miércoles, 26 de septiembre de 2012

El DNA de los innovadores (1)

Aquí su página en Amazon

The Innovator's DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators
Jeff Dyer (Author)
Hal Gregersen (Author)
Clayton M. Christensen (Author)

En esta página:

1. Referencia a los principales libros recientes que valen la pena sobre el tema; incluidos los dos con lo que Clayton Christensen comenzó su revolución sobre la innovación en las organizaciones: El Dilema de los Innovadores, La Solución de los Innovadores.

2. Advertencia: se tratará en el libro sobre CREATIVIDAD, pero únicamente desde la perspectiva de interés para los negocios.

3. Anuncio: todo lo que usted encontrará en el libro proviene de una investigación formal, que presupone que en las personalidades innovadoras que han probado ser tales en el mundo de los negocios, se puede rastrear la clave del "gen" de la innovación.

martes, 25 de septiembre de 2012

Un homenaje a los ingenieros (que además de calcular, soñaron :-)

Aquí galería completa :-)

Aquí referencia bibliográfica

The Apollo 11 crew relaxes during training
May 24, 1969

Earthrise viewed from lunar orbit prior to landing

view from LM window just after landing
July 20, 1969

Aldrin unpacks experiments from LM

Armstrong in LM after historic moonwalk

LM approaches CSM for docking / earthrise in b.g.
July 21, 1969

Mission Control celebrates after splashdown
July 24, 1969

Apollo 11 astronauts, still in their quarantine van, are greeted by their wives upon arrival at Ellington Air Force Base
July 27, 1969


Sin palabras (de la emoción :-) y en señal de respeto a la grandeza alcanzada :-)

lunes, 24 de septiembre de 2012

Google Project Glass

Aquí desde el blog oficial de Google para el tema

Aquí (comentarios) desde el blog de Nicholas Carr

Aquí el visual-demo:


¿Qué podemos decir?

1. Que lo vimos antes en películas (Terminator creo que fue la primera)

2. Que es un paso más en la "fusión" de los "mundos" (el de siempre y el ciber-nuevo)

3. Que será muy difícil al cabo, oponerse a tales fusiones (¿Quién no usa hoy un cel?)

4. Que la puerta queda, sin duda, abierta a las "aplicaciones" (las que muestra el video demo son calificables como mínimo de ingenuas... para lo que veremos)

5. Que Google acaba de entrar (abril 2012) por la puerta grande al mundo de los "terminales" :-)

viernes, 21 de septiembre de 2012


...originada en personalidad obsesiva (la mía)

Quisiera que en todo lugar donde se maneje efectivo, y se atiendan clientes, haya una "maquinita" que le enderezca las puntas a los billetes, esto es, que los deje tras realizar su trabajo (la "maquinita"), como recién salidos de la otra maquinita que los fabrica.

No me importa tanto que parezcan como nuevos, es imposible que así sea, lo que me importa es que no estén doblados, en su cuerpo, y en especial que no estén doblados en sus (pu... :-) puntas.

Así se consigue que entren dócilmente en la billetera, y además ésta no termina siendo un amasijo de "papeles", gorda e inmanejable :-)


PS1 (lo dije: personalidad obsesiva la que da pie a esta humilde solicitud)

PS2 (Ni siquiera tendría que decirlo, el trabajo hoy de enderezar las (pu... :-) puntas, lo tengo que hacer yo con mis manos, mis uñas, y conlleva toda la molestia que se pueden imaginar :-/)

jueves, 20 de septiembre de 2012

lunes, 17 de septiembre de 2012

Innovando la innovación: Big Idea Group (BIG)

Aquí su sitio web

"BIG is an open source innovation company.
We complement traditional, internal approaches with an effective and efficient open innovation process. Our particular expertise is in insight discovery, innovation generation, and innovation execution.

We have worked with clients on a variety of projects in consumer products and services, and at different stages of the innovation process. Whether a company wants to hire us from insight discovery to on-shelf product, or for just one segment of development, BIG's open innovation resources and processes will powerfully augment internal efforts.

BIG was launched in 2000. It is partially owned by WPP, one of the world's largest communications service groups."


¿Por qué sí podría ser útil para usted (en particular), y (al mismo tiempo) no necesariamente para todos?

