Shyam's Slide Share Presentations

VIRTUAL LIBRARY "KNOWLEDGE - KORRIDOR"

This article/post is from a third party website. The views expressed are that of the author. We at Capacity Building & Development may not necessarily subscribe to it completely. The relevance & applicability of the content is limited to certain geographic zones.It is not universal.

TO VIEW MORE CONTENT ON THIS SUBJECT AND OTHER TOPICS, Please visit KNOWLEDGE-KORRIDOR our Virtual Library

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Reframe failure as intention 06-29


Reframe failure as intention


Better Place and Tesla prove there's an art out to turning sub-optimal outcomes into success.

By Saul Kaplan
130524140921-better-place-charging-station-620xa
FORTUNE -- The key to unlocking the next wave of economic growth may be as simple as enabling more people to try more stuff. The industrial era was all about scale and squeezing out the possibility of mistakes. As a result we are too afraid to fail. Companies only take on projects with highly predictable results. Employees fall in line for fear of making career-limiting moves. How will we get better if the fear of failure prevents us from trying anything new? How will we make progress on the big system challenges of our time, if every time someone tries something transformational and fails, we vilify them? What if we reframed failure as intentional iteration?
Take the example of Better Place, the startup that set out to create a world full of electric cars with a novel battery swapping business model. I highlighted Better Place and its founder Shai Agassi as one of the best examples of business model innovation and the importance of a real world test bed.

In 2005 Agassi attended the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. He was inspired by a framing question asked by WEF's founder Klaus Schwab at the beginning of the conference, "How do you make the world a better place by 2020?" Agassi took Schwab's question seriously and decided he would make the world a better place by reducing its dependence on oil by creating market-based infrastructure to support a transition to all-electric cars. Agassi knew that the only way to accomplish his goal was through business model innovation and industry system change. OK, it didn't work. After 6 years, raising $850 million in private capital and launching commercial operations in Israel and Denmark, 
The "I told you so crowd" immediately started taking shots. New York Times columnist David Brooks took a swing directly at Agassi calling him a "brilliant technology entrepreneur" but implying that he was among "conference circuit capitalists who give fantastic presentations but have turned out to be marginal in history." Ouch. Easy for David Brooks to criticize others for sharing their point of view at conferences when he leverages a New York Times platform to do the same thing. Agassi is among a new breed of 21st century leaders who know that transforming any industry is as much about launching a movement as building a company.
Movements require a viral social conversation that people can participate in and share with friends. Sharing stories at innovation events that enable random collisions of unusual suspects help to catalyze movements. I would point to other leaders including Tony Hsieh at Zappos (AMZN) and Jason Fried at 37Signals. Both are leading successful companies that if you look under the covers are really movements. They are inspiration accelerators.
After the Better Place bankruptcy announcement I've been asked if I was wrong about Better Place's business model. Many suggest that battery swapping is doomed to failure. I don't think so. Just because Better Place didn't work doesn't mean that the business model innovation they pioneered won't. Better Place tried to skip the middle phase of the transformation mantra, think big, start small, and scale fast. They needed a smaller place to prove out the entire system before scaling fast. Even Israel (8,000 square miles) and Denmark (17,000 square miles) were too big to quickly demonstrate the network effect of their proposed battery-swapping model. I exchanged emails with Agassi when Better Place was getting started suggesting that they prove out the model in Rhode Island, only a thousand square miles with a population of a million people! Agassi responded that Rhode Island had been on their early consideration list, but with private investors throwing $800 million at them, Better Place chose larger markets. They ran out of money and time to prove out the model.
I still think the Better Place business model is possible with further experimentation. Don't take my word for it. Elon Musk just announced that Tesla (TSLA) is launching a battery-swapping model. Tesla is going to test stations where Model-S owners can swap batteries in 90 seconds for $50-60, less time and money than filling up a tank of gas. Bold business models don't die; they just get reinvented. If we want to go from best practice to next practice we have to try more stuff. We learn more from efforts that don't work than from those that do. So instead of piling on those that try to do bold things without initial success or criticizing those that share their paradigm shifting ideas publicly, we should thank them for pushing us forward and providing the knowledge to try again, only better the next time. Let's reframe failure as intentional iteration.

This piece is adapted from The Business Model Innovation Factory. Saul Kaplan is the author of The Business Model Innovation Factory. He is the founder and chief catalyst of theBusiness Innovation Factory (BIF) in Providence, R.I., and blogs regularly at It's Saul Connected. Follow him on Twitter at @skap5. 

