The least innovative company I personally know is that way because they have failed to adapt to changes in technology and business efficiency. Most of the people working there have been with the company for a while and the average employee age is very high. By not bringing in new ideas or talent, it becomes very difficult to innovate because everyone is so used to the internal status quo.
A serious lack of considering the customers' perspective is the main problem within the least innovative company I know of. It's a service business that does a very good job and has great people, but they use run-of-the-mill e-marketing techniques to increase business. You can see hours upon hours of those free hotel seminars behind these e-mails, texts, and tweets. The end result is a diminished brand image in a highly specialized service field.
One of the U.S.’s oldest department store chains currently isn’t very innovative. In recent years it has struggled, suffering falling sales and major losses year after year. Consumers find their stores uninviting as they lack excitement, they’re outdated, and there is a lack of attention to customer service. As well, customers are not wowed by their off-trend merchandise and lackluster retail brand.
It’s important for retailers to evolve, update and pay attention to trends whether it be trends related to retailer look/feel, customer service, merchandise or brand, but it doesn’t seem like this company is focusing their efforts to improve these aspects. This is likely because the company is instead putting all of its focus on trying to dig itself out of a major sales dip. Instead of focusing on innovation to improve company sales, the company is putting much focus on cutting costs. More energy devoted to creating a new company strategy supported by comprehensive innovation is necessary to improve this company’s situation.
The least innovative company I am thinking of was not forward thinking when it came to recognizing how technology could be used to revolutionize the predominant business model in their industry. Furthermore, this business sat by and watched technology successfully be introduced into their space and did not adapt at all, which ultimately led them to become an obsolete player in the industry. The company failed to forecast changes in consumer habits, to leverage technological capabilities and resources to improve their business model, and ultimately failed to adapt in order to continue to compete in their industry.
The least innovative company I have ever experienced was a public utility. Part of the lack of innovation/drive for innovation was the pressure of being regulated by the government. The main lack of innovation, however, came from employees who had no incentive to innovate. Most all employees were long term employees who had no future career aspirations and did not appear to have any incentives to change the current situation. They were all happy with the status quo and even if there were problems with their job, they were content to keep it the same as opposed to trying to make changes through innovation. The culture of the organization did not support innovation and there was no incentive for employees to innovate.
The least innovative company I know is a relatively popular supermarket and liquor store chain that was founded in the East Coast. At some point in its history, this company was the world's largest retailer but failure to keep pace with the innovations of other retail chains led to its demise. While other retail chains opened larger, modern supermarkets with features demanded by customers, this company did not. As a result, this company's stores were out of date by the 1970s, and losses only but mounted in subsequent decades. Eventually, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2010. This proves to me that complacency can lead to extinction.
The least innovative company I've been around was a client of mine in a previous job. The business rewarded seniority over merit, took very few risks, and generally attracted the types of employees who were willing to put forth the bare minimum amount of effort to not be identified as a 'weak link.' The business found itself in a slow-march death spiral--it's a wonder they've made it this far...
The least innovative company I am thinking about got to be that way because they were highly diversified, too entrenched in processes and were unwilling to change even when rivals around them became more nimble. Eventually most divisions within the company became unprofitable and the company was left depending largely on one profitable division.
The least creative company I know was run by a highly authoritarian founder. This man initially had a sound business idea and successfully managed to grow his start-up into medium-sized enterprise. By the time however, he and his co-founders became too narrow-minded and reluctant to revamp the company’s business model. Highly trained employees eventually got frustrated with the internal innovation barriers and left. After a couple of years, the company wasn’t able to compete with competitors anymore. The CEO simply was not willing to react to the radical industry changes adequately and the company eventually filed for bankruptcy.
The least innovative company I know employs the strategy of “wait and see” to determine what trends are working in the market place and essentially copy them. The CEO was incredibly risk averse and the organization was very hesitant to enter a product into the marketplace that they were not certain would succeed. Because of their copy-cat strategy, product designers and buyers were frequently frustrated and felt that they were underutilizing their creative capabilities. Additionally, the CEO would review each quarter’s merchandise buy and nix various products if he felt they were not mainstream enough. Because of these policies and procedures, this company will never produce innovative products or foster innovation within the organization.
