How does one know where to draw the lines among au courant, avant garde, and limitless self-indulgence?  And, why does Lady Gaga immediately spring to mind when the question is posed in that fashion?

Similar definitional questions might be -  and have been - asked about how and what to call the flow of goods and materials from origin to comsumption, or application, and - sometimes - back again.  A recent LinkedIn discussion got all manner of folks' undergarments in a bunch as they tried to distinguish between supply chains and value chains.  As opinions flew in from across the planet, a recent convert to the Church of Lean managed to slip value streams into the punchbowl.

This exercise was about as time-consuming - and useful - as the centuries-old debate around the vital question of how many angels might be able to dance on the head of a pin.  It reminded me of arguments a couple of decades ago, when some ambitious, but misguided, consultants waged all-out war to replace "supply chain management" with "demand chain management."  They clearly failed in the attempt, but the apparently primal urges to create new terms to replace names that already exist remain strong, especially when someone hopes to cash in on the "new" concept.

We'd be significantly farther ahead of the game by putting our collective energies and creativity into making supply chains, and the business relationships that power them, work better, rather than fighting over names to give to what it is that we do.  That's a biased view to be sure, and I welcome opposing perspectives, but I'm inclined to focus on getting the job done before indulging in the luxury of semantic antics.