How does a company ensure innovation continues when a person responsible for change quits ? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. How does a company ensure innovation continues when a person responsible for change quits ?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Whichcountry has topped Asia in innovation and has emerged as the third biggestcountry worldwide in terms of new innovation centres?....

QA->IndianRailways has recently tied up with which mobile wallet company to ensure fooddelivery in train coaches with e-cash payments?....

QA->“NIDHI”has launched by the Union Government for nurturing ideas & innovation intostart ups. What does “NIDHI” stands for?....

QA->Who is the author of “What Went Wrong ... and continues”?....

QA->In the short run; a producer;’ how long continues his production?....

MCQ-> Read the passage and answer the questions that follow: Passage II Humans are pretty inventive creatures. That might be cause for optimism about the future of global change. We've found solutions to lots of problems in the past. And with a much larger and better-educated population than the world has ever seen — the supply of good ideas can only increase. So innovation will figure out a way to sustainable futures. But what is innovation? The media and companies routinely equate innovation with shiny new gadgets. In the same spirit, politicians charged with managing economies frequently talk as if all innovation is good. The history of almost any technology, however — from farming to applied nuclear physics — reveals a mixture of good and bad. The study of the concept of innovation, and of whether it can be steered, is a relatively recent academic effort. There are three ways that scholars have thought about innovation. The first was basically linear: science begets invention that begets innovation. Physics, for instance, gives us lasers, which give us —eventually — compact discs. Result: Growth! Prosperity! Rising living standards for all! From this perspective, it's assumed that science is the basis for long-term growth, and that innovation largely involves commercialisation of scientific discoveries. There is a role for the state, but only in funding the research. The rest can be left to the private sector. By the 1970s, economists interested in technology and some policy-makers were talking about something more complicated: national systems of innovation competing with each other. Such "systems" included measures to promote transfer of technology out of the lab, especially by building links between centres of discovery and technologists and entrepreneurs. The key failing of these two approaches is that they treat less desirable outcomes of innovation as externalities and are blind to the possibility that they may call for radically different technological priorities. The environmental effects of energy and materials-intensive industries may turn, out to be more destructive than we can handle. Radical system change is a third way to think about innovation. Technological trajectories aren't pre-ordained: Some paths arc chosen at the expense of others. And that's harder because it needs more than incremental change. The near future is about transformation. The more complex historical and social understanding of innovation now emerging leads to a richer concept of infrastructure, as part of a system with social and technical elements interwoven.An emphasis on the new, the experimental, the innovative - and on promoting social and technical solutions to global problems must overcome the sheer inertia of the systems we have already built - and are often still extending. Aiming for transformation leads to another take on creative destruction. It isn't enough to promote innovation as creation, the existing system has to be destabilized as well. System shifts of the radical kind envisaged will call for creation of a new infrastructure. But that won't do the job unless the old systems are deliberately removed on roughly the same time-scale. Achieving that will call for a lot more thought about how to if not destroy the old systems, at least set about dismantling them. From the passage we can conclude that the author believes
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words in the passage have been printed in bold to help you locate them when answering some of the questions.Can the last fifteen years be called the most successful decade and a half in Indian history and will the next fifteen be equally successful ? Consider a culture where independent thinking is not encouraged. Or take the example of traditional family run business with vast resistance to change or a whole nation who believes that breakthrough ideas can be generated abroad but never at home. Partly responsible is socialization from early years we are taught not to question our elders but at workplaces this creates a hurdle for new thinking. Being unable to change radically gives rise to a culture where even the smallest change is heralded as a breakthrough. Indian corporate leaders have done well standing up to global giants as their companies have grown in size and market share. To be successful in international markets they need to be distinct-distinct products, processes, technologies, business models and organizations.The bottom line will be Innovation. Creativity workshops are organized to channel people to think differently. There are fantastic ideas being generated all the time but no industry breakthrough. Simply because of gravity-a regressive force exerted by a mindset. Thinking has therefore to happen at three levels: idea, frame and paradigm. From a narrow focus on either product or process innovation organizations need to look at innovating the whole ecosystem of the organization. Many a time waiting for a hundred percent solution before going to the market the organization forgets that it could end up waiting forever. Moreover sometimes organizations are too focused on today to see tomorrow. Since management mandates are short-term, sowing the seed for a revenue stream today and leaving its been ts to be reaped by a successor doesn't appeal to today's business leader. This is a serious hurdle to innovation. Establishing a function called innovation management or training employees through creativity workshops will have few benefits unless each frontline employee is empowered to share his innovative ideas with the management. What happens to this system when the person driving the change leaves the organization ? The approach to innovation hence needs to be system driven rather than people driven. In thirty years India can be the largest world economy save China and the US. However as companies grow there exists a resemblance in their products, services, promotions, processes and pricing and so on. There remains only one escape from this trap. The main idea of the passage is :
....