1. (Porque es parcialmente owned by WPP, nada menos :-)
2. Porque el camino de la "innovación abierta" ha probado sus bondades en múltiples industrias y escenarios de retos de innovación
3. Porque (en verdad) no se arriesga mucho probando :-)

miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2012

J.A. Schumpeter (desde su biografía - 24 - final)

p.404 [desde su diario]

“10/9/42: Mankind is prepared to believe anything except the truth.”

“5/29/43: Humanity does not care for freedom. The mass of the people realize that they are not up to it: what they want is being fed, led, amused, and above everything, drilled. But they do care for the phrase [freedom].”

martes, 11 de septiembre de 2012

J.A. Schumpeter (desde su biografía - 23)


“The case for capitalism, says Schumpeter, “must rest on long-run considerations.” In the short run, it is impossible for people generally, and even intellectuals, to ignore what seem to be un reasonable “profits and inefficiencies.” They therefore have difficulty in seeing long-range trends in which capitalism is benefiting society as a whole. Uniquely among economic systems, therefore, capitalism “creates, educates and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest.” With its bountiful production, it underwrites the education of a class of hostile intellectuals who have no “direct responsibility for practical affairs” and little experience in managing anything.

In the larger sense, the emotional feelings of human beings are so complicated that there can be no assurance that people in general are “happier” or “better of” under industrial capitalism than they had been in medieval manors or villages. Economic efficiency is only one of many human goals, and not necessarily the most important to every individual. Thus the future of capitalism cannot be assured on the basis of its superior economic performance alone.”

lunes, 10 de septiembre de 2012

J.A. Schumpeter (desde su biografía - 22)


“In pre-capitalist times, he writes, no economic achievement, by itself, could advance anyone into the living standards of the ruling class. But when capitalism began to spread, persons of “supernormal ability and ambition” could now reach a much higher standard of living, provided they would pursue business careers. Yet business success did not confer the charisma that had attached to feudal lords and others leaders of earlier times: “no flourishing of swords about it, not much physical prowess, no chance to gallop the armored horse into the enemy.”

As time passed, however, the economic juggernaut of capitalism began to subvert most of the underpinnings of feudal society –knightly service, the craft guild, the village, the manor. In place of the old webs of reciprocal personal responsibilities –lord and knight, landowner and peasant, patron and artisan- capitalism substituted impersonal efficiency and opportunity. People were no longer part of an organic social system. They could achieve material gains, but they also became “free to make a mess of their lives.” They now had sufficient “individualist rope” to hang themselves.”

viernes, 7 de septiembre de 2012

J.A. Schumpeter (desde su biografía - 21)


“It seemed plain to Schumpeter that continuous technical innovation and organizational remodeling, not monopolistic profits, accounted for the prosperity of most great companies. “These units,” he says in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, “not only arise in the process of creative destruction and function in a way entirely different from the static schema” but often actually make their own markets: “They largely create what they exploit.” Monopoly profits might flow for a while, but only briefly, in the form of big but single-pay-off “prizes offered by capitalist society to the successful innovator.” Pushing his analysis to its limits, Schumpeter identifies capitalist entrepreneurship with technological progress itself. As a matter of historical record, they were “essentially one and the same thing,” the first being “the “propelling force” of the second.

Schumpeter ends this part of his discussion of capitalism with a remarkable statement that foreshadows the ironic style he uses later in the book:

[Schumpeter:] I am not going to sum up as the reader presumably expects me to. That is to say, I am not going to invite him, before he decides to put his trust in an untried alternative advocated by untried men, to look once more at the impressive economic and the still more impressive cultural achievement of the capitalist order and at the immense promise held out by both. I am not going to argue that that achievement and that promise are in themselves sufficient to support an argument for allowing the capitalist process to work on and, as it might easily be put, to lift poverty from the shoulders of mankind… I am not going to argue, that on the strength of that performance, that the capitalist intermezzo is going to be prolonged. In fact, I am now going to draw the exactly opposite inference.

