, selling and persuading all kinds of people are substantial parts of a manager’s actual work, I decided to read this book to see if it contains information of any practical use.

“To be able to communicate as we want, so that we can achieve our goals, is the greatest challenge we can ever be put in front of” according to Erickson. She points out that whatever we want to achieve, persuasive communication will constitute a great part of it; communication is simply a central part of life – of everyone’s life.

After the introduction and the slightly exaggerated and dramatized significance of communication, Erickson describes the most basic and core elements of different kinds of communication. This is the first of three chapters and contains a lot valuable general tips on aspects to consider when talking, listening, establishing a good foundation for a continued relationship and so on. It raises awareness of unconscious communication like body language, facial expressions etc. The main principles of effective communication are, shortly put, as follows:

1. Forget about the rules
2. Establish good relations
3. Be yourself
4. Focus on the individual
5. Be unambiguous
6. Actions communicate more than words
7. Be present

The first principle says that an approach that works well in a given situation does not necessarily have to work well in another; something that convinces one person may not convince another. So the lesson from this is to not generalize too much and to be flexible and adapt information and communicate in a customized way that suits the specific situation and receiver. The second principle states that it is crucial to establish good relations for a rich and extensive exchange from other people. This rule naturally leads to the presence of the third principle that describes the need to be yourself in order to appear credible and be able to stay consistent and reliable in the eyes of others. This does not mean that one should not put effort into work, be sloppy or show up in pyjamas for meetings. It means that you should behave in a way that feels natural and reflects your personality.

The fourth principle is, very simply put, that you must focus on reaching out to the specific individual you are communicating with and not focus too much on yourself, and if you are talking to a crowd you should see the individual and not just consider the listeners as one “bunch of people”. The fifth principle raises the awareness of unconscious communication and how to make this part more aligned with the conscious communication and how to control it, so that you do not send out mixed signals. If you are acting ambiguously the listeners will be confused and might even comprehend your unconscious signals more than your thought-out message, which would mean that you are sabotaged by your own unconscious communication part. The sixth principle expresses the need for involvement of other aspects than only the spoken word for attaining effective communication. People are more affected by who you are and how you behave than of what you actually say. Behaviour, looks, gestures and unspoken empathy are all important aspects to take into consideration when communicating.

The seventh principle stresses the importance of being mentally presence when communicating with someone. A lot of people are daydreaming, remembering, planning and thinking about other things than what they are discussing when having a chat with someone. This is much more noticeable and annoying than these people might think. So for everyone that can relate to this and know that they do this regularly, Erickson tells them to stop this behaviour immediately. This habit is extremely rude and is often considered nonchalant and disrespectful from others.

In the second chapter Erickson presents more detailed instructions on how to act, what specific things to consider and how to read what other people communicate and express, beyond their actual spoken words. This chapter is divided into very clever parts that can be read independently from each other, but the parts still appear in a logical and thought through order. This chapter describes for example how to control your body, how to ask good questions, how to deal with unexpected meetings, how to deal with weird situations, how to deal with bullies etc. The reasoning and tips are substantiated with vivid descriptions and pedagogic examples. This is the largest and most useful chapter; the first chapter is too basic and contains a lot of obvious elements and the third chapter is merely a short guide on how to prepare yourself towards a defining and crucial moment.

In conclusion, this book is very easy to read and consist of a lot of obvious aspects, but also a lot of useful tips that can be of help for almost everyone, especially people who want to improve their communication skills and become more aware of effective communication. It is concise and all the clarifying “cases” can be justified. It is full of neither too much examples nor too advanced theory, and I would recommend it to everyone.

/Sinthu

American gangster is a movie, based on a true story, about Harlem’s biggest heroin dealer Frank Lucas, played with exceptional credibility by Denzel Washington. It was released 23 November 2007 and became one of the top movies of 2007. The viewers also get to follow the work of Richie Roberts, a policeman dedicated to overthrowing Frank’s criminal empire. The movie deals with a lot of interesting issues and aspects to embark on and analyze. The ethical perspective is only one of these to mention. But I will focus on and analyse Frank Lucas’ leadership, his way of operating his business, dealing with his colleagues and other managerial aspects.

Frank Lucas is the driver, accountant and “right hand” of a crime boss until he dies and leaves Frank with uncollected lendings and a respectfully large criminal business. Frank steps in with determination and makes this business grow, develop and take market shares from competing criminal organizations. With his background as accountant, his knowledge and experience of the business and impressive management skills he becomes incredibly successful.

