Hi Ken and Terry,
Thanks for your replies. I will try to get to your suggested books...but your messages are helpful already for the project that I am working on. What I would like to do here is to get further feedbacks on other impressions that I have got when reading the plentiful accounts of the success of Apple under Jobs.
First, is it fair to say that often the factors used to explain success could have been used to explain failure if Apple products were a flop. For example, take this one http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/11/18/four-keys-to-apples-success/
This guy said Focus, Simplicity, Courage and Best are the keys to Apple success. If Apple products were a failure, I could imagine someone explain that its portfolio was too narrow, the product too basic, Jobs too rash, and the market only wanted the 'good enough and good price' and not the best.
Second, related to the first, it seems to me even the more critical researchers will seek to read or use the success of Apple (or anyone else) to support their theory or point of view. I am unqualified to freely access the paper on the link Michael gave to Keith, but here is an older case study on Apple by Nanoka: http://www.officeproductnews.net/files/CanonApple.pdf
Third, a more general question derived from the first and second: is there a genuine problem when it comes to ex-post facto analysis of successful business/ management/innovation/engineering/design cases? If yes, how is it overcome in research?
I would appreciate very much your thoughts on these questions.
Best Regards,
Rosan
|