Change is Good
Feb 28th 2016, 12:44 am
#106
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Change is Good
Then you should really know better. That said I work with 100's of developers who fail to understand UI design and the commercial aspects of selling tech. Their code is awesome though ........ after you steer them in the right direction.
Feb 28th 2016, 2:50 am
#107
Account Closed
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 0
Re: Change is Good
I thought so. ......... but that's a good thing ..... people hate change.
Interestingly I was at a party last night and a couple of lads were moaning about the battery life on their iphone 6's, so I pulled out the Note and said why don't you get one of these. Then one guy said "I'm so used to the iphone, I can't be arsed learning a new phone" ........ giggles giggles giggles .......
Change is good.
Interestingly I was at a party last night and a couple of lads were moaning about the battery life on their iphone 6's, so I pulled out the Note and said why don't you get one of these. Then one guy said "I'm so used to the iphone, I can't be arsed learning a new phone" ........ giggles giggles giggles .......
Change is good.
Feb 28th 2016, 3:53 am
#109
Truth is the safest lie.
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: @ the beach.
Posts: 7,243
Re: Change is Good
I don't embrace change readily but accept that it is important. I've not read the whole thread because I'm also very lazy but from your initial post it sounds like you are finding it difficult to convince others.
Sure everyone pretends they like change but few people really do, we'd just like to sit in our boxes banging on a keyboards and ignoring our ever mounting piles of work
.
Answer the question of what's in it for us? Sure the organisation may grow much faster and shareholders will be happy but what's in this for the the humble yet self-interested employee? Everyone has a strategy, we are drowning in bloody strategy but so few ever get executed in any meaningful way that strategies may as well be an Ethiopian child's Christmas wishlist.
Beyond self interest, complacency and arrogance however there are other good reason strategies fail. For example companies build relationships that are the key to their success but those relationships can become shackles over time that limit what a company is likely to achieve by locking them into a trajectory. Think of Compaq in the 90's which grew to be a one of the biggest PC manufacturers based on an excellent dealership network and the strong relationships it had built. However when Dell came along and sold computers through direct channels. Compaq couldn't just do the same thing because bypassing the dealers (who had been key to their success). Compaq knew what had happened, their executives where obsessed with Dell but they couldn't emulate that business model. Managers had explicitly spent so long reinforcing their commitment to dealers to build their business that they no longer felt they could opt out. Compaq did eventually relent and sell PCs online but for a long time you nearly needed a degree in computer science to actually buy one.
Sky didn't become Netflix and GM didn't become Tesla. Both preempted and understood the change that was about to come, both had strategies but neither had leadership teams that could do little but steward the existing organisation. Banks see that fintech will "move their cheese" but none will be able to participate because they lack the leadership, technical ability, willingness to take chances (culture?), flexibility and agility to delight customers etc. It's not enough to be a well managed company is vigilant and doesn't become arrogant or complacent any more.
Sure everyone pretends they like change but few people really do, we'd just like to sit in our boxes banging on a keyboards and ignoring our ever mounting piles of work
. Answer the question of what's in it for us? Sure the organisation may grow much faster and shareholders will be happy but what's in this for the the humble yet self-interested employee? Everyone has a strategy, we are drowning in bloody strategy but so few ever get executed in any meaningful way that strategies may as well be an Ethiopian child's Christmas wishlist.
Beyond self interest, complacency and arrogance however there are other good reason strategies fail. For example companies build relationships that are the key to their success but those relationships can become shackles over time that limit what a company is likely to achieve by locking them into a trajectory. Think of Compaq in the 90's which grew to be a one of the biggest PC manufacturers based on an excellent dealership network and the strong relationships it had built. However when Dell came along and sold computers through direct channels. Compaq couldn't just do the same thing because bypassing the dealers (who had been key to their success). Compaq knew what had happened, their executives where obsessed with Dell but they couldn't emulate that business model. Managers had explicitly spent so long reinforcing their commitment to dealers to build their business that they no longer felt they could opt out. Compaq did eventually relent and sell PCs online but for a long time you nearly needed a degree in computer science to actually buy one.
Sky didn't become Netflix and GM didn't become Tesla. Both preempted and understood the change that was about to come, both had strategies but neither had leadership teams that could do little but steward the existing organisation. Banks see that fintech will "move their cheese" but none will be able to participate because they lack the leadership, technical ability, willingness to take chances (culture?), flexibility and agility to delight customers etc. It's not enough to be a well managed company is vigilant and doesn't become arrogant or complacent any more.
Feb 28th 2016, 4:35 am
#111
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Change is Good
I don't embrace change readily but accept that it is important. I've not read the whole thread because I'm also very lazy but from your initial post it sounds like you are finding it difficult to convince others.