Frank expands the business both horizontally and vertically. He builds a solid and complete supply chain management system[1]; taking direct contact with a producer of heroine in Vietnam, assembling a party of corrupt military aviators to fly the heroine to USA, organizing a packaging facility and even establishing contact with local dealers. He has maximum control of the heroine he sells; all the way from producers, suppliers and distributors toward end-users. Some of his actions seem to have inspirational roots from the “Toyota way”, where he tries to cut all unnecessary cost, strive towards high quality in the products and reward/punish good/bad behaviour among his employees.

His leadership is very strict, consistent and clear. He gives detailed instructions and expects the instructions to be carried out accordingly. This might leave little space for his followers’ creativity, but in the business he operates it is probably more important to get things done by applying best-practice and for him to know how activities are performed throughout the entire organization, rather than to let followers experiment and learn by trial and error. There is simply no room for errors and therefore the creativity among the followers is in some aspects hampered. According to a leadership model described by Kristina Palm in one of her lectures about situation adapted leadership, the leader should be more instructing towards less competent employees and more delegating towards more competent employees. In Franks case, he is much more experienced and competent than most of his closest employees that consist of his relatives that are totally new to the business. So his instructive approach seems to be correct and also coincide with the situation based leadership model. His consistency combined with his stability makes him predictable and easy to understand for his closest co-workers which grant them a level of safety which I think is a major advantage, both for them and for Frank.

Frank himself is an ingenious leader with many clever ideas and innovative ways of conducting his business and he is seemingly the mastermind who plans every little move of all of his employees in detail. But with such a large organization this would be impossible, and if you look more carefully you will detect that Frank delegates responsibility among his more senior and trusted employees.

Frank strives to minimize levels of hierarchy so that he is not to far from the employee on “the floor” or in this case “the streets”. But by using relatives as trustworthy body guards and middle-managers he stays anonymous as far as possible to minimize the risk of being snatched on. In this way he both maximizes the reaction speed of the organization by eliminating abundant levels of managers and minimizes misunderstandings towards the “bottom-employees”.

Frank is very self motivated and his strongest motivational factor seems to be an inner stimulus from conducting his business in an efficient way. This is intrinsic motivation in contrast to what seems to be the most important motivational factor among his employees, making a lot of money by performing their job which is extrinsic motivation. Many psychological studies show that intrinsic motivation is stronger and more long-lasting than extrinsic motivation[2]. This can be applied in our case resulting in the conclusion that Frank is driven by a stronger motivation than his employees, and this might also be an explanation to why he never settles with all his earnings so far and retire. His drive is simply the business itself more than the riches it generates.

In conclusion: what makes Frank Lucas such a great manager, I think, is mostly his way of dealing with people, communicating and his persistency. He is consistent in his actions and does not allow conscious mistakes among his workers. In one scene he even shoots one of his own men for being high and behaving improperly during a party.

I end this analysis with a quote from Frank Lucas that I think captures his character perfectly:

“You are the one of two things, either you are somebody or you ain’t nobody!”

/Sinthu

Part 1

Part 2

 

 

Or …

Youtube version released 27 Oct

 

Life and business are like a snowball; you need a lot of snowflakes to make a big one.

 

When the financial depression is hovering over us like a tropic thunderstorm, the only shelter is to look for guidance in some kind of business book. In the jungle of business bestsellers, there is one and the only one, that was released to us, mortal consumer, at a perfect time like now, this very present time October 2008; The Snowball, Warren Buffet and the life of business, written by Alice Schroeder.

 

Warren Buffet is a man with a huge integrity, not many people actually know him really well. The Omaha investor has never written anything about his private life. Alice Schroeder, who is a former Wall Street analyst and M.D. at Morgan Stanley, succeeded anyhow to know Warren Buffet, but it took her six-year after they first got acquainted. Mr. Buffet would never get in his mind to write a book by him self, he thinks if other can do the job better than himself then they should do it. This is somehow just a small fraction of Mr. Buffet’s philosophy.

