Dear Rosan,
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 business / management / innovation / engineering / design
cases? 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.
The depth and conceptual elegance of the article by Nonaka and
Kenney’s article is an admirable attempt to understand Apple and
Canon. I have immense respect for Ikujiro Nonaka. He is one of the great
management thinkers of recent years. Nokaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi shaped
the field of knowledge management, one of the serious conceptual
developments of recent years. Nonaka built very usefully on Michael
Polanyi’s work in many ways that apply to design. Here, the authors
draw on concepts of metaphor and analogy, bringing streams of thought
from several fields to bear on innovation as contrasted with the
mechanical treatment of innovation that one sees in much of the research
literature. I had the joy of listening to Nonaka once. He brought
Aristotle and Shoichiro Toyoda together in a philosophical masterpiece.
That kind of depth sheds light on issues such as this.
There is no single answer. Research on issues such as this requires
depth, rigor, and methodological triangulation.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 |
Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design
--
Rosan Chow wrote:
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 Nonaka:
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
|