Monday, January 26, 2009
Knowledge Control
I was thinking of an intersting idea from the GIO reading for today that we didn't mention; The idea that keeping knowledge or ideas restricted to the inside of a company limits that knowledge, people, and ulitmately society in general. I can see how this would be true as letting the info out allows other perspectives to take it and improve it for the benefit of all (open source) - however as I think about this in application in the business world, much of the business world today is build around a company learning something, holding on to it, and deriving large parts of their company value from that information. To release and share this knowledge would require businesses to have a much more global, "what's better for the world is better for us" type of view that doesn't seem realistic any time soon. It seems to me that the structures of the business world in the US, backed by capitalism and shareholders demanding maximum value, is very very far away from taking such a global view. Yet, there are examples like open source software that illustrate how this could work. I have really no conclusion to make here, just bringing up the topic which I found interesting. I'd love to hear anyone's thougths on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I've thought about this issue before and concluded that the level of collaboration is directly related to the amount of money that a company is seeking. Every company (or effort) in my opinion adheres to the following two strategies in a complementary manner, meaning that more focus on one implies less focus on the other, and you can't do both at 100%:
ReplyDelete1) The strategy is to make as much money as possible
2) The strategy is to innovate as much as possible
The way a project effort distributes its strategy amongst these two principles is largely dependent upon the nature of its value proposition.
An open source software project is unique in that startup costs are minimal. Most of this is due to the fact that the distribution of information to all the team members is trivial since the "product" is electronic, making collaboration very easy. Furthermore, each participant only needs a computer and and internet connection and can participate in the process at his/her convenience. This means that there is very little risk to the particpants if the project were to fail. This low risk allows software projects to focus on innovation rather than money making.
If you consider a pharamceutical project, like the development of a drug, you'll find the characteristics of the process are completely different. Startup costs are tremendous, and participating in the project is a substantial committment, making it a high risk endeavor. The implications, then, are that a successful outcome must include compenstating the participants for this risk, and as a result, such projects are predominantly profit driven.
What do bacteria and ex-NFL coaches have in common?
ReplyDeleteInnovation and Execution. On February 28th, Boston University's MS-MBA Association and Consulting club hosted a dynamic panel of speakers during the BU Symposium event. The panel was enthusiastically moderated by Erik Molander, Innovation & Strategy Lecturer at BU.
The session was introduced with Chris Meyer's, CEO Monitor Talent, perspective on the future of management. Like bacteria, companies will succeed by adapting with the environment and self organizing. Greg Collier seconded the notion that innovation will come from diverse sources, stating Wikipedia's as an example where restriction failed and an environment of deregulation ultimately succeeded. In a contrasting view, Bobby Ray Harris noted the importance of having a small team driving decision making during a large implementation to avoid chaos and ensure timely delivery.
Could it be that different stages of the product/service delivery process require unique approaches? As we move our way down the development and installation funnel can we consider authority as moving from decentralized to centralized? What other factors are at play?