 

Among financial people, Warren Buffet is considered to be one of the greatest oracles in the world when related to business, investments, stocks and shares. One should ask such a questions like what is lurking inside the head of one of the wealthiest man in the world. How did he make it all the way? Is he a god who sleeps only on Sunday, or is he ever sleeping? The snowball takes you to a journey through some failures and success, both in life and business at a time where World War II was still a reality till modern time of 21^st century.

 

Mr. Buffet or Warren as he chooses to be called in the book, starts off in the book by telling: “Balzac said that behind every great fortune lies a crime. That’s not true at Berkshire.” This sentence is a tough one to be dissected, first the problem in defining what crime is. Second of all, if you are looking in jurisprudence point of view, if you can’t prove there’s a crime being committed, then in fact a crime has never been committed. So in either case whether there is a crime behind Warren’s great fortune or not it’s not up to me to judge. I’ll therefore leave the sentence as perfect as it is, although, it’s tempting to speculate on it. 

 

Warren grew up as a son of a congressman and in a place also known as the heart of America, Omaha. During the time Warren grew up, he was quit a rebellion but still he looked up to his father. There were two things that kept the young Warren on the track and that were the inner- and the outer-balanced scorecard [outer-BSC]. The inner-balanced scorecard [inner-BSC] is what Warren’s father believed to be the most importance in guidance through life and he was also an excellent example of using that guidance, Warren thought.

 

While reading through the section of the inner- and outer-BSC, I feel like this is what happening in the academics and not least the elementary school of ours. We learn way too much of the world and way too little of how to live in it. The way of success in business is hard wired in how we manage our own life, the private so to speech compare to the public, the business.

 

What really led Warren to his fortune though, was that he had an analytical and a business mind already as a child. He started at an early age of thinking in ways of how to make $1000 in one thousand different kinds of ways. In other words, how to make one million dollar. When it comes to women, Warren was not that good in dating women not in the beginning of his career as he described it. He knew that in order to attract the women he wanted he needed, in the 50’s, at least a decent car. Sometime he ended up just with the car but it taught him a lesson and improved his dating skills. He needed to be more attractive was the only way out if it and as Warren self stated: “the more attractive you are the less opportunity you need.”

 

The dating part with women was not Warren’s strong side, but what he loosed in one part he gained back from other part, his investment skills.  Trading shares on a market was very similar to the hobby Warren had as a boy and that was saving caps. Saving caps and trading shares was all about the truth and the truth was either the absolute truth or the truth by conviction.  Warren putted it in this way: If there’s enough people who think a stock is worth X, it became worth X until enough people thought otherwise. The same reasoning could be use in particularly in almost anything in life, everything becomes philosophic, and the question is what is the truth?

 

Warren is a man of principles and the basic line of what every investment guy should have in mind is nothing more than having stern discipline of mental independence. Every little thing is important, no matter how big or small something is, you can always see it as yet another snowflake for your snowball. “Life is like a snowball. The important thing is finding wet snow and a really long hill.” - Warren Buffet.

 

This book, the first ever released from the Oracle of Omaha, is quite inspiring to read. Mr. Buffet is not claiming that he is flawless in everything he does. Just read on the news that due to the financial crisis, the one we all are facing right now, not even Mr. Buffet him self was excepted to loose value of his fortune.  Mr. Buffet is just like any other guys but the only difference is that he’s got a wallet bigger than the average guys’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Schroeder, Alice. The Snowball, Warren Buffet and the business of life. Page 4.

 

 

 

 

 

By Quoc-Nam Du

It’s late and I’m tired as hell, there’s some minor error and probably some few typos in the text. Just wanna say that I can fix it later if that’s ok :S Good night!

The managerial skills of Dalton Russell in Inside Man

 

To the rhythmic beats of A.R. Rahman’s “Chaiyya Chaiyya“, Spike Lee introduces the first scene of Inside Man to the audience. Eventfully eager to get in to the story, I catch myself curious upon why I have chosen to locate and analyse management in a movie that deals with the perfect bank robbery. The reason for this is literally two-fold. What the public and I see is actually management from the good and evil side. We see how Detective Keith Frazier, portrayed by Denzel Washington, uses management of the police forces outside the bank to determine what the bank robbers want and we also see the managerial skills of bank robbery leader Dalton Russell, realistically portrayed by Clive Owen. I have chosen to analyse the latter in this assignment.

 

The plot outline of the movie is that of most police-robber movies produced in Hollywood. The twist and uniqueness in this story is that the robbers willingly remain in the bank as the police force is growing outside. It soon becomes clear that the robbers are using different tactics to be successful in their criminal attempt.