MCQ->How does a company ensure innovation continues when a person responsible for change quits ?....

MCQ-> Recently I spent several hours sitting under a tree in my garden with the social anthropologist William Ury, a Harvard University professor who specializes in the art of negotiation and wrote the bestselling book, Getting to Yes. He captivated me with his theory that tribalism protects people from their fear of rapid change. He explained that the pillars of tribalism that humans rely on for security would always counter any significant cultural or social change. In this way, he said, change is never allowed to happen too fast. Technology, for example, is a pillar of society. Ury believes that every time technology moves in a new or radical direction, another pillar such as religion or nationalism will grow stronger in effect, the traditional and familiar will assume greater importance to compensate for the new and untested. In this manner, human tribes avoid rapid change that leaves people insecure and frightened.But we have all heard that nothing is as permanent as change. Nothing is guaranteed. Pithy expressions, to be sure, but no more than cliches. As Ury says, people don’t live that way from day-to-day. On the contrary, they actively seek certainty and stability. They want to know they will be safe.Even so we scare ourselves constantly with the idea of change. An IBM CEO once said: ‘We only re-structure for a good reason, and if we haven’t re-structured in a while, that’s a good reason.’ We are scared that competitors, technology and the consumer will put us Out of business — so we have to change all the time just to stay alive. But if we asked our fathers and grandfathers, would they have said that they lived in a period of little change? Structure may not have changed much. It may just be the speed with which we do things.Change is over-rated, anyway, consider the automobile. It’s an especially valuable example, because the auto industry has spent tens of billions of dollars on research and product development in the last 100 years. Henry Ford’s first car had a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber types, a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, and four seats, and it could safely do 1 8 miles per hour. A hundred years and tens of thousands of research hours later, we drive cars with a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber tyres a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, four seats – and the average speed in London in 2001 was 17.5 miles per hour!That’s not a hell of a lot of return for the money. Ford evidently doesn’t have much to teach us about change. The fact that they’re still manufacturing cars is not proof that Ford Motor Co. is a sound organization, just proof that it takes very large companies to make cars in great quantities — making for an almost impregnable entry barrier.Fifty years after the development of the jet engine, planes are also little changed. They’ve grown bigger, wider and can carry more people. But those are incremental, largely cosmetic changes.Taken together, this lack of real change has come to man that in travel — whether driving or flying — time and technology have not combined to make things much better. The safety and design have of course accompanied the times and the new volume of cars and flights, but nothing of any significance has changed in the basic assumptions of the final product.At the same time, moving around in cars or aero-planes becomes less and less efficient all the time Not only has there been no great change, but also both forms of transport have deteriorated as more people clamour to use them. The same is true for telephones, which took over hundred years to become mobile or photographic film, which also required an entire century to change.The only explanation for this is anthropological. Once established in calcified organizations, humans do two things: sabotage changes that might render people dispensable, and ensure industry-wide emulation. In the 960s, German auto companies developed plans to scrap the entire combustion engine for an electrical design. (The same existed in the 1970s in Japan, and in the 1980s in France.) So for 40 years we might have been free of the wasteful and ludicrous dependence on fossil fuels. Why didn’t it go anywhere? Because auto executives understood pistons and carburettors, and would be loath to cannibalize their expertise, along with most of their factoriesAccording to the above passage, which of the following statements is true?
....