The least innovative company that I know is a place that I worked for two years that failed to adapt to changes in technology. This firm had many clients and instead of embracing changes in technology and trying to figure out ways that these trends could help its business, the firm renounced all changes insisting that the "old way works." This led to client engagements that were twice as long as originally planned. Along the same lines, these clients would become upset regarding the long turnaround time and increased costs and search for other firms. When staff tried to bring up new technology improvements to management that would help the engagement process, they were ignored and deemed to not be a team player. Because of management's lack of technological appreciation this firm will never be referred to as an innovative company.
The least innovative company that I'm familiar with did not use the latest technology business-wide. It continued to use outdated computer programs and systems. While technology is a very costly investment, I believe it was necessary to operate competitively long-term. The company's close competitors were more advanced in their use of technology which helped increase client satisfaction in many different ways. When those clients would come to said company, they had a certain expectation level for service quality and timeliness that could not be met primarily due to technology. Had the company used more advanced technology, it could have made its processes more efficient, improve lead times, and deliver better service.
Similar to Mary’s company, the least innovative company that I know follows the leaders, often too late in the process to overcome gap in market shares. In addition, the company focuses most of its time and resources on one product line. This does not allow the employees the freedom to innovate or create new solutions. Individually thinking or risk taking is considered too outrageous to this company’s leaders. They believe whatever their competitors are doing must be the best way to conduct business. Unfortunately, the company will never surpass its leaders with these business practices.
The least innovative company I know had highly segregated departments where employees would often work all day without communicating within their team. There was not only duplication of effort across departments but very rarely were any processes improved upon. Each employee worked in their own silo and did things the way they had always been done. Some of the older employees were afraid to improve and innovate themselves out of a job, since layoffs had occurred twice within a 12 month period.
The least innovative company I know of is plagued by being reactionary rather than proactive. They are a major player in a dynamic industry that is currently in flux due to changing consumer habits, but they are resistant to change. Because old revenue models are still generating enough money to meet budget requirements, stakeholders are happy in the short term, and management has a false sense of security. Things are fine now, but there is no question that the end of business as they know it is in sight. The workforce is primarily composed of older, experienced people who value hierarchy and seniority over promise, eagerness and creativity. They are leaving the door open for someone else to define the future of the industry, while focusing on reaping the most short term gains possible; keeping one eye on the current prize and one to the possibilities of the future is essential to create competitive advantage that is sustainable long term.
The least innovative company I can think of has a problem with never changing from the status quo. They stay the path regardless of what competitors are doing and will go as far as telling themselves that the competitors obviously have it wrong because there's no need to change. Like Mitch mentions in his description, they are risk adverse and only promote those who think alike. Those that stand out and try to make change are told there's no reason to do it differently, things are fine just the way they are because this is how they've always done it. This creates a fear of raising problems with creative solutions and has left them struggling to progress.
The least innovative company that I know is related with the Pharma industry, and as maybe everyone knows, these kinds of companies have a lot of problems with innovation process. This problem is because there is many rules or bureaucracy that don´t permit to create new ideas.
In my personal experience, I felt frustrated working there because I had a good idea but the people responsible for approving or accepting these proposals said “you need to wait 1 month for the first approval, later 2 months for the headquarters´ approval, after you need to wait until the next business plan (every August), etc.”
Removing bureaucracy will help you for being a more innovative company.
The least innovative company I know is a small company that has only one employee per department. Moreover, all of the employees have been with the company for around 20 years and their average ages are quite high. They have been doing the same things for so long that they refuse to accept any change, even though they might know that the change will improve the operation. Since there is only one employee per department, so employees do not know how other employees work. They also do not want to share their knowledge and their work with other.
