What cannot be done for the big companies
The current Market crisis derives substantially from an inability by most players to understand the meaning of the change underway. That is, most of the current strategies are based on misunderstandings regarding the interpretation of current trends.
Actually, innovating for the current players does not mean improving their own structures, work organization: this is not possible because
WHO IS THE OBJECT OF THE CHANGE
CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF IT.
It is therefore not possible to “Modernize” a Company (at least from within).
No better results are obtained by improving the organization of work, the Culture of the people employed in the various processes:
– these people have been selected on the basis of a specific Culture (and have had to adapt to this culture for years): it is a Culture which is radically different from that which underlies change.
– cultural change cannot take place through training, but can only take place with experience in the field. The radical difference of the new ways of working is in the mindset of the people, and not only in the competences.
Those who work successfully in the nascent Market have a completely new approach to work: in using their intelligence, in the sense of responsibility, in making decisions, in the ability to add value in their segment of competence, etc. …
Among other things , there are no longer any employees, but there are only some “executive” operators.
Furthermore, are not the current Managers and Consultants who can guide the change process. <see The misunderstanding on Innovation by Manager, Consultants and Pundits>
– it is not possible to adapt to change by intervening on technologies (technologies continue to be decisive, but the focus must be placed on other factors that allow bringing new disruptive quality to the product – this is possible thanks to the high level of performance of the new consumer technologies, with the cost of a few dollars and of easy management).
So it makes no sense to set the goal of improving the “IT Infrastructures”, the production lines, etc .. <see The role of technologies in innovation> <see Disruptive innovation is not based on technologies >
What the big Companies can do
The change of the big Companies can happen therefore with a modality different from a change in their structures.
It is a question of
“Revolutionize” the business innovation process
by giving it a disruptive turnaround (ceasing to try to improve the Company in its current structures).
to do a leap towards
a completely new dimension
of the organization of the Business.
Basically the concept is that
disruptive innovation can only be like with a fresh start,
It is necessary to create something new, which for a big company means
TO CREATE A SPIN-OFF
with which the Company
CAN START FROM SCRATCH
WITH NEW HUMAN RESOURCES
(something like that Apple did some in the first years of life).
To understand how this is possible it is necessary to understand that:
– structures and mindsets must be radically different: the products of the new generation are radically new in their conception and in the methods of production.
They must focus on the needs of the Customers, who are qualitatively different from the current ones: they are “hidden” compared to the current Marketing analysis skills, and are in continuous and rapid evolution. <see Toward a New Marketing (1): beyond the Analytic Marketing, toward a pro-sumer Market° >
One of the key points of company innovation is the need to integrate the Customer in the product development process. And to have personnel able to add in some way to the product of Value.
– new structures can be created quickly, easily and at very low cost compared to traditional investments. This thanks to the new Smart Fabrication modalities (Fab Lab mode of “Makers”) <see Towards a radically new model of Industry 4.0: introduction to a Smart Fabrication plan>
– the spin-offs in question are in some way an extension of the Company for which there must be significant support from the latter. However, this interaction does not have to take place at the executive level: one must not interfere at the decision-making level, but only at the level of skill and expertise, otherwise the potential of ingenuity of the spin-off is inhibited.