The last couple of weeks i got more and more interested in identifying the impact of failure and mistakes on the innovation process and how companies manage to handle failure. I came across the Pasta&Vinegar blog entry about Hamel and Prahalad’s point of view:
mind/tech bazar from outer space
Hamel and Prahalad’s take on failures
Generally, I do not read so much of business books but I wanted to have a glance at “Competing for the Future” (Gary Hamel, C. K. Prahalad) because it deals with issues I am interested in: futures and the importance of foresight research. Although the vocabulary is idiosyncratic and turned to a certain category of people (”managers”, “leader”), there are some interesting parts.
More specifically, I was of course curious about how the authors dealt with “failures”, a research topic I came to cherish for a while. Some dog-eared pages excepts below.
First about what constitutes a failure, p.267:
“Verdicts of new product failure rarely distinguish between arrows aimed at the wrong target and arrows that simply fell short of the right target. And because failure is personalized – if the new product or service doesn’t live up to internal expectations it must be somebody’s fault – there is more often a se [From Pasta&Vinegar » Blog Archive » Hamel and Prahalad’s take on failures]