82,889
edits
The Design of Business: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
This is a short book with some big, and very good, ideas. The problem is, it could have still been shorter - you’ll get the concept from the first chapter, and thereafter very little is done with it. This is partly because the idea is self-explanatory, and it’s either something you'll instinctively take to (if you’re disposed to “design thinking”), or won’t. | This is a short book with some big, and very good, ideas. The problem is, it could have still been shorter - you’ll get the concept from the first chapter, and thereafter very little is done with it. This is partly because the idea is self-explanatory, and it’s either something you'll instinctively take to (if you’re disposed to “design thinking”), or won’t. | ||
The thesis, broadly stated, is this: there are three main | The thesis, broadly stated, is this: there are three main “phases" any business proposition: | ||
*'''Mystery''': when an intuition nags at an inventor: the germ of a problem (and more to the point its solution) suggests itself and there is no orthodox means for solving it - here is the maximum opportunity for those who can (think of a young Ray Kroc thinking “how do I build scale in my hamburger joint?”); | *'''Mystery''': when an intuition nags at an inventor: the germ of a problem (and more to the point its solution) suggests itself and there is no orthodox means for solving it - here is the maximum opportunity for those who can (think of a young Ray Kroc thinking “how do I build scale in my hamburger joint?”); | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{author|Roger Martin}}’s presentation is a convincing as far as it goes: I dare say the boundaries between the three phases are porous, and Martin is convincing that there is a reflexive quality to the propositions: the more they are solved, and the more the richness of an offering is stripped to its essential superstructure, the lower the barriers to competition, the slimmer the margins, and the more compelling the need to look for new “mysteries”. | {{author|Roger Martin}}’s presentation is a convincing as far as it goes: I dare say the boundaries between the three phases are porous, and Martin is convincing that there is a reflexive quality to the propositions: the more they are solved, and the more the richness of an offering is stripped to its essential superstructure, the lower the barriers to competition, the slimmer the margins, and the more compelling the need to look for new “mysteries”. | ||
It won’t do, therefore, to settle on your mystery, drive it down the “design funnel” as hard and fast as you can, and relentlessly and mindlessly tweak the [[algorithm]] to make it run faster. Your own successful enough, itself will present opportunities for others: witness MacDonald’s versus, say, Subway or Starbucks. MacDonald’s [[algorithm]] stripped away | It won’t do, therefore, to settle on your mystery, drive it down the “design funnel” as hard and fast as you can, and relentlessly and mindlessly tweak the [[algorithm]] to make it run faster. Your own successful enough, itself will present opportunities for others: witness MacDonald’s versus, say, Subway or Starbucks. MacDonald’s [[algorithm]] stripped away “extraneous" considerations like healthiness, “coolness", freshness and so on. So Subway was able to differentiate itself on food quality, and Starbucks on the delightful hipness of actually visiting the store (it seems extraordinary in hindsight, doesn’t it!). MacDonald’s was forced by its competitors back up the funnel to consider other offerings. | ||
The idea is intuitive and makes a lot of sense. Particularly in a large organisations, there is a tendency towards | The idea is intuitive and makes a lot of sense. Particularly in a large organisations, there is a tendency towards “backward looking" data, regression analyses and the tried and true: “no one ever got fired for buying IBM". But the passage of time illustrates the corollary of that truism as well: no-one revolutionised their business by buying IBM either. Large organisations tend to “reliability" rather than “validity" thinking, and are so keen on moving to [[algorithm]] stage that they are inclined to skip the “[[heuristic]]" altogether. | ||
And that, says Roger Martin, is what “design thinking” makes possible. | And that, says Roger Martin, is what “design thinking” makes possible. | ||