He next lays the foundations for his much-quoted argument that capitalism has developed the seeds of its own destruction –not for economic reasons but for social ones. To show how this happened, he forthrightly traces the evolution of capitalism from its origins down to the present.”

jueves, 6 de septiembre de 2012

J.A. Schumpeter (desde su biografía - 20)


“The reader of these passages should make no mistake about the radical nature of what Schumpeter is asserting. He is indicting his own economics profession for what amounts to a capital crime: failing to acknowledge that continuous innovation is “endogenous to” (inherent in) capitalism. If this one conceptual alteration were adopted in orthodox economics, then a whole series of methodological shifts would ensue. To the extent that economists become more focused on change, they would pay more attention to the record of change. They would have to pursue a much more thorough investigation of economic and business history, as Schumpeter himself had done in Business Cycles. And against that historical background, they would recognize that large-scale units of control were not merely to be tolerated as necessary evils. Instead, they would see big business as part and parcel of “the most powerful engine of [economic] progress and in particular of the long-run expansion of total output” that the world had ever witnessed.

Schumpeter then returns to the question of monopoly, mounting an attack on many American’s mistaken idea that monopoly and big business are the same thing. The word monopoly itself, he says, is a label “sure to rouse the public’s hostility” because of its association with privileges bestowed by British kings during America’s colonial period. Then, too, the evils of monopoly had been invoked by scores of American statesmen, from Andrew Jackson to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and now by Franklin D. Roosevelt. But under modern capitalism, long-run cases of monopoly are almost nonexistent –even rarer than instances of perfect competition. Hence, high entrepreneurial profits are always temporary. And on balance, big business is unquestionably a positive force for innovation and growth.

It was perverse, Schumpeter believed, that so many people in the United States had confused monopoly with big business and made the latter into a whipping boy. The country was, after all, the seedbed of giant firms. Because of its huge internal market and its entrepreneurial culture, it was the home of about a half of the world’s largest companies. Schumpeter felt very strongly about this issue, even more so than he reveals in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. And he believed that he had found a psychological reason for it. As he wrote in his diary: “American opinion is so anti big business precisely because big business has made the country what it now is and in doing so it has set the secret standard of the American soul: who is no part of big bus., feels he does not meet the standard and by compensation turns against it.”

miércoles, 5 de septiembre de 2012

J.A. Schumpeter (desde su biografía - 19)


“In real life, anything approaching perfect competition is extremely rare.

Instead, much of modern business in advanced industrial countries has evolved into a form of organization known as “oligopoly.” This word was introduced by Sir Thomas More in Utopia (1516), then revived 410 years later by Schumpeter’s Harvard colleague E.H. Chamberlin. It now refers to industries in which a small number of large and powerful firms compete with one another in the same line of business: oil, steel, automobiles, chemicals, and a few others. Most of these companies are engaged in mass production, mass distribution, or both; and they often require very large capital investments. In oligopolies, Schumpeter writes, “there is in fact no determinate equilibrium at all and the possibility presents itself that there may be and endless sequence of moves and countermoves, an indefinite state of warfare between firms.” Hence the analogy with military strategy. But these new situations –like others aspects of Schumpeter’s theories, such as the pivotal importance of entrepreneurship- do not easily lend themselves to equilibrium analysis and to mathematical modeling.

One result of the alternative approach Schumpeter proposes would be a sharper focus on product quality and marketing as elements of competition. This new perspective would reduce what had been an overwhelming emphasis on the analysis of price. “In capitalist reality as distinguished from its textbook picture, it is not [that kind of] competition which counts but the competition from the new commodity, the new technology, the new source of supply, the new type of organization.” This kind of competition “strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives.” It is effective even “when it is merely an ever-present threat. It disciplines before it attacks.” A theoretical analysis that “neglects this essential element of the case neglects all that is most typically capitalist about it; even if correct in logic as well as in fact, it is like Hamlet without the Danish prince.”

martes, 4 de septiembre de 2012

J.A. Schumpeter (desde su biografía - 18)


“In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter next mounts a spirited assault on the idea of “perfect competition,” a key theoretical tool used by academic economists in his own time and in ours as well. Models of perfect competition cannot take business strategy into consideration because they assume that every industry contains innumerable firms, each of which is by definition too weak to affect the economic landscape through strategic behavior. Perfect competition assumes unlimited numbers of both buyers and sellers, all of whom possess complete information about all product and services being bought and sold. Such models contemplate frictionless transactions, with no need for lawyers, accountants, brokers, partnerships, corporations, contracts, or other essential accoutrements of actual business.

Perfect competition lends itself very well to mathematical modeling, however, and that advantage has been almost irresistible to economists. But because it neglects the dynamics of creative destruction, Schumpeter finds perfect competition wholly unsuitable for understanding a modern capitalist economy. When, for example, a new product or process is introduced, all buyers and sellers cannot