The world's most powerful celebrities 06-29

The world's most powerful celebrities

Oprah Winfrey Tops The Celebrity 100 List

The unsinkable Oprah Winfrey takes her spot at the top of our list for the fifth time as she puts her full force behind turning OWN into a powerful cable network. Winfrey is one of six women who rank in the top 10 of our annual measurement of money and fame.Continue
Dorothy Pomerantz 6.26.13

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

The Innovators DNA: Interview with Jeff Dyer and Hal Gregersen 06-27

The Innovators DNA: Interview with Jeff Dyer and Hal Gregersen


innovator's dna
A few weeks ago, I got the chance to interview the authors of the bestselling innovation book, The Innovator’s DNA.  Below is the transcript of what I was able to record from our call.
Before, here is short bio of each author:
Hal Gregersen is the Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Chair of Innovation and Leadership at INSEAD and Jeff Dyer is the Horace Beesley Professor of Strategy at BYU’s Marriott School of Management. They are co-authors of The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators and most recently worked together on Innovator’s Accelerator, an online executive education experience designed to develop individuals’ and organizations’ innovation skills.

What was the motivation behind writing this book and what surprised you most about what you found?

Hal: I’ve had a lifelong commitment to understanding effective leadership. The capacity to innovate and create unique solutions has always been at the forefront of successful leadership. About ten years ago, Jeff and I asked Clayton Christensen: 
How do disruptive thinkers actually get the original ideas behind their businesses ideas, the ones that completely change the face of the world? None of us had a clear answer. Asking these questions created a fascinating chance to interview some of the most successful disruptive innovators on earth. We wanted to see how they got new ideas and how they made those ideas happen.
 So, for me it was an intriguing journey to understand what these folks do on a day to day basis to develop ideas that make a difference. One of the somewhat surprising insights from the research was that disruptive innovators definitely show consistent behavioral patterns. They act differently to think differently. We subsequently discovered in our global database of over 6,000 entrepreneurs and executives that anyone who chooses to act and think like famous innovators do can also generate ideas that make a difference.
Jeff: For me the primary driver of this project was a conversation that Hal Gregersen and I had with Clayton Christensen. We asked him: Where do these disruptive business ideas come from in the first place? He said: You know, I don’t really know.
And, then we thought, that would be interesting to study. The origins of these disruptive innovations.
And second, around that same time, I saw some research that had been done by psychologists looking at whether creativity was more genetically based or something that was learned. And saw that in fact it was something that was more learned than genetically based. So, there was something that we could actually study. If it’s not genetics, then what is it?  What is it that creative thinkers learn along the way? And what techniques do they use to help them get innovative ideas?
So, the combination of the conversations with Clay and knowing that it wasn’t just genetics was a prime catalyst for me to want to do this project.
As far as what surprised me most from the overall study, it was that creativity is really something you can learn. If you act different, then you can think different. I had bought into the right-left brain notion of genetic endowment that some have it and some don’t. And, I’m never going to be like Steve Jobs. I’m not going to try. But in the last couple of years I’ve been involved in creating some new products and starting a couple of new businesses. I never saw myself as an entrepreneur or as someone who gets to create new things but now, using the techniques that we uncovered in the study, I’ve realized that I can come up with some new things too.
Hal: What surprised me was that many of these leaders were not very articulate at explaining how they went about discovering new ideas. They were highly creative and built businesses that changed entire industries, but the businesses couldn’t sustain themselves over time. Part of this inability to build and sustain an innovative culture resulted from not knowing how they, as senior leaders, innovated at a personal level, and as a result, they failed at teaching others in their organizations how to do it equally well. In contrast, other innovative leaders who exhibited high self-awareness about how they personally generated new ideas were exactly the ones who excelled at teaching others how to discover and deliver new, disruptive ideas. Ultimately, innovation is not an individual sport.  It is a team sport and takes many people working together to generate great new ideas and then make them happen.
Jeff: As an example of that, Scott Cook, founder of Intuit, became very aware that it was his observations that lead to the ideas for QuickBooks and Quicken and he was really good at creating a set of training materials to share his experiences with the folks at Intuit. So he taught people how to become great observers and he built that as part of the company culture.
Hal: Disruptive innovators ask provocative questions, ones that challenge the status-quo. They have high question-to-answer ratios, asking far more questions than giving answers to others. The best innovators we encountered asked fundamental questions, as they tried to figure out what’s really going on. They often start with What is?- and Why?-centric questions in their search for understanding what was currently going on with customers. 
Once they understood well why people were doing what they did, innovators then moved to asking a series of What if?, Why not?, and How might? questions to uncover entirely new ways of approaching a situation. They endlessly pepper the world with inquiries to figure out what is before tackling the even bigger challenge of figuring out what might be.