 

When Dalton Russell exits the bank in one of the last scenes of the movie, with two bags filled with diamonds and money, he becomes a symbol to what a perfect bank robbery is. He has shown his talented managerial skills with the ultimate coordination of the entire crew of bank robbers. His character has fooled half of the New York Police department and Detective Frazier always seems to be one step behind. The movie ends without any perpetrator getting caught. All of Russell’s actions that lead to his success can be summed up with an idea of him having total “management control”. Mainly of himself and his team but also of the entire situation where insecurity of what the other party, the police, can do. It is possible to make references to Taylorism when analysing his actions as much of the responsibility that Russell undertakes in the movie lies on the fact that he is the leader who gives out instructions and the rest of the team consists of followers that do what they are told. The balance of keeping the entire team in sync seems like an obvious issue for a leader to address but what makes this matter even more surprising is that the team members are from incredibly different backgrounds. At the end of the movie, the bank robbers gather up outside of the bank and the audience see a rabbi, a normal girl, a foreign middle-aged guy and a stereotypical young white guy, all waiting for Russell. This is a fully diversified team and I am amazed at how cunning the character has been when picking his partners in crime. It is apparent that Russell has thought the plan through and chosen people that fit in with the average crowd and can thus escape the suspiciousness of the investigation. This literally shows a unique sense of managing the perfect bank robbery and the team behind it towards clear-set goals.

 

The basic assumptions of the film that in some way are necessary for the viewers and the audience to know prior to looking at this movie are many. First off, the apparent management behaviour is only credited to Detective Frazier who is given a larger scope of leading responsibility. If I was neutral to the ideas of management and leadership and I had to make a choice on which of the main characters showed obvious skills in leadership, my answer would be Detective Frazier. This is surely what Spike Lee intended for the movie but having read up on management in books, articles and through other sources I find it more exciting to analyse management in areas where the common man does not see it fit.

As I stated earlier, the biggest key to Russell’s success lies in the fact that he chose the right people to carry out the task and achieve the goals. He took a decision to use diversity and careful planning in order to execute the perfect bank robbery. Cross-referencing to theory, Taylor made a similar approach in regards to management when developing a system for improvement. The event of planning is an everlasting representation of Taylorism and this is exactly a skill that Russell shows that he possesses. The “system” in Inside Man was to make sure that every single one of the robbers knew what to do and that there were standardized methods of doing these things. Whether or not, this information is crucial for the public to know can be questioned but it sure makes sense to know how Russell could be so successful in his crime. The ultimate twist and humorous side of the movie is apparent when Russell states that “the where could most readily be described as a prison cell but there is vast difference between being stuck in a tiny cell and being in prison“. The ability of seeing things outside of the box and being one step ahead of the norm is exactly the type of quality that a flawless bank robber should possess.

 

 By Sunil Dutt

Funky Business - Talang får kapitalet att dansa is written by Jonas Riddarstråle and Kjell A. Nordström. The book was published in 1999, in other words, during the later part of the IT-hysteric era. The fact that the book is clearly influenced by its surrounding environmental factors is undisputable. This era was a part of the historic timeline in which the birth of a new economy was due soon, an economy that would change the rules of the game to corporations and make markets more efficient. All of this would be carried out in a rapid pace. The foundation for the new economy consisted of a number of dotcom-companies, IT-consultants and close-related high-tech businesses that campaigned for a new type of organizational ideology in which they offered their employees constant challenges, independence and innovation-friendly work environments. These corporations received support from several active professionals and experts in management, both academic theory-driven professors and practitioners from the business world. The purpose was to adjust the corporations to the constantly developing information technology and for this goal alone, a new leadership style was needed.

