1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
The biggest surprise for me in the reading was the fact that a lot of innovation could happen within an existing firm. Much of the work that we focused on this course was striking it on your own and the like, but this reading throws all that to the wayside.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
One part of the reading which was confusing for me was the idea of innovation within a company since companies themselves have existing cultures, which might be ineffective and resistant to change in which case, wouldn't proposing innovation as a salary-man be nigh fruitless in most cases and might be harmful.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
1. What is better to innovate in a company or having your company be the innovation? Because most of this text has been devoted to small companies and to talking about generalist business terms like taxes or revenue. Would innovation spoken of in this text be better suited in your own firm, because I feel that an overwhelming amount of the book is devoted to that.
2. Why aren't governments for-profit? I mean they tax their populace for all sorts of social "benefits", yet waste a large chunk of it. If they weren't a non-profit, maybe they would more focused on innovation and pleasing their investors, the people. Instead, they are a model of inefficiency since they are the only game in town.
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
I think the author was wrong about innovation being possible in a large company if you are a low-level member of it. Any meaningful change will only be restricted to the lower levels of your company, aka the local branch. I disagree that the average person can make any real change without significant influence upon the company.
No comments:
Post a Comment