Both the Hotspot and Balanced Scorecard are frameworks for change. However, Gratton and Niven offer different ways of managing organizational change. The Hot Spots philosophy suggests that organizations should be designed around the people as source of ideas and continuous innovation. To fuel the emergence of Hot Spots, leaders should focus on structural designs and reinforcing appropriate practices and processes. In contract, the Balanced Scorecard focuses on measurable factors of change, such as the return on equity, customer satisfaction and staff turnover.
Integrative thinking grasps the importance of negotiating between competing ideas and applying an interdisciplinary approach. Optimism highlights the ethos of potential, always seeking improvements. Experimentation describes the concept of regularly testing new ideas to try for radical change. Collaboration is the need to readily work with others across disciplines. While without context these principles are vague, their implementation within various programs shows parallels with the liberal arts.
For symptomatic technology there is a social change that creates a need and demand in society. Technology is a by-product of this social process. A similarity I see between technological determinism and symptomatic technology is that both have research & development that are self-generating. They are both self-regenerating because once there is a new invention or social change, there is always another idea that forming based off of what has already come. There is always room for improvements and change in the world of
Innovation has become a confusing buzzword, the most significant word which almost everyone uses incorrectly. Even though people seem to understand what it means, and admit that it is essential for companies which want to retain their viability, in order to talk about it we need to know what is its real value. According to Nick Skillicorn ‘innovation is turning an idea into a solution that adds value from a customer’s perspective’. However, what most people think is that it is simply a process of inventing ideas, brainstorming, creative thinking. It does not end at the level of idea creation but goes much further and requires a proper planning which will later allow to execute those ideas.
The first one, which is intangible waste, is produced due to fast changing ideas and innovations. Although it is described as waste, excess creativity can be considered as nourishment for future design culture. In this case, the work of fashion cycle can be illustrated as a wheel. Previous style always being reinvented and introduced as a new trend by future designers. This process will always move in a circular motion through out periods.
Next, let’s see the connection of creating mind and ethical mind in the real word. As creating mind is capable in the work environment of devising and inventing a variety of new tools, devices, and techniques for use both within the environment and as commodities that can be sold to consumers. But how do these productions of the fertile creating mind relate to the ethical constraints of the real-world environment in which they are about to be introduced? Is it possible that they may be some kind of conflict with the world and the people these ideas or products are about to come into contact with? The simple fact is that new ideas and new inventions due not necessarily have a positive ethical value or application.
Palestini (2009) states that the organisations should put the above in situations that fit with their style. Fiedler (1987, cited in Palestini, 2009) said that fix the situation into the design leadership in organisations but it usually changes an individual’s or collective’s leadership style to support design leadership is usually easy to say but difficult to practice. Visibly, there are some criticisms of the Fiedler theory. Fiedler believed that changing the leadership style to develop people to provision design leadership carries the challenges of the leaders to develop the most effective solution because the changes of tasks, relationships and positions with a fixed leadership
Value chains are fluctuating, new pivots are evolving, and economicactivity is being transmuted. This changeover creates new openings for countries to shape out lucrative roles in the global economy. Those opportunities will errand locations that build the infrastructure, institutions, and business environments that their companies and citizens need to participate
Globalization is probably the most debated topic in contemporary global market in recent decades and the use of the term grew exponentially as the planet braced to welcome twenty first century. First half of the first decade of the new century saw the launch Thomas L. Friedman’s book on globalization named “The World is flat”. He argued that the connectivity had lead the businesses to be powerful. He has contended that every company in the globe are at the ‘level playing field’ metaphoric of the word ‘flat’. Thus he suggests that every company operating in today’s competitive world along with countries and individuals requires a change in order to survive or be prepared to be swept by the incessant waves of globalization.
Technological factors: This entails recognizing the potential technologies that are available. Some of the common technological factors are new discoveries and innovations, rate of technological advances and innovations, and rate of technological obsolescence. Technology is the main factor for an innovative company like IBM. Market position of the organisation can be improved by launching a product with new technology and it can decrease the competition. Environmental factors: Both consumers and governments penalize firms for having adverse effect on the environment.