Big Think

Courtney Frazier commented on Internal Talent is Not Enough on July 1, 2009, 3:53 PM

There are a few different problems that I have with Spradlin's notion of 'open innovation', largely because of his cavalier attitude toward fostering innovation, which I'm assuming he defines as some sort of progress within a given field. Spradlin explicitly says, "It’s less important how you get the innovations you need to do that." This is extremely problematic for a few reasons: First, taking the path of least resistance, even if it means investing less in a foreign country versus the United States, will ultimately detract from the American economy, which most of the people in this series are saying needs a big infusion of investment in order to grow. Secondly, the means by which companies often foster innovation in foreign countries often exploits the poor quality of life of third-world nations, paying workers with PhD's the equivalent of what someone would earn in the US working at a McDonald's. And thirdly, I don't think that Spradlin clearly explains why innovation from the 'outside' is inherently more valuable than innovation from the 'inside.' And further, he does not really define what 'inside' versus 'outside' an organization is. For instance, how do consultancy firms fit in the picture?

Courtney Frazier commented on Rebooting Marketing: Forget Your Image, Focus on Relationships on June 30, 2009, 7:07 PM

This is an extremely interesting insight, but what does it mean to 'engage' a customer without 'focusing' on them. To me, this notion seems counterintuitive. When a business creates an experience for a customer, is it not just offering a service that facilitates action from the user? I'm not sure Tascott's distinction is a meaningful one. However, Tapscott's point that a business' brand is becoming an increasingly complex notion centered on integrity is a good one. How to develop these notions, it seems, is just the natural development of having a solid, quality product. Again, this seems to conflict with his earlier point. Sorry, Mr. Tapscott -- but from my perspective, it appears as though you're sending mixed messages.

Courtney Frazier commented on Applying the Principles of Mass Collaboration to Risk Management on June 30, 2009, 6:53 PM

I'm a big fan of Tapscott, and read and enjoyed his book Wikinomics. I'm unclear, however, what exactly he means when we says that we should use mass collaborative 'wiki-like' approaches toward risk managment in the finance sector. I'm not sure Tapscott does either.  One example Tapscott uses in his book, I believe, draws on the example of Barrick Gold Company, which opened up its proprietary geological information on its land holdings up, with the proposition that any who prosed innovative techniques and suggested good ideas would get a large cash prize ($500k, I believe). The crucial piece that's missing in his proposition for the finance sector is the incentive structure for those who work in finance to share their risk models. While the model of mass collaboration was applicable for a question whose specific focus was about a product that Barrick still owned (namely, their land), opening up financial risk models for others' viewing could very well be used in a competitive setting and, I think, most likely would. More specifically, what's to stop a company from taking certain aspects of a superiorly designed risk model and incorporating it into their own?  To me, it seems as though Tapscott is trying to apply is 'mass collaboration' model to an instance where it does not necessarily work.