Of the five skills, is there one skill in particular that is more important than all others? Why?

Jeff: Associational thinking is the most important of the five skills. If you practice the other skills, but don’t do associational thinking, you won’t get the impact you want.
The reason associational thinking is the most important is because the other behaviors bring in new knowledge that trigger the associations that actually produce the novel idea. So, it’s a cognitive skill. The other four are behavioral skills that have a cognitive dimension to them to some extent; you can just start asking questions and start doing observations and it starts a behavior. But, the ultimate goal is to put two things together that haven’t been put together in a new way to produce something that’s novel and hopefully useful and implementable, which is what we think about as innovation – a novel idea that’s useful and also doable.

So, what advice do you have for established companies that want to become more creative?

Jeff: What we’ve learned about the most innovative companies in the world is that they are comprised of people who score high on the five discovery skills, that they have some processes in place as they problem solve that encourage them to question, observe, network and to experiment. And, they have philosophies or cultures that encourage folks to innovate in the sense that they expect innovation.
For example, being a part of Apple or Google you are expected to innovate.

For people who think they are not creative, what would you advise them to do?

Hal: That is a great question. I think everybody has an opportunity or a challenge for which they don’t have a solution and they’re trying to figure out a good solution to it. So, the first stage of getting a new idea is caring about something enough to do something about it. So, find a problem or an opportunity that matters, one that matters in your head and your heart. The next step is learning how to generate better questions related to that problem, questions that might open up additional avenues to understanding it. 
 Imagine questions as catalysts that transform our understanding of a situation; they are the key that unlocks an entirely new problem solving direction. Years ago I stumbled across an innovative question generating technique that we now call Question Storming. Put simply, generate as many questions as you can about a problem or opportunity and then figure out which questions are most worth finding answers to. A simple way to start this process is to take the problem that you care about and set aside four minutes a day for the next 24 days to write nothing but questions about it.
 I would be very surprised if asking nothing but questions for about an hour and a half over the next 24 days would not start changing your understanding of a problem, as well as potential solutions. As new questions surface, use your observing, networking and experimenting skills to figure out surprising new solutions to a problem.

What are the obstacles to teaching innovation?

Jeff: Organizations are designed for execution and process – routine and repetition. There are three main obstacles to innovation in organizations. First, people say: Innovation is not my job….it’s R&D’s job.  Innovation is not expected of me. Second, folks say: I don’t get time for it and therefore it is not a priority. So they just don’t try. Third, many organizations simply don’t encourage and support risk taking behavior—and failure—which is part of the innovation process. So folks aren’t willing to try because there are too many risks and not enough rewards.

What is the easiest way to motivate someone to innovate?

Hal: The folks from the Apollo Group approached Clay, Jeff and me and provided this once in a lifetime opportunity to create an online learning experience where not just 10, 20 or 100 people but literally tens of thousands of people can rapidly increase their creativity skills. So, Apollo brought IDEO on to the team and we collaboratively figured out how to motivate people to become more creative. Basically, the Innovator’s Accelerator is a six-week learning experience with groups of 30 people within a company. Individuals are exposed to phenomenal high-end video learning material around key concepts from The Innovator’s Dilemma, The Innovator’s Solution, and The Innovator’s DNA. They also have access to fascinating case study video examples and to a highly engaging skill assessment at the beginning of the learning experience (because feedback is critical to becoming competent at anything). 
The Innovators DNA Assessment helps individuals understand their strengths as an innovator and the dynamic online report also shows them how to also strengthen their skills. Participants also actively participate in the social media space and use the innovation skills that they are learning with each other. Working in teams of five to six people, participants actively solve problems that matter and deliver greater value to their companies.
Historically Jeff, Clay or I have gone in and given a speech to senior level leaders, and perhaps done several workshops with other leaders at the mid- to senior-levels. But there comes a point in which our personal work (delivering live speeches and workshops) can only get us so far and the train-the-trainer model is still overly reliant on lots of other individuals still doing the labor intensive training. So, what’s happened with the Innovator 
Accelerator is that it has moved the process of delivering live workshops to relatively few senior leaders to enabling an entire company, in a very short period of time, to become much better innovators. It’s truly disruptive.

