Second, I’ve noticed that being ’smart’ isn’t always in the corporate economic interest. Because if their operational model is based on older cultural, ethical and/or technical standards, there’re many ways to bilk, over-charge and/or up-charge customers by simply ‘blaming the system”. (The same one they have, and are running.) Dumb like a fox.

Bob Sullivan wrote a good book about such “stupid” practices
( http://www.amazon.com/Gotcha-Capitalism-Hidden-Every-Day/dp/0345496132 ), and Naomi Klein reported on an even wider view ( http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine )

Third, interoperability is the key technical issue, methinks, preventing well-intentioned companies from linking smart into their value chain. It takes a large and dedicated effort by many committed, smart people. And, funny thing: it’s not that hard. Someone at the top just needs to directly relate “customer care” to “income/revenue”.

“I’m sorry, our systems don’t ‘talk’ to eachother – can you give me that information again?”, really translates as: we’re oblivious to anything that doesn’t concern us and our reality tunnel.

I wonder if corporate cultures that fail to care or ask questions — of customers, employees and in general — just avoid smarts altogether because that’s been their patterning, and they’ve “competed” and “won” so far without ‘em?