|
Post by halearnold on Feb 10, 2014 14:49:59 GMT -6
The video itself was very "eh" The information contained in it was truly remarkable, but the monotone people were less than inspiring. I am quite surprised about innovation statistics on the top companies and new "breakthroughs" The successes more than likely have the it's not broken no worries, yet they are clearly doing something right to stay in their top positions. I wonder though how many breakthrough innovative companies and entrprenuers were discovered nd bought out to become part of the larger corporations. Often times a big company doesn't have to invest heavily in R&D if they have good "hunters" watching those that are the breakthrough innovators doing from their home garage or basement with little interference from HR, LEGAL etc. So the breakthroughs for those top companies could be in finding the ones who do it for them.
|
|
|
Post by lmoore on Feb 10, 2014 16:45:06 GMT -6
Companies don’t want to take a huge risk with innovation so they improve on what they have or buy other companies and build on those. Microsoft is a good example of this. Instead of changing their product all the time they just improve the product every few years.
|
|
|
Post by shantel on Feb 10, 2014 20:24:39 GMT -6
Most large organization are set in there ways. Companies should embed change and innovation into the culture. If larges companies were equipped for the change that innovation creates then it would easier for them to be creative. The culture of huge organizations have to accept innovation and look at it in light. Most larger companies believe innovation is for younger fast growing companies and don't wish to take part in it. The bottom line is innovation is beneficial for growth and no matter the size of the company it can utilized.
|
|
|
Post by katelynjones on Feb 10, 2014 20:31:44 GMT -6
I do see where he says big companies are more conservative. They have more customers/clients looking at them and more attention is shining on them. But you have to wonder, how they got to be big... people liked it just as much and that's why they are where they are. All good things come to an end and newer and better things come along. Trying to survive in the business world, you need to be innovative, smart, and ahead of the game!
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Aucoin on Feb 10, 2014 21:05:34 GMT -6
I agree with what Tom Peters is saying in this video. One example that has been used frequently in many of my classes is that Facebook is increasing popularity with the older generation but is losing many of its younger users. It’s more important to have younger Facebook users because they’ll be the ones who are still around when the older users are gone. If Facebook doesn’t create something innovative, it’s not going to be able to keep its younger users or be able to attract younger users to join. However, with Microsoft, I think it’s a well-established company that really doesn’t need to take a huge risk. Many of my friends have tried windows 8 and wish they hadn’t. Overall, it really has to do with how well the company is doing, but nine times out of ten, a big company will need to be innovative.
|
|
|
Post by csimo123 on Feb 10, 2014 21:40:30 GMT -6
So from this video sounds to me that larger companies are good and bad. What i got is that larger companies are conservatives and do things to protect them. I really do not understand him, i will be honest.
|
|
|
Post by nataliedodds on Feb 11, 2014 14:17:29 GMT -6
Tom Peters is certainly an interesting individual with strong opinions. I don't know much about how large companies innovate, and I definitely think he is very knowledgeable in these areas. However, I was very surprised about what he said concerning Apple. I don't think Apple will allow themselves to just die out, but hey I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jessicaratelle on Feb 11, 2014 14:56:25 GMT -6
I didn't really care for this video as it was very slow and didn't really keep my interest. I do agree though that so many bigger businesses lack in innovation. Where Microsoft is continuously updating their normal services, they are not looking into innovating new products. Where as Apple, I think just keeps innovating. I disagree with him by saying that Apple will be no big deal in 10 years. I think that Apple has been too much of a breakthrough to become nothing in only 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by brettstirling on Feb 11, 2014 15:32:09 GMT -6
This video is very interesting in that it's addressing the nitty-gritty of company innovation and value added products. Tom describes large companies as being very bureaucratic meaning that what could take a small company a short amount of time to develop or implement could take a large company an immense amount of time to implement. Larger companies like that also find where their strengths are and stick to them; forming a conservative nature and being less risky. Some companies that have to expand and become more innovative often give up and just purchase other companies. As Tom said, this only shows to be profitable 15% of the time. He also adds that many companies are losing and gaining employees over this. While I agree that being conservatively risky is a smart move, no risk = no reward and they see that in the long run by either losing their creative members or losing their competitive advantage. This is a good video to keep in mind for the future.
|
|
|
Post by codylejeune on Feb 12, 2014 11:42:48 GMT -6
I agree with Tom Peters that big companies should innovate! They have to keep changing in order to keep their customers.
|
|
|
Post by bmcgarry13 on Feb 12, 2014 14:39:31 GMT -6
The bigger a company grows, the more obligations they have towards their stakeholders. Instead of using research and development to find new innovation, more energy is put towards running the actual business because it is bigger. This concept makes a lot of sense to me. Bigger companies tend to get bogged down by all their responsibilities and attachments, whereas smaller companies have greater levels of freedoms to explore. In a lot of cases, smaller companies needs to generate hype and innovation just to compete with the bigger companies because bigger companies have existing and substantial market share. Usually, smaller companies cannot compete directly through money, so they compete in other ways such as disruptive innovation which we talked about previously.
|
|
|
Post by amandayoung3231 on Feb 12, 2014 21:15:53 GMT -6
I honestly could not pay attention to the video. Very boring guy... Tired watching it a few times but did not get much out of it. He is not inspirational at all. Very negative, I know he is being honest but very negative.
|
|
|
Post by shennellw on Feb 13, 2014 16:00:46 GMT -6
Tom says that it is hopeless for big companies to innovate. I don't totally agree. Companies can innovate and some do. I can agree that it is extremely risky financially for a company innovate. Which is why companies just merge and buy out other companies with the new innovations. Big companies can do it but is it worth the risk?
|
|
|
Post by sdoescher on Feb 16, 2014 12:39:49 GMT -6
I can understand what Tom Peters is saying. Large companies have more to lose and less to gain to taking risk and are therefore more conservative. Start-ups fight for survival and must take bigger risks in order to survive. Most start-ups fail and we tend to see only the successful ones that beat the odds. Large companies are surely to continue to be conservative since it's the best approach statistically. Additionally, different people who go to large companies are traditionally more risk averse than those who work for start-ups. Once risk averse managers take over the fate is sealed. Jobs took more risk simply because he was an entrepreneur at heart in contrast to traditional CEO's who are simply managers.
|
|
|
Post by meganlynch on Feb 17, 2014 20:58:09 GMT -6
I disagree with Tom Peter's view on conservatism. I think because companies work so hard to achieve their success, they work just as hard to keep it. I would not fault a company for slacking a little on innovation when what they have already created is working for them and bringing in large revenue. His thought that Apple will be boring in 20 years, just proves that they can continue to conserve their success for that long. No company can continue to be number one in innovation. However, a company would have a better chance to do so if they have the resources they need to come up with the next best thing and make it a reality. Conserving what they have already reaped the benefits from will only assist them with future plans.
|
|