The least innovative company I can think of struggled because they were considered an industry leader at one time and became so confident in the structure and processes that got them to that point that they failed to acknowledge the changes that were coming in their line of business.
Being too defiant to stick with "what got you there" is a good recipe for becoming yesterday's news. Companies need to consider how industry dynamics, competition, the changing needs of their own employees, and the changing customer base may affect what it takes to be successful. Being humble means acknowledging when changes may needed and being swift enough to anticipate needed changes and to respond as needed.
In the least innovative company that I personally know, people just limited themselves to the boundary of the company. They barely know about the other companies in the same industry outside of the country and considered themselves as superior than similar domestic companies. The company was so closed and full of itself that a minor innovation could be phenomenal.
The problem with this company is that it is a state-own company in a closed market.Being monopoly in a closed market, it hardly felt competition from either outside or inside the country, which killed most of motivation for innovation.
The least innovative company that I know defined itself according to its existing lines of business and products instead of utilizing the knowledge and resources that make up those businesses in order to innovate into new products or markets. Also, the company's performance was steady, and there was a real challenge to break out of the status quo because of everyone's comfortable position.
The least innovative company that I know is a public sector company from outside the US. This company has inculcated a culture in which everybody is trying to stab everyone else's back. Consequently, even managers and employees who would like to do things differently are dissuaded from venturing their ideas at the risk of exposing themselves to leg-pulling. Employees are highly unionized and prefer to use union bargaining as a way to retain their jobs and avoid change. Due to the monopolistic nature of this company's product, top management does not make any serious efforts to change the culture. Consequently results of the company are going down, and it is evident to anyone that this firm will be history the moment competition comes in.
The least innovative organization I can think of at this point is actually a sports based organization that has retained the same leadership for over 20 years. While I can't say that some of their methods have not been innovative, I don't think the biggest adjustment to the organization that can bring about the most significant changes has not been activated. In retaining leadership that has been "brought up through the ranks" of the organization I think there can be a tendency to do thing the way they've always been done or have an "if it's not broken, there's nothing to fix". As a young professional you enter an organization with zeal, new ideas, and a desire to make a difference, but you can be quickly stalled in those efforts when the organization is not looking to change. In my internship this summer, each of us were asked to include in our presentation a way the firm could be more innovative. It was so fun to hear all of the ideas an speculate on the implementation of such ideas. Organizations that are actively seeking new ideas and going to alternative methods to find it are really stepping up to ensure they are not "the least innovative company".
The least innovative company I can think of is one where leadership cannot think strategically ahead; whether that is with a global focus, diversity-wise, or product innovations within the industry. Many companies that have had historical successes have often been mired in "what they have always done." Almost everything is interconnected these days, so to think that companies can continue to operate as "mini islands" is not realistic. In order to be competitive, there has to be more outward attention paid to the overall global climate and how competitors are reacting to various stimuli.
The least innovative company I can think of is one that, at one point, was a very strong player in its industry. Effectively due to the stubbornness and perhaps ignorance of the company's leadership, the firm saw its market share dwindle down significantly. I think innovation must build on itself - companies must constantly be looking to improve their products/offerings and can never extensively rest on past successes. Just because a company had a blockbuster product in the past does not mean that, without continued improvement and innovation, they will be successful in the future. There are signs of innovative initiatives at this firm now, but given how drastically its industry had changed, many consider these efforts 'too little, too late.'
The least innovative company I know is focused primarily on one specific way of implementing IT solutions. They implement the same solution for every client (mostly in the government sector) and have a "one size fits all" policy. Their dogmatic way of thinking is prohibiting them from evolving and changing with client demands (although the client also lacks innovation). They also believe that they have the best solution and aren't striving to improve or change their framework, both of which prohibits them from innovating new products and services and therefore, potentially have a disadvantage in the future against new competitors.