What are you most proud about this book?

Hal: We’re deeply proud of having been given the honor of interviewing and working with some of the most incredible innovators around the world, understanding how they do their work and being able to share that in a book that is easily accessible by anyone in the world (it’s now translated into thirteen languages).
 When anyone comes to realize that he or she can become a better innovator, that is a great day because at the end of the day we all have far more creative capacity than we think.
Jeff: I teach a creative strategic thinking class at BYU and see students seeking to become more creative. What I’m most proud of is that the book creates confidence in people’s ability to do things they didn’t think they were able to do.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Scientists Confirm Three Potentially Habitable Planets Around A Nearby Star 06-26


Scientists Confirm Three Potentially Habitable Planets Around A Nearby Star


Alex Knapp


Astronomers from the European Space Observatory have confirmed that there are three potentially habitable worlds around the red dwarf Gliese 667C.
 
Scientists at the European Southern Observatory announced today that they’ve confirmed the existence of three planets existing in the habitable zone of the star Gliese 667C – meaning that they orbit at a distance from the star where temperatures might allow for liquid water on the planets’ surface. The study also found four additional planets around the star, which is part of the triple-star system Gliese 667. This system is a neighbor of ours – it’s only about 22 light years away.Astronomers had previously found three of the worlds around Gliese 667C, but finding seven planets around one stars helps to confirm that there may be plenty of stars out there with a lot of planets around them like our own Sun.
The three potentially habitable planets are considered to be “super-Earths” – meaning that they are more massive than our planet but less massive than a gas giant like Uranus. Right now, though, scientists haven’t been able to make the measurements they need to determine the composition of these planets.
Of course, there’s a catch: like most stars that astronomers have found planets on, Gliese 667C is a red dwarf, and whether life could evolve on planets orbiting red dwarves is a very open quesiton. That’s true for a number of reasons. First, because they’re so close to their stars, planets around a red dwarf may become tidally locked – meaning that they don’t rotate around their axis like the Earth does. The sun will always shine on one side of the planet and not the other. As a result, in the early years of the planet, all of the water might be “boiled off” –leaving no water to create life.
Of course, that’s one possibility. But it depends on the how thick the atmosphere is around the planets in question. The scientists conducting this research noted that at the present time, it’s impossible to tell the composition of the planets or their atmospheres. As a result, they note, “we assert that tidal locking does not preclude habitability” of the Gliese 667C planets.
There are other issues with red dwarves that might preclude habitability. Still, those are just some possible issues – and scientists have developed hypotheses about mechanisms that might allow for the evolution of life around red dwarves. Even here on Earth, scientists recently discovered tons of bacteria living in the upper atmosphere – an area where scientists expected very little life to thrive. So there may be the possibility for many kinds of interesting life to evolve on planets near red dwarves.
And it looks like we’ll have plenty of chances to explore the possibilities. As the authors conclude in their paper, the evidence they’ve found “suggests the existence of a numerous population of planetary systems with several potentially habitable worlds each. GJ 667C is likely to be among first of many of such systems that may be discovered in the forthcoming years.”
(Image: An artists conception of the planetary surface of planet Gliese 667d. Credit: ESO)

What It Takes to Be a Boss Every Employee Loves 06-26

What It Takes to Be a Boss Every Employee Loves

BY MARK SANBORN


Being a successful leader means being good at what you do and possessing integrity. But more than anything, it's about your ability to build healthy relationships with others -- particularly those who work for you.
As an entrepreneur, you're viewed differently than you were when you were a manager or colleague in a traditional job. You stand to gain the most from the company's success, and it is easier for your employees to think you're more interested in the business than them and their lives. Your success is paramount, but it shouldn't be achieved at the expense of healthy relationships with those you depend on.
1. Don't treat people as transactions.

Years ago in my first real job out of college, I was delighted to have my very own assistant. She was a very capable and competent woman who I really liked.
One day while a client was visiting the office, I made the naïve mistake of introducing my assistant by saying, "This is Teri. She works for me."
Teri's response would have served me better in private, but her point was valid none-the-less: "I work with you, Mark, not for you."
I meant no ill respect with my choice of words, but it suggested to Teri that she was a means to an end, that I was "above" her. And while technically she did report to me, the difference between working for and with someone is critical. The former can make a person feel conquered, while the latter signals collaboration.
Think through how you title and refer to your employees. Focus on reciprocity: look for ways you can help them achieve their work-life goals while they help you achieve yours. And guard against letting tasks trump a true regard and appreciation for the relationship you have with those who have voluntarily chosen to work with you.
2. Invest in those you value.

