The next half of the session is about innovation management. Dr Grinder shared with his some interesting insights about innovation management and an inspirational phrase by Tom Peter.
“Life is pretty simple:
You do some stuff.
Most fails. Some works.
You do more of what works.
If it works big, others quickly copy it.
Then you do something else.
The trick is the doing something else.”
Dr Grinder then shared with us his conceptual framework on the opportunities available when it comes to innovation management and links us back to last week lesson on the concept of rising stars and falling stars. We then started our presentation on the issue. The guests were Ruixin and Aurrick which gave us interesting insights about Wikipedia and whether is worth taking the risk for nuclear power. We then had a little discussion about that and the session ended off with our personal ratings for this week's guest.
I would say that this week's lesson is more engaging as Dr Grinder has implemented the time rule limit to each speaker which gives us more time for discussions about the topic brought up by the guests. One of the interesting insights that i have gained is actually the advantages of backwardness. Countries that industrialize later actually benefit more than those that have industrialize earlier. The 4 Asia Tigers which comprises of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan actually did not reap as much benefits as those Asia countries that industrialize later. One good example to take a look at is China and India. They entered the market much more later and yet they have actually developing at a much more faster rate than the 4 Tigers. Take China for example, currently they are the biggest economy based on the video Dr Grinder shared with us. I am sure with proper utilization of resources in the correct hands, the African nations will start to develop and hence eliminate poverty. The next interesting insight that i have gotten is actually the phrase that i have shown above shared by Tom Peter. To me, the above mentioned sentence implies that our ideas and innovations will constantly being copied once it's proved to work well and we need to constantly being innovation in order to make sure we remain competitive in the market and the gist of innovation is to constantly think of new ideas after the current ideas are being implemented. Take ipod for example, when the 1st ipod is invented and mimic the product. Apple tried to be innovative by creating the itouch and the idea of incorporating the idea of handphone and itouch to remain competitive. The last interesting fact is Dr Grinder sharing of the valley, summit and cloud opportunity.
I like the idea of the 3 terms introduced by Dr Grinder. I also can interpret it as showing different level that one is at and it can be used as a reference for one to continue innovate. For instance, company A introduced a product to the market. He will be at the summit but if he continue to develop and innovate. However if he chose to be complacent and be content with his product, he would definitely fall to the next category, Valley opportunities.
I would just summarize my major key takeaways in 3 points. Firstly, i will link this 2 theme hand in hand; To attain sustainable development, one has to be innovative. If we follow traditional model of industrial development in the 1980s, i am sure half of the iceberg would have melted and there will be more natural disasters. We have to think of ways and means to maintain our current usage not at the expense of our environment. Sometimes being innovative is not a bad thing as after one has invented a better way to reduce environmental impact, one can share the technology with the others so we can minimize the effects of global warming. Next would be innovation itself is a risky business that people must take. It will bring opportunities for your ideas being implemented and accepted in the market BUT it will also create challenges for the innovators. Competitors might either copy similar products and produce it to the market with just changing the label and design. In addition, competitors too might adept the ideas and create better products using the ideas of that innovator as a foundation of the research. The last key takeaway is that according to Prof Arai's perceptive, the process between the research period and the implementation period is actually the nightmares and this nightmares can be minimized if one take the nightmare into their dreams and make sure the process will not be as painful as it initially supposed to be.
I think the issue that we could spend more time for discussion is actually whether should innovation be technology or market driven? The reason is simply because i believe innovation on end products will definitely be different with different purposes. Next i would want to raise the question on how innovation can be made special and unique so that copies of similar products would not happened? Just like the product of champagne. It is considered as champagne if it is produced at only certain parts of france. This is the use of right branding strategy.
In conclusion, i would rate this week's lesson as 9/10 as this week we have more time for discussion and we have more time to delve a little further on the topic by our guest speakers compared to last week. I hope i will learn more issues about technology world change next week! =D Anyway if you guys are interested in the Chernobyl accident, i have actually posted the link at our group page. Alternatively, u can click on the link to watch! this is part 1 of 6. You will be able to see the rest of the parts by clicking the appropriate video links on the right.
The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEgkGNO-sQ&feature=related
No comments:
Post a Comment