During undergrad I worked at a call center for a summer. Beyond some of the less than exciting aspects of working in a call center, the company seemed to crush innovation. Many of the processes were paper based, and knowledge sharing was not encouraged. In order to get through more calls, I devised a simple system (in Excel) to keep track of information I collected on the call. This simple process increased the number of calls I was able to make…however the company was not willing to roll out the idea to the remainder of the call center reps because “that’s not how things are done here.”
There's a company that I know of that has not really changed the way that they have done business in over 20 years. The technology has changed, but the people and processes of the organization are completely reactive to the marketplace. The industry has been around for a long time, and there is little effort to really understand what the problems are, or how to get out in front of them. The company doesn't innovate, it simply copies what others do.
Some companies today can afford not to be innovative simply because they rely upon the prestige associated with their product and its reputation. They have never needed to prove the value of their product, or to invest significant resources to create an effective marketing campaign. While these companies may not be maximizing their potential to dominate a given market, or finding new ways to cut costs within company operations, the level of success they enjoy year in and year out - not to mention the history of the company and influence of shareholders - often makes managers reluctant to try something new. It seems that companies are sometimes most innovative when they need to be in order to stay afloat. When times aren't tough, few managers see the areas of the firm that could be improved, or are willing to take the risk to "fix something that isn't broken". Those who do have a vision and who are willing to take those risks are likely the managers who will have the biggest impact - positive or negative - on the company.
The least innovative company I know is one that is determining consumer policy without listening to what consumers are actually demanding. In fact, an entire industry has been altered as this company comes up with new ways to nickle and dime its customers. Some companies use tough times as a way to refine the product or service, whereas others look for cheap ways to make an extra dollar from each paying customer. I think the reason this company fails to innovate is because of management and its unwillingness to push employees to think creatively.
Interesting article about how Microsoft's management structure stifles innovation. Thought it was particularly important to our discussion today. It talks about how being a generalist rather than a specialist might inhibit innovation. In particular, in a company that ranks people on a bell curve, some know that they will be ranked low and some will be ranked high, regardless of if they are all over-performers. This inhibits those innovators and risk-takers.
The least innovative company I personally know is that way because they have failed to adapt to changes in technology and business efficiency. Most of the people working there have been with the company for a while and the average employee age is very high. By not bringing in new ideas or talent, it becomes very difficult to innovate because everyone is so used to the internal status quo.
ReplyDeleteA serious lack of considering the customers' perspective is the main problem within the least innovative company I know of. It's a service business that does a very good job and has great people, but they use run-of-the-mill e-marketing techniques to increase business. You can see hours upon hours of those free hotel seminars behind these e-mails, texts, and tweets. The end result is a diminished brand image in a highly specialized service field.
ReplyDeleteOne of the U.S.’s oldest department store chains currently isn’t very innovative. In recent years it has struggled, suffering falling sales and major losses year after year. Consumers find their stores uninviting as they lack excitement, they’re outdated, and there is a lack of attention to customer service. As well, customers are not wowed by their off-trend merchandise and lackluster retail brand.
ReplyDeleteIt’s important for retailers to evolve, update and pay attention to trends whether it be trends related to retailer look/feel, customer service, merchandise or brand, but it doesn’t seem like this company is focusing their efforts to improve these aspects. This is likely because the company is instead putting all of its focus on trying to dig itself out of a major sales dip. Instead of focusing on innovation to improve company sales, the company is putting much focus on cutting costs. More energy devoted to creating a new company strategy supported by comprehensive innovation is necessary to improve this company’s situation.
