Matter, then, as in our "tangible" products, is no more than Energy, slowed down by a constant to a Velocity that the Mind can comprehend as having some tangible Existence and Meaning.
Our obsession with tangible products comes from our focus on industrial manufacture and an industrial economy. In the new economy, however, the emphasis is steadily shifting towards one of intangible Needs.
[…] the value of deliverables (products and services) and also of organizations, can be e':pressed as an equation:
Value of deliverable = Information / Mass
Concrete or steel, for example, has a large mass and little information. A computer chip, on the other hand, contains a great deal of information relative to its mass.
Another classic example is dinosaurs! They survived for 160 million years before becoming extinct. They were big, though with a small brain in proportion to their mass. When their environment changed, they could not adapt and thus did not survive. The ratio of their brain to their mass was small, and so they were forced to use almost all of their information processing capacity on internal body maintenance, and therefore had too little to spare for successful negotiation of the external environment. Is this not what happens to the dinosaurs that are companies? They, similarly, spend a disproportionate amount of their information processing capacity on internal management and co-ordination and not enough on negotiating the needs of the external environment. Economies of scale, an industrial concept, create diseconomies of co-ordination in terms of internal management and organization in the new economy.
⇒ Space
~
DAVIS, Stanley M., 1990. Future Perfect. In: EVANS, Paul, DOZ, Yves and LAURENT, André (eds.), Human Resource Management in International Firms: Change, Globalization, Innovation. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 18–28. ISBN 978-1-349-11255-5, p. 23.
Scientists make discoveries about the universe. From these discoveries evolve new technologies. Utilizing the new technologies, we build new products, services and businesses. Lastly, we shape organizations to run those businesses. None of these steps can precede the one that goes before and clearly, organizations are the last link in the chain. Newton, for example, made discoveries about the universe. These developed into industrial technologies from which we grew industrial economies, industrially-based corporations and, finally, industrial models of management and organization. Then Einstein and colleagues in his field made new discoveries about the universe. Resultant new technologies are now coming on stream, we are building new businesses, and we do not yet have new models of management and organization. To place ourselves currently, we are moving into new businesses in the new economy. Until they have developed, we are bound to use earlier models of management and organizational forms that, in fact, are no longer appropriate to the new products and services that have emerged.
WEICK, Karl E., 1988. Future Perfect. Academy of Management Perspectives. November 1988. Vol. 2, no. 4, p. 333–334. DOI 10.5465/ame.1988.4274780.
FRASER, Jack, 2022. Processing Novel and Competing Demands: Essays on Managerial Approaches to Change.. PhD Thesis. page 
[Accessed 18 March 2024].
While the past can serve as a guide when navigating change, managers need to make sense not just of the present but also of the imagined future (Rosness et al., 2015; Tapinos and Pyper, 2018). However, there is disagreement in the sensemaking literature about the phenomenological nature of understanding the future (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2020), especially if it is radically different from the present (Augustine et al., 2019). Building on the work of Karl Weick, some scholars (e.g., Gioia and Thomas, 1996; Schültz, 1967) consider sensemaking about the future to be essentially retrospective, such that the imagined future is viewed through a retrospective lens, as if already complete (Weick, 1969). Even futureoriented notions such as plans are essentially derived from retrospective sensemaking, because “when one thinks about the future,” this thinking is not done in future tense, but rather “in the future perfect tense” (Weick, 1969: 65). While this idea of “future perfect” thinking was introduced to the management literature by Weick, it was first conceptualized by Schültz (1967: 61) who described it as the process of considering an intended future course of action “as if it were already over and done with...pictured as if it were simultaneously past and future”.
SCHUTZ, Alfred, WALSH, George and LEHNERT, Frederick, 1972. The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston (Ill.): Northwestern university press. Northwestern university studies in phenomenology and existential philosophy. ISBN 978-0-8101-0390-0. 306.42
Schutz borrows a term from grammar in order to express this complex situation. He says that we picture the goal of the action "in the future perfect tense" (modo futuri exacti).