You are not nearly as influential as you think you are. One of my friends are doing research on influencers in mobile networks, and he is going to be crushed (or maybe not) by this entry in a recent HBR list which basically says that influentials are not very … influential. That is to say that the spread of new ideas in a social network is not dependent on a few super-connected, highly influential members, contrary to popular assumptions. The article offers some specific strategies for marketeers:
When it comes to being an entrepreneur or venture capitalist, is it better to be lucky or good? According to a new working paper, Skill vs. Luck in Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital: Evidence from Serial Entrepreneurs, skill carries the day most of the time.
Venture Capital money is very expensive; probably by far the most expensive money you will ever get. The usual defense from the industry is that you so much more than just the money: you get experience, a partner and customer ecosystem, channels to market and much more.
Related to our previous article on new business models for innovation, McKinsey has a piece on reinventing innovation in consumer goods companies (subscription required) which challenges companies to reconsider the assumption that innovation starts with existing business models.
Sometimes the barriers to innovation is outdated business models. “Railroads and telegraphs needed the modern corporation and semiconductors and software needed venture capital”, says The Economist, quoting Gary Pisano, a professor at Harvard Business School who thinks that the biotech indostry is in desparate need of a simliar innovation. The problem is acute.
We revisited the 3/2 rule of employee productivity using a larger data set and considering each sector independently.
The more employees your company has, the less productive each of these employees are. It is a generalization, of course, but a useful one and one that is confirmed by most people who have worked for growing organizations. As the company grows, so does the internal processes and the layers of bureaucracy, and the time spent on communications grows rapidly.
About a year ago we did some work with a London-based private equity fund. The problem was information overload and the idea was to bring together multiple data sources, both public and private, to one data store that could add tags and other meta-data and build synthetic RSS feeds based on search criteria (and even adaptive learning).
Tom Peters made me think about how we define success. If you had a list of companies like Netscape, Microsoft, IBM, HP, and Oracle, which ones would you consider the the winners and which one(s) is the loser(s)?