The least innovative company I am thinking of was not forward thinking when it came to recognizing how technology could be used to revolutionize the predominant business model in their industry. Furthermore, this business sat by and watched technology successfully be introduced into their space and did not adapt at all, which ultimately led them to become an obsolete player in the industry. The company failed to forecast changes in consumer habits, to leverage technological capabilities and resources to improve their business model, and ultimately failed to adapt in order to continue to compete in their industry.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I have ever experienced was a public utility. Part of the lack of innovation/drive for innovation was the pressure of being regulated by the government. The main lack of innovation, however, came from employees who had no incentive to innovate. Most all employees were long term employees who had no future career aspirations and did not appear to have any incentives to change the current situation. They were all happy with the status quo and even if there were problems with their job, they were content to keep it the same as opposed to trying to make changes through innovation. The culture of the organization did not support innovation and there was no incentive for employees to innovate.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I know is a relatively popular supermarket and liquor store chain that was founded in the East Coast. At some point in its history, this company was the world's largest retailer but failure to keep pace with the innovations of other retail chains led to its demise. While other retail chains opened larger, modern supermarkets with features demanded by customers, this company did not. As a result, this company's stores were out of date by the 1970s, and losses only but mounted in subsequent decades. Eventually, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2010. This proves to me that complacency can lead to extinction.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I've been around was a client of mine in a previous job. The business rewarded seniority over merit, took very few risks, and generally attracted the types of employees who were willing to put forth the bare minimum amount of effort to not be identified as a 'weak link.' The business found itself in a slow-march death spiral--it's a wonder they've made it this far...
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I am thinking about got to be that way because they were highly diversified, too entrenched in processes and were unwilling to change even when rivals around them became more nimble. Eventually most divisions within the company became unprofitable and the company was left depending largely on one profitable division.
ReplyDeleteThe least creative company I know was run by a highly authoritarian founder. This man initially had a sound business idea and successfully managed to grow his start-up into medium-sized enterprise. By the time however, he and his co-founders became too narrow-minded and reluctant to revamp the company’s business model. Highly trained employees eventually got frustrated with the internal innovation barriers and left. After a couple of years, the company wasn’t able to compete with competitors anymore. The CEO simply was not willing to react to the radical industry changes adequately and the company eventually filed for bankruptcy.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I know employs the strategy of “wait and see” to determine what trends are working in the market place and essentially copy them. The CEO was incredibly risk averse and the organization was very hesitant to enter a product into the marketplace that they were not certain would succeed. Because of their copy-cat strategy, product designers and buyers were frequently frustrated and felt that they were underutilizing their creative capabilities. Additionally, the CEO would review each quarter’s merchandise buy and nix various products if he felt they were not mainstream enough. Because of these policies and procedures, this company will never produce innovative products or foster innovation within the organization.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company that I know is a place that I worked for two years that failed to adapt to changes in technology. This firm had many clients and instead of embracing changes in technology and trying to figure out ways that these trends could help its business, the firm renounced all changes insisting that the "old way works." This led to client engagements that were twice as long as originally planned. Along the same lines, these clients would become upset regarding the long turnaround time and increased costs and search for other firms. When staff tried to bring up new technology improvements to management that would help the engagement process, they were ignored and deemed to not be a team player. Because of management's lack of technological appreciation this firm will never be referred to as an innovative company.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company that I'm familiar with did not use the latest technology business-wide. It continued to use outdated computer programs and systems. While technology is a very costly investment, I believe it was necessary to operate competitively long-term. The company's close competitors were more advanced in their use of technology which helped increase client satisfaction in many different ways. When those clients would come to said company, they had a certain expectation level for service quality and timeliness that could not be met primarily due to technology. Had the company used more advanced technology, it could have made its processes more efficient, improve lead times, and deliver better service.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Mary’s company, the least innovative company that I know follows the leaders, often too late in the process to overcome gap in market shares. In addition, the company focuses most of its time and resources on one product line. This does not allow the employees the freedom to innovate or create new solutions. Individually thinking or risk taking is considered too outrageous to this company’s leaders. They believe whatever their competitors are doing must be the best way to conduct business. Unfortunately, the company will never surpass its leaders with these business practices.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I know had highly segregated departments where employees would often work all day without communicating within their team. There was not only duplication of effort across departments but very rarely were any processes improved upon. Each employee worked in their own silo and did things the way they had always been done. Some of the older employees were afraid to improve and innovate themselves out of a job, since layoffs had occurred twice within a 12 month period.