Sure everyone pretends they like change but few people really do, we'd just like to sit in our boxes banging on a keyboards and ignoring our ever mounting piles of work.
Answer the question of what's in it for us? Sure the organisation may grow much faster and shareholders will be happy but what's in this for the the humble yet self-interested employee? Everyone has a strategy, we are drowning in bloody strategy but so few ever get executed in any meaningful way that strategies may as well be an Ethiopian child's Christmas wishlist.
Beyond self interest, complacency and arrogance however there are other good reason strategies fail. For example companies build relationships that are the key to their success but those relationships can become shackles over time that limit what a company is likely to achieve by locking them into a trajectory. Think of Compaq in the 90's which grew to be a one of the biggest PC manufacturers based on an excellent dealership network and the strong relationships it had built. However when Dell came along and sold computers through direct channels. Compaq couldn't just do the same thing because bypassing the dealers (who had been key to their success). Compaq knew what had happened, their executives where obsessed with Dell but they couldn't emulate that business model. Managers had explicitly spent so long reinforcing their commitment to dealers to build their business that they no longer felt they could opt out. Compaq did eventually relent and sell PCs online but for a long time you nearly needed a degree in computer science to actually buy one.
Sky didn't become Netflix and GM didn't become Tesla. Both preempted and understood the change that was about to come, both had strategies but neither had leadership teams that could do little but steward the existing organisation. Banks see that fintech will "move their cheese" but none will be able to participate because they lack the leadership, technical ability, willingness to take chances (culture?), flexibility and agility to delight customers etc. It's not enough to be a well managed company is vigilant and doesn't become arrogant or complacent any more.
Sure everyone pretends they like change but few people really do, we'd just like to sit in our boxes banging on a keyboards and ignoring our ever mounting piles of work
. Answer the question of what's in it for us? Sure the organisation may grow much faster and shareholders will be happy but what's in this for the the humble yet self-interested employee? Everyone has a strategy, we are drowning in bloody strategy but so few ever get executed in any meaningful way that strategies may as well be an Ethiopian child's Christmas wishlist.
Beyond self interest, complacency and arrogance however there are other good reason strategies fail. For example companies build relationships that are the key to their success but those relationships can become shackles over time that limit what a company is likely to achieve by locking them into a trajectory. Think of Compaq in the 90's which grew to be a one of the biggest PC manufacturers based on an excellent dealership network and the strong relationships it had built. However when Dell came along and sold computers through direct channels. Compaq couldn't just do the same thing because bypassing the dealers (who had been key to their success). Compaq knew what had happened, their executives where obsessed with Dell but they couldn't emulate that business model. Managers had explicitly spent so long reinforcing their commitment to dealers to build their business that they no longer felt they could opt out. Compaq did eventually relent and sell PCs online but for a long time you nearly needed a degree in computer science to actually buy one.
Sky didn't become Netflix and GM didn't become Tesla. Both preempted and understood the change that was about to come, both had strategies but neither had leadership teams that could do little but steward the existing organisation. Banks see that fintech will "move their cheese" but none will be able to participate because they lack the leadership, technical ability, willingness to take chances (culture?), flexibility and agility to delight customers etc. It's not enough to be a well managed company is vigilant and doesn't become arrogant or complacent any more.
Sort of nails it really.
Feb 28th 2016, 4:35 am
#112
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: Change is Good
**Sky didn't become Netflix and GM didn't become Tesla. Both preempted and understood the change that was about to come, both had strategies but neither had leadership teams that could do little but steward the existing organisation.**
GM however did spawn off Saturn: they realised that Detroit was a fiefdom of the unions and designed a range of cars that were built in a greenfield site factory in Springfield. They didn't take on people who were embedded in the car industry except vital engineers and designers, the cars were built by teams and my Saturn was in most ways the best car I've owned. The dedicated dealership sold at the sticker price: no haggling - they set the price competitively and people bought them.
Everything was simple, in exactly the right position, the body was largely plastic and the design, when we sold it 12 years later looked still state of the art and showroom fresh.
GM did change, and it was for the good customer-wise. Unfortunately the GFC sent them to the wall Saturn-wise.
.
GM however did spawn off Saturn: they realised that Detroit was a fiefdom of the unions and designed a range of cars that were built in a greenfield site factory in Springfield. They didn't take on people who were embedded in the car industry except vital engineers and designers, the cars were built by teams and my Saturn was in most ways the best car I've owned. The dedicated dealership sold at the sticker price: no haggling - they set the price competitively and people bought them.
Everything was simple, in exactly the right position, the body was largely plastic and the design, when we sold it 12 years later looked still state of the art and showroom fresh.
GM did change, and it was for the good customer-wise. Unfortunately the GFC sent them to the wall Saturn-wise.
.
Last edited by Wol; Feb 28th 2016 at 4:46 am.
