 |
 |
Dear Rosan, the problem you raise seems to be a more fundamental one indeed. A striking example comes to my mind: Roger Martin (The Design of Business. Why Design Thinking is the next competitive Advantage, Boston MA, Harvard University Press 2009) presents RIM (Research in Motion, "Blackberry") as an exemplary case of successful innovation strategy. The decline of RIM began short after the publication of the book. The more general problem seems to lie in the fact that the formulation of successful innovation strategies is not an inductive process of deriving general conclusions from past data but an abductive process of informed design. Jonas --- At 10:55 Uhr +0100 03.02.2012, Rosan Chow wrote: >Hi Ken, > >I am glad that you were amused and thanks again >for replying. Although it will take away the >amusement, it is useful to contain the general >question in the context which it arises. To >repeat: the context was my reading of popular >and professional accounts of the success of >Apple under Jobs. I wanted to know whether the >impression I got from the reading was correct >and whether this impression represented a more >general problem among researchers who study >successful business / management / innovation / >engineering / design cases. So my question is >more specific than you have taken it to be. > >My impression was that there was a tendency for >the journalists, bloggers, or even researchers >to read or use the success of Apple to support >their theory or point of view. > >I am aware of the values and difficulties of >case study research and I know Nonaka's work a >little bit. And precisely because of this >background knowledge, I was even more struck to >find that despite the theoretical discussion and >careful analysis (which of course sets apart his >paper from other more casual commentaries) , >this particular paper of his left the same kind >of impression mentioned above. > >He probably has done more work since to >substantiate his theory of innovation management >and I am not at all questioning his theory >(which I actually like but this is not the >point). I am curious: in this particular paper >he used the cases studies to support his >theories without, in my judgment, the kind of >robust argument that you said needed for an >ex-post facto analysis. For a positivist account >of good theory building from Case Study >research, I have located this paper: >http://intranet.catie.ac.cr/intranet/posgrado/Met%20Cual%20Inv%20accion/Semana%203/Eisenhardt,%20K.%20Building%20Theories%20from%20Case%20Study%20Research.pdf > >However, my focus is not on evaluating Nonaka's >paper, but rather on my impression stated above. >I would be happy to hear that my impression is >not correct and there is no problem at all in >the research on successful cases and Nonaka's >paper was written this way because it was at the >beginning of a theory building or whatever Š. I >am completely open ...but I would appreciate >some pointers. > >Many thanks. >rosan > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ken Friedman [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >Sent: Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012 13:34 >Subject: Re: Is claim/research on 'success' >one-sided? RE: Apple Success under Jobs > >Well, I'm just sitting here laughing. This is >the big question: "is there a genuine problem >when it comes to ex-post facto analysis of >successful? If yes, how is it overcome in >research?" > >As history, all analysis of cases is ex post >facto. No one can properly isolate all the key >variables in historical analysis, and no one can >re-run historical cases to see whether alternate >choices would actually have made a difference. > >On a limited basis, one can attempt to simulate >the effects of minor differences in situations >where one can analyze and conceptually isolate >those differences, but there is no way to be >sure. > >The way through this is robust, reasoned >analysis. Nevertheless, historical analysis - >including the historical analysis of business >cases - always involves judgment calls.