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I know of is plagued by being reactionary rather than proactive. They are a major player in a dynamic industry that is currently in flux due to changing consumer habits, but they are resistant to change. Because old revenue models are still generating enough money to meet budget requirements, stakeholders are happy in the short term, and management has a false sense of security. Things are fine now, but there is no question that the end of business as they know it is in sight. The workforce is primarily composed of older, experienced people who value hierarchy and seniority over promise, eagerness and creativity. They are leaving the door open for someone else to define the future of the industry, while focusing on reaping the most short term gains possible; keeping one eye on the current prize and one to the possibilities of the future is essential to create competitive advantage that is sustainable long term.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I can think of has a problem with never changing from the status quo. They stay the path regardless of what competitors are doing and will go as far as telling themselves that the competitors obviously have it wrong because there's no need to change. Like Mitch mentions in his description, they are risk adverse and only promote those who think alike. Those that stand out and try to make change are told there's no reason to do it differently, things are fine just the way they are because this is how they've always done it. This creates a fear of raising problems with creative solutions and has left them struggling to progress.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company that I know is related with the Pharma industry, and as maybe everyone knows, these kinds of companies have a lot of problems with innovation process. This problem is because there is many rules or bureaucracy that don´t permit to create new ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal experience, I felt frustrated working there because I had a good idea but the people responsible for approving or accepting these proposals said “you need to wait 1 month for the first approval, later 2 months for the headquarters´ approval, after you need to wait until the next business plan (every August), etc.”
Removing bureaucracy will help you for being a more innovative company.
The least innovative company I know is a small company that has only one employee per department. Moreover, all of the employees have been with the company for around 20 years and their average ages are quite high. They have been doing the same things for so long that they refuse to accept any change, even though they might know that the change will improve the operation. Since there is only one employee per department, so employees do not know how other employees work. They also do not want to share their knowledge and their work with other.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I can think of struggled because they were considered an industry leader at one time and became so confident in the structure and processes that got them to that point that they failed to acknowledge the changes that were coming in their line of business.
ReplyDeleteBeing too defiant to stick with "what got you there" is a good recipe for becoming yesterday's news. Companies need to consider how industry dynamics, competition, the changing needs of their own employees, and the changing customer base may affect what it takes to be successful. Being humble means acknowledging when changes may needed and being swift enough to anticipate needed changes and to respond as needed.
In the least innovative company that I personally know, people just limited themselves to the boundary of the company. They barely know about the other companies in the same industry outside of the country and considered themselves as superior than similar domestic companies. The company was so closed and full of itself that a minor innovation could be phenomenal.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this company is that it is a state-own company in a closed market.Being monopoly in a closed market, it hardly felt competition from either outside or inside the country, which killed most of motivation for innovation.
The least innovative company that I know defined itself according to its existing lines of business and products instead of utilizing the knowledge and resources that make up those businesses in order to innovate into new products or markets. Also, the company's performance was steady, and there was a real challenge to break out of the status quo because of everyone's comfortable position.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company that I know is a public sector company from outside the US. This company has inculcated a culture in which everybody is trying to stab everyone else's back. Consequently, even managers and employees who would like to do things differently are dissuaded from venturing their ideas at the risk of exposing themselves to leg-pulling. Employees are highly unionized and prefer to use union bargaining as a way to retain their jobs and avoid change. Due to the monopolistic nature of this company's product, top management does not make any serious efforts to change the culture. Consequently results of the company are going down, and it is evident to anyone that this firm will be history the moment competition comes in.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative organization I can think of at this point is actually a sports based organization that has retained the same leadership for over 20 years. While I can't say that some of their methods have not been innovative, I don't think the biggest adjustment to the organization that can bring about the most significant changes has not been activated. In retaining leadership that has been "brought up through the ranks" of the organization I think there can be a tendency to do thing the way they've always been done or have an "if it's not broken, there's nothing to fix". As a young professional you enter an organization with zeal, new ideas, and a desire to make a difference, but you can be quickly stalled in those efforts when the organization is not looking to change. In my internship this summer, each of us were asked to include in our presentation a way the firm could be more innovative. It was so fun to hear all of the ideas an speculate on the implementation of such ideas. Organizations that are actively seeking new ideas and going to alternative methods to find it are really stepping up to ensure they are not "the least innovative company".