 

Both authors, also sometimes referred to as management gurus, Riddarstråle and Nordström are two great advocates of the new economy and its theories. They initially give their input on how this book is meant to be a sort of autotherapy to both of them. What this book tells us is that the modern business world works according to new premises and new rules. It aims to show the readers that whatever has happened in the past is of irrelevant nature and the rather clever term “business as usual” has lost its charm. Instead, “business as unusual” more accurately reflects the contemporary situation and what happens in the present is the only thing of interest. They state how the dynamics in the new world are based on the fact that questions rather than answers make out the future, “Frågor snarare än svar är det som i grunden skapar framtiden“[1]. The new phenomenon is described by a model which they humorously call “funky business”. Further on, the authors stress the importance of giving up the ideas and concepts of a present and a future since everything moves in such a rapid pace so the future is already here. The message to the reader is mainly to explain how innovation is the keyword in corporate governance and also to explain the changes that are undergoing in businesses. The model is based on concentrated, innovative and non-hierarchical ideas. Consequently, the employees in the corporation that contribute with the ideas in the new knowledge society, should be praised. They are the true assets of the companies. Funky Business strives to acknowledge this and also offers the readers a stream of exhortations to live the funky life.

 

Despite the fact that most businesses active in the new economic era could not live up to the high expectations of returns, the questions remain on how much of the reasoning of that time still lives on. An interesting perspective thus becomes to discuss the actuality of the ideas that the authors present in the book and also to clear out what is relevant and less relevant today. Keep in mind that almost a decade has past since the book was published. The art of making sense throughout time but still remain timeless in statements is not an easy task. New management literature is continuously written and the competition and rivalry between writers can be harsh. Only those with unique and timeless ideas can call themselves innovators within management.

 

Each new generation of management advocates seem to imagine that the problems they face are unique. Truth be told, all great thoughts and ideas within management have been circulating for a while now. The authors claim that the big breakthrough occurred in the 1990’s where knowledge turned into a more valuable and desirable resource and asset than material. Experiencing what has happened lately, taking into concern the rising prices on raw material, natural resources and food, it becomes rather difficult for the book to argue that the development during that decade is consistent and existing. The market value of the resource-intensive corporations have increased more than the knowledge-intensive corporations. Rather, one should realize how the economy moves in trends where focus shifts between the different production factors. However, I completely agree with the authors when they depict how processes and product lifecycles move much more rapidly than before. Today, technological advantages do not last more than months. Still, some of my concerns and questions remain unanswered. Does the fact above mean that corporations have to compete with bursts of creativity and innovation? If the answer is yes, how can one explain the success of companies like EasyJet or the grocery chain Willy’s that have been apparent in the beginning of the 21^st century? Are you doomed as a company if you make use of Porter’s low-cost competitive strategy or pay millions to management consultants with hopes of achieving highest possible operational excellence? Most probably, it is fair to consider these corporations as innovative as well. The problem then becomes to define the difference between being innovative and being different.

 

One positive aspect is that many of the current management themes and concerns that engage business leaders today are brought up to discussion in the book. This makes it complete and broad from that perspective. Unfortunately, the downside of this is that much of the textual context becomes less unique. I find it difficult to distinguish a genuine idea that solely belongs to the authors. Instead, the book becomes a summary of already known theories and due to this it is hard to see this book as a management bible that will remain forever. The authors have made an attempt to contribute to the extended beliefs and theories on management in regards to their ideas on creativity and global innovation but everything feels like an edited version of books like Managing Innovation, Creative Management and so on.

 

To sum up this report, I would like to argue for the applicability of this book. As a sceptic, one can question the practical usability of Funky Business. The idea that a manager somewhere in the world has read this book and would adapt to a dramatic change is highly unlikely and seems pretty far-fetched. Rational methods on how to connect large numbers of people in large organizations is lacking and thus the book is better off as an inspiration source only which acts as a catalyst to discussions about modern management. The book is not a unique piece but it sure is entertaining to read with lots of examples that might be too imaginative but none the less clear to the point. The authors have seemingly used the concept of innovation and creativity themselves when writing this funky, modern management book. As to who I would recommend this book to, I truly believe that people that want to engage themselves in modern management on a rather simple level should take the chance and read up on this funky piece of management content.

 

---

[1] Riddarstråle, J. & Nordström, K.A., Funky Business, Bookhouse Publishing, Stockholm, 1999, page 37

 

By: Sunil Dutt

In his international bestseller, Richard Templar tackles the unwritten, unspoken and unacknowledged Rules of Management. The book itself is comprised of exactly 100 rules, which have been pigeonholed into two different categories, “Managing Your Team” and “Managing Yourself”. In the book Templar takes a hands-on view on how to become a successful manager, which in concrete means following the rules set out by him. He does not concern himself with trying to define what management is the way pure theorist such as Mintzberg[1], Fayol[2] and Drucker[3] have done. He is only concerned with what to do to implement successful management, a modern Taylor[4] stating the obvious, which most managers have failed to act upon obviously. An agitator like Tom Peters, but in written form.

