1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
Not that it was a big surprise but that I thought it was interesting was the section that explained about the four different types of innovations: routine, radical, disruptive, and architectural. I didn't know there was something so systematic like that to help with choosing an innovation strategy. I think having them categorizes makes it simpler for businesses to see what works for them.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
There was no real part of the reading that was confusing to me, it all seemed very well explained. I guess I would say the labels for each of the types of 4 innovations; to me the names that were given don't exactly explain what each of them does correctly.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
You mention in the article twice, that two of the companies you used in the article you used to be a consultant for but that the information provided was not your opinion but from outside resources. Does your personal opinion from working with them differ than the info from the sources? What would you have liked to have added (opinion wise), in terms of their innovation strategies?
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
I did not see anything that I thought the author was wrong about. It was a pretty interesting article :)
No comments:
Post a Comment