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I can think of is one where leadership cannot think strategically ahead; whether that is with a global focus, diversity-wise, or product innovations within the industry. Many companies that have had historical successes have often been mired in "what they have always done." Almost everything is interconnected these days, so to think that companies can continue to operate as "mini islands" is not realistic. In order to be competitive, there has to be more outward attention paid to the overall global climate and how competitors are reacting to various stimuli.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I can think of is one that, at one point, was a very strong player in its industry. Effectively due to the stubbornness and perhaps ignorance of the company's leadership, the firm saw its market share dwindle down significantly. I think innovation must build on itself - companies must constantly be looking to improve their products/offerings and can never extensively rest on past successes. Just because a company had a blockbuster product in the past does not mean that, without continued improvement and innovation, they will be successful in the future. There are signs of innovative initiatives at this firm now, but given how drastically its industry had changed, many consider these efforts 'too little, too late.'
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I know is focused primarily on one specific way of implementing IT solutions. They implement the same solution for every client (mostly in the government sector) and have a "one size fits all" policy. Their dogmatic way of thinking is prohibiting them from evolving and changing with client demands (although the client also lacks innovation). They also believe that they have the best solution and aren't striving to improve or change their framework, both of which prohibits them from innovating new products and services and therefore, potentially have a disadvantage in the future against new competitors.
ReplyDeleteDuring undergrad I worked at a call center for a summer. Beyond some of the less than exciting aspects of working in a call center, the company seemed to crush innovation. Many of the processes were paper based, and knowledge sharing was not encouraged. In order to get through more calls, I devised a simple system (in Excel) to keep track of information I collected on the call. This simple process increased the number of calls I was able to make…however the company was not willing to roll out the idea to the remainder of the call center reps because “that’s not how things are done here.”
ReplyDeleteThere's a company that I know of that has not really changed the way that they have done business in over 20 years. The technology has changed, but the people and processes of the organization are completely reactive to the marketplace. The industry has been around for a long time, and there is little effort to really understand what the problems are, or how to get out in front of them. The company doesn't innovate, it simply copies what others do.
ReplyDeleteSome companies today can afford not to be innovative simply because they rely upon the prestige associated with their product and its reputation. They have never needed to prove the value of their product, or to invest significant resources to create an effective marketing campaign. While these companies may not be maximizing their potential to dominate a given market, or finding new ways to cut costs within company operations, the level of success they enjoy year in and year out - not to mention the history of the company and influence of shareholders - often makes managers reluctant to try something new. It seems that companies are sometimes most innovative when they need to be in order to stay afloat. When times aren't tough, few managers see the areas of the firm that could be improved, or are willing to take the risk to "fix something that isn't broken". Those who do have a vision and who are willing to take those risks are likely the managers who will have the biggest impact - positive or negative - on the company.
ReplyDeleteThe least innovative company I know is one that is determining consumer policy without listening to what consumers are actually demanding. In fact, an entire industry has been altered as this company comes up with new ways to nickle and dime its customers. Some companies use tough times as a way to refine the product or service, whereas others look for cheap ways to make an extra dollar from each paying customer. I think the reason this company fails to innovate is because of management and its unwillingness to push employees to think creatively.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article about how Microsoft's management structure stifles innovation. Thought it was particularly important to our discussion today. It talks about how being a generalist rather than a specialist might inhibit innovation. In particular, in a company that ranks people on a bell curve, some know that they will be ranked low and some will be ranked high, regardless of if they are all over-performers. This inhibits those innovators and risk-takers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economist.com/whichmba/management-microsoft-way