The rules take shape in short punch lines, a not too far-fetched analogue would be the Ten Commandments, followed by a short description of what the rule implies:

Rule 59

See the wood and the trees

“You’ve got to see the wider view all the time. … But you’ve also got to keep a close watch on what is going on under your nose … The bright manager has to keep their eyes and ears open, their wits about them, their mind open to new ideas and innovations and trends. You’ve got to see the trees and the woods.”[5]

As stated, the rules are all very obvious when you read them, yet these are the rules that most people never think about, or take time to put into words. The obviousness of the rules cloud the manager’s vision, making him fail to see and act according to them. We fail to see the way things are shaped because we are too close to them, a lecturer standing close to the blackboard cannot see his own spelling mistakes. The manager is caught in the paradigm of management and cannot see the cogwheels working behind the veil and he does not know how to make those cogwheels work for him. Tamplar puts these rules down on paper, making them available to managers. In essence this is comparable to the feminist standpoint theory[6]. Though contrary to the theory, Templar, unlike the feminists, comes from within the paradigm and shows the fallacy to not see the obvious rules to his manager colleagues.

Yet, these rules, like so many others, are not omnipotent. They are not universal rules, they do not span the entire spectrum that management is, and they do not function in every possible situation that might occur. Rather than rules, they should be seen as guidelines for the manager; they are helpful tools for the work of a manager. But playing strictly by the rules would leave a manager in trouble for occasions where there are no rules set, and he would fail to grasp other essential parts of what it means to be a manager. He might fail to act when a certain possibility is presented to him because the rules do not cover it.

Something else that is lacking is the How? How do you execute the rules, when to execute them and onto whom should they be applied? Most of the rules only tell you what to do, but fail to explain how to put them into action.

On the other hand he does have a local knowledge[7] that most of the theoretical thinkers of management lack and is therefore able to show what is required of a manager, he makes use of the same language as other managers and is therefore able to convey his message to them.

Although from Templar’s point of view, the rules may seem applicable by everyone who reads them, but they are not. In fact it is more or less a prerequisite to already be a good manager for being able to use the rules, as Templar himself states:

“The good manager - that’s you* …

*I keep saying, ‘That’s you’. You may wonder how I know. Because you are reading this. Bad managers think they know it all. You are prepared to read, to learn, to seek the advice of others, to widen your horizons, to have opinions, to stay abreast of current and new ideas and to keep an open mind by reading this far. That’s good. You are good. Well done you.”[8]

If management was as easy as reading a hundred rules in one book and then to carry them out, no doubt, we sure would be seeing a lot more great managers out there.

Unfortunately the real world is always more complicated than what we can comprehend and so we build models and theories to understand the world better. Yet in so doing we simplify the way the world works, too many times the path from reality to perception through induction fails, it is all too coarse and we tend to have lost many of the facets of reality when we come to an end at perception.[9]

The Rules of Management is one of these cases.

---

[1] H. Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, 1973

[2] H. Fayol, Industrial and General Administration, translation J.A. Coubrough, International Management Institute, 1930

[3] P. Drucker, The Practice of Management, Harper and Row, 1954

[4] F.W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper and Row, 1911

[5] R. Templar, The Rules of Management: A definitive code for managerial success, Pearson Prentice Hall Business, 2005

[6] V. Dusek, Philosophy of Technology - an introduction,  Blackwell Publishing 2^nd Edition, 2007, Chap. 9 ”Women, Feminism, and Technology”

[7] V. Dusek, p. 157

[8] R. Templar, p. 124

[9] L. De Brabandere, lecture, KTH Stockholm 07/10/2008

/Robert

promotionalpitch_mirage_maindocument

Due to technical issues, the movie will be delayed a few minutes. 15 minutes past deadline.

Management - The New Religion

 

Enjoy!

M.I.R.A.G.E

I must have totally misinterpret the actual deadline for the individual assignment II. I’ll get on it ASAP when the film is done. There’s been plenty of work going on lately so with all due respect I’ll get it done at latest on wednesday!

Q

Same as Sunil I got alot of other things to take care of at the moment, I only have the second individual assignment left to do and will try to get it done on Monday but it might take until Wednesday.

/Robert