I believe that most managers underestimate the value of learning for a variety of bad - and really bad - reasons. But at the end of the day, we innovate and either (1) learn from it and innovate further or (2) proceed blindly until something fails and we are forced to react. The first innovation I call proactive innovation and the second reactive innovation. In the first case where we learn, we are controlling (at least marginally) the process; however in reactive innovation, the process is controlling us totally.
The problems are twofold. First, you cannot protect innovation, it is too transferrable. Second to survive you must innovate faster than your competition. So you either must fail faster than them, probably not a desirable game plan, or you must learn faster than them. Hence businesses that survive are organizations that learn faster than their competition.
I believe that most managers underestimate the value of learning for a variety of bad - and really bad - reasons. But at the end of the day, we innovate and either (1) learn from it and innovate further or (2) proceed blindly until something fails and we are forced to react. The first innovation I call proactive innovation and the second reactive innovation. In the first case where we learn, we are controlling (at least marginally) the process; however in reactive innovation, the process is controlling us totally.
The problems are twofold. First, you cannot protect innovation, it is too transferrable. Second to survive you must innovate faster than your competition. So you either must fail faster than them, probably not a desirable game plan, or you must learn faster than them. Hence businesses that survive are organizations that learn faster than their competition.
great article btw...
Good observations, Lonnie! Thanks for sharing these...