The ultimate test of value in a relationship is how much time, interest and support you are willing to invest. Rather than ask, "What have you done for me lately?" turn the tables and ask yourself what you've done lately for those you truly value.
Here's one way to invest for great dividends: identify the potential in an employee that he or she doesn't recognize in him- or herself. Often people are blind to their own abilities or potential, and good leaders not only recognize these latent strengths, they help develop them.
Several years ago, my office manager was spending more time on our website and technology platforms. A colleague was presenting a multi-day event in Las Vegas that I knew would give my team member information and skills to help her in these areas. Going to Las Vegas for the event was an added perk, so I gladly paid for the seminar and trip. She came back better equipped for her work, knowing I was willing to invest in her success.
3. Be involved, but know your limits.

You can work in the same office space with people every day and still be absent because you are preoccupied with your own worries. An open door policy means nothing if you don't stop what you're doing long enough to give your attention to those who walk through it.
How can you do this? Make it a point to "check in" with every employee each day. That means a simple but sincere question: "How are things going?" Listen and if necessary, probe for information you can use to support your employees. Identify frustrations they are facing, opportunities they've recognized and gauge their emotional energy and commitment to their work.
You'll know you're micromanaging when you're spending more time telling someone how to do something than you are in clarifying what needs to be done. A thorough explanation with a chance to ask questions is vastly different than a droning presentation about how you'd do it. Give people the freedom to achieve the best results in their own way.
4. Show your gratitude.

I've heard a lot of complaints from employees who feel underappreciated by their manager, but I've never heard anyone complain they were recognized, rewarded or appreciated too much. I'm puzzled at why so many entrepreneurs and leaders are reticent to voice appreciation. Don't be afraid of over-doing it. You connect with people more deeply when you recognize the best in them and let them know.
Here's a powerful way to show appreciation: When you get feedback from a customer about someone on your team who has done a great job, get their permission to record it. Then play the recording at the next team meeting. There is even more power in a customer's expression of a job well done than simply acknowledging it yourself.
Growing your business successfully means doing all that you can to make your team want to work their hardest for your cause. That means connecting with employees in a meaningful way.
What do you do to deepen your connections with employees?
 
View at the original source

Should I Accept that LinkedIn Invitation? 06-26



Should I Accept that LinkedIn Invitation?

The problem of who to connect with on LinkedIn puzzles people precisely because the network itself is neither fish nor fowl. Is it a social network like Facebook, where your connections are (at least notionally) "friends"? A public platform like Twitter, where people can see and judge you on the number of your followers? Or just a really awesome address book?
It's actually all of these things.
To use LinkedIn to its fullest potential, you need to tap its power as an introduction machine: an address book in which all the entries can see and connect with another, to create a mini-network with you and the things you share at the hub.
But that introduction machine only works if you are selective about which connections you initiate and accept.
I learned the value of selectivity the hard way. In the early days of LinkedIn, I connected with anyone who asked, just as I had on other social networks. But once I started trying to use it to get introduced to people I wanted to meet, I discovered that my promiscuity in making connections meant that most of my search results consisted of people I couldn't actually get introduced to. 
Yes, each search turned up tons of potential connections — people who were connected to people I was connected with. But most of the time, that point of connection was someone I didn't know well enough to ask for an introduction. I wasted hours digging through pages of search results just to find the two or three connections I could really leverage. You need a filter to help you connect to not just anyone you know, but only those people who will be able to help — or whom you can help yourself.
Thus was born the "favor test," the answer to the who-should-I-connect-to-on-LinkedIn question.
The favor test is simple: Would you do a favor for this person, or ask a favor of them? If so, make the connection. If not, take a pass.
A favor isn't constrained to an introduction; other kinds of requests come into play on LinkedIn: Would you support my charity? Will you attend my conference? Can you review my book?
When you're thinking about whether to accept someone's invitation to connect, imagine being faced with a request like this. (Note that there's a difference between saying yes to a conference because it's an interesting event, and saying yes because you want to help out the person who asked.) It's the people you'd go out of your way to help or whom you trust to go out of their way to help you, however modestly, who pass the favor test.
If you're consistent in applying the favor test, you can build a LinkedIn network that is useful and efficient in supporting any professional goal.
But you don't want to be one of those people: the kind of person who evaluates people based on a number. The whole point of the favor test is to think about the two-way quality of your relationships. 
LinkedIn has its most dramatic impact when a favor goes from a hypothetical test to a tangible action — when you make those introductions, or when you meet that key individual at a company you've always dreamt of working for. 
Once you see your LinkedIn network not only as a way to realize your own goals but also as an asset you can share with the people you believe in, you'll find it gives you much more than a few more sales leads, or a higher rank in the stack of resumes on a recruiter's desk.

