for researchwritingcenter only

This article on innovation states that there should be management influence on innovations direction but the truth is that innovation is very dynamic and does not necessarily need to be directed. This is supported by the author’s assertion that the first two innovative approaches never worked for the industries and business corporations that rushed for it in an effort to step up their successes. The two were Open Innovation that helped some organizations and other was Crowd Sourcing for innovation that is still being talked about to date. The argument that the old way method of innovation is brought more returns to the business sectors is not entirely true because the problem is not the method of innovation that was disadvantaging modern industries but it was the way of adjusting it to the current technology. Modern innovative methods is very effective but a times leading to low returns because a lot of money often goes to innovating that become extremely difficult to recover. As it is today more corporate are investing a lot of money in research and this investment does not guarantee success. Whenever there is a breakthrough with regard to innovation the competitors will take up the new invention and start competing with the inventor disadvantaging them.

The eight stages cannot be banked on to guarantee success or returns in that sense. Like I earlier stated the innovative process should border on luck and should be flexible with the dynamics in the modern markets, it should therefore not be guided but guide itself. The use of example of Einstein and Edison supports my earlier assertion that the article should not see pre managed management of innovation as leading to any success because this through great men set for themselves the path to follow that led to their success. Their innovative process was not pre determined by copying the processes already in place but it was informed by self motivation to achieve their goals.

The argument by the author that the only guarantee for business growth is either mergers and acquisitions or innovations is false. Some business succeeds without either of the two. Some just take up the strategies and innovations of other who took the lead and lead them in competition. Innovation cannot be relied by many modern businesses because they are mainly focused on short term success and innovation can take long time before any meaningful progress is realized. It is true by the author to postulates that empowering of employees is the best way to innovation. This is because it id s the employees who are more conversant with the system he corporation is using and they are the ones encountering challenges posed by the current system and in that light they are the best suited to drive innovation forward. The main reasons why many CEOs still not sure on how to carry out innovations is because of the system they are adopting that they are made to believe it is the only sure way to succeed in innovation. Each business entity or corporation should invent for themselves the best methodology to carry out their innovation based on the nature and status the corporations are in.

CREATING A VISION FOR YOUR FIRM

The author is not right to paint vision formulations a waste of time. Visions and mission statement are very important both to stake holders and customers alike. This is because it is the vision that will guide the direction of the company and any stakeholder can know the direction the company is headed. The author is also wrong that a lot of energy is spent on vision statement and not on the strategy because it is the vision which is the direction and focus of the company that will guide the strategy formulation. There can never be a strategy when there is no direction to head, so vision is more important than strategy; it is the software part while the strategy is just but hardware.

The article is right that planning and strategic planning are two different and distinct features because the other which is strategic planning lays out the vision of the company and it involves a lot of specifics with regard to time and methods to be adopted. The attacks on lawyers based on the argument that some have worked for non-profit organization is not entirely true. Working on non-profit organizations does not make one lees important in formulating strategic plan because strategic plan depends on what one wants to achieve. In case of working for non-profit organization the focus is different from maximizing profit and will call for skills that are important at that moment. In fact working for both could be interpreted to mean having amassed a wide range of experience. It is true that we should take seriously presumptions for our own firms and that every strategic plan should start from point A to point B and it need an experienced individual to do that. The formulation of the vision should also take-in to serious consideration the fast changing world market and changes in the consumer’s preferences and tastes. The vision should not be unrealistic by focusing on for example 30 years ahead because many happening some are unexpected some may be expected will be at play. The author is also realistic by saying that by the company knowing what the desired outcome should be this will be the standard benchmark to come up with the strategy to achieve it. And like I earlier argued the vision is key before deciding on the strategy to achieve that vision. Without vision or rather the desired outcome it will be impossible to design a strategy. More time should be taken therefore on coming up with the vision and mission statement of the company because it is the key to the success of the company. With good vision the strategy formulation will become easier. Vision will sell out the company and the more the time taken to design it the better will be the future of the company.