Nevertheless, I have to say I disagree with your discussion of ‘Effectiveness’.

For starters, I don’t think it should include ‘Efficiency’, which is more of a companion quality when it comes to performance. You can be effective without being efficient, and vice versa.

‘Elegance’ is another sub-quality that I tend to associate with efficency rather than effectiveness. Because nothing is more efficient that a hands-off approach if you can get away with it–zero sweat, full accomplishment.

From another perspective, I believe that ‘Efficiency’ and ‘Effectiveness’ are at the same level of abstraction, so I find it difficult to put efficiency within effectiveness.

Why not start with the standard dictionary definition and elaborate on it? Thus, effectiveness is the quality that enables you to ‘hit the mark’, ‘achieve results’, etc. It doesn’t matter whether you do it efficiently or elegantly.

I do agree that “a business is not created by components but by interactions”. Again, if you read the book, you will find that a strong (if not stronger) emphasis is placed on the flows and interactions rather than on the service-content.

I could make much the same replies to each of your other concerns. The point of this summary-sheet is that it is intended as a reference-card for use with the book: if you have not read the book, it is quite possible that it may not make much sense, as appears to be the case here. so please don’t critique the model on the basis of the reference-card alone, unless it’s in context with the content and structure of the book to which it relates.

The enterprise model is just a redraw of the Osterwalder model. The service content is a slightly modified Bachmann model.

Therefore, from my perspective there is too much fragmentation by trying to decompose a complex adaptive system into controllable pieces. A business is not created by components but by interactions. Function emerges from these interactions and is not designed as a component.

Relationships and transactions are built on the interactions of roles that people take. Most relevant conversations ought to be part of a transaction a.k.a. process.

I would also not think in terms of performance but in terms of expectations created by value propositions and satisfaction based on value perception. Performance is just metrics that are meaningless in terms of customer relationships.

People and process are the same thing because the process emerges from role interactions and has no independent existance. Processes without people have no asset value as is sometimes suggested. The purpose is defined in the objective->target->goal link that starts with WHY a customer would want an offering. I agree that the perception links back into the desired outcome in a never ending loop.

All in all, helpful pictorials but I would build an enterprise strategy with it. I know that others do, but it creates a business that is not very dynamic or agile.