How Drucker Thought About Complexity 06-26


How Drucker Thought About Complexity

Throughout his life, Peter Drucker strived to understand the increasing complexity of business and society and, most importantly, the implications for how we can continue to create and deliver value in the face of complexity. I have long been influenced by Drucker's work. In the 1960s and 1970s, he was already anticipating some of the implications of the Big Shift just beginning to emerge: the transition to an information economy, the centrality of knowledge work, and the transformative impact of digital technology on all types of work.
Around that time, two forces coincided, each amplifying the disruptive capacity of the other. First, the deployment of the digital microprocessor and packet-switched networking marked the beginning of the rise of the digital infrastructure that would eventually span the globe, driven by exponential performance improvements in computing, storage, and bandwidth technologies. Digital technology unfolded on top of a second force that had been building for a few decades: a global movement in public policy towards economic liberalization which was systematically reducing barriers to the movement of goods, money, people, and ideas across the boundaries of nations and industries.
The combination of these two forces created enormous opportunities but also enormous challenges. They have systematically and significantly eroded barriers to entry and movement on a global scale. The result is relentlessly mounting performance pressure. Evidence of this pressure is starkly captured in the return on assets (ROA) for all public companies in the US since 1965. Over this period, there has been a sustained and dramatic erosion in performance: ROA has collapsed by 75 percent.
As the effects began to play out in the '70s and '80s, Drucker wrote extensively about the need for management practices to change. He knew that as the nature of work transformed and the pace of change increased, existing management practices, not to mention worker skill sets, would quickly become outdated and fail to meet the needs of the coming information economy. The widespread erosion of ROA confirms that our management practices and institutions are struggling to respond to the relentless pressure. Why haven't they responded more effectively?
The vast increase in the complexity of the economic and social landscape over these decades offers at least a partial explanation. There are many ways to think about complexity, but one key dimension is the degree of connection and interaction among participants. Thanks to the forces described above, we are more connected on a global scale than ever before. Not only are there more connections among more people, the speed of interactions has increased significantly, so that even small events in remote areas can propagate quickly, setting off cascades of events that evolve beyond anyone's expectations. Witness the grassroots political movements that are increasingly shaking up "stable" political regimes around the world. Power laws with spiky heads and very long tails progressively crowd out the familiar bell curves that made life seem predictable.
In this environment, we must re-examine the basic assumptions that drove our business success in the past, starting with the most basic question of all: why do we even come together in institutions such as firms? Almost 80 years ago, Ronald Coase won the Nobel Prize in Economics for an essaythat suggested that we do this for the sake of scalable efficiency — it costs less to coordinate activity within a firm than across independent entities. At the time, this was a remarkably accurate description of the rationale driving the emergence of large corporations around the world.
But times have changed. As the complexity of our environment increases, we need to step back and reassess this rationale. The cost and difficulty of coordinating activities across entities, on a global scale, is far lower now. The pace of change is accelerating and the degree of uncertainty increasing. Perhaps a new rationale will be required to drive institutional success in the future. Perhaps we need to move from a rationale of scalable efficiency to one of scalable learning — designing institutions and architectures of relationships across institutions that help all participants to learn faster as more participants join.
Drucker didn't quite frame it in these terms, but perhaps we need to expand our focus on innovation beyond the narrow frame of technology and product innovation. If we are to successfully adapt to the escalating complexity of our environment, we need to invest more time and energy in exploringinstitutional innovation. In his later writings, Drucker began to explore the periphery of this idea through several themes that are equally relevant to our current perspective:

  • The importance of lifelong learning in a rapidly evolving information society

  • The need to decentralize organizations around employees — viewing them as assets capable of expanding growth rather than as fixed costs to be eliminated — and to move away from standardized and tightly-specified process flows

  • The need for institutions to focus on building capability around core strengths — one of the reasons he was an early proponent of outsourcing as a way to simplify operations and to focus management on what really matters

  • The importance of focusing on the dynamics of evolving economic and social processes rather than on static equilibrium models.