Re:Why companies lose their best innovators (2019)
by jariel on Sunday July 19, 2020 @01:19AM
(#23887195)
"In practice corporations are designed to be extremely disposable."
Opposite - they are designed to be incumbent.
Once a product sticks, companies become 'operational' and not 'dynamic' which is to say they excel at customer, product, regulatory, lobbying, scale, RFPs, branding, little features that satisfy a range of customers. Everything done 'just well enough' but otherwise the entity has not reason to innovate.
Innovation is just a pile of risk to the system, when in fact, the 'incumbent corporation' is a 'cog' in that system so there's no reason to change it.
Not only is there little incentive to change, there is 'anti incentive' in many cases.
Also - innovators are really hard to identify, and that thing may not be part of the job anyhow. There are all kinds of creative innovators, with many kinds of specialisation, the Zoom case I'm not sure is very exemplary anyhow.
Opposite - they are designed to be incumbent.
Once a product sticks, companies become 'operational' and not 'dynamic' which is to say they excel at customer, product, regulatory, lobbying, scale, RFPs, branding, little features that satisfy a range of customers. Everything done 'just well enough' but otherwise the entity has not reason to innovate.
Innovation is just a pile of risk to the system, when in fact, the 'incumbent corporation' is a 'cog' in that system so there's no reason to change it.
Not only is there little incentive to change, there is 'anti incentive' in many cases.
Also - innovators are really hard to identify, and that thing may not be part of the job anyhow. There are all kinds of creative innovators, with many kinds of specialisation, the Zoom case I'm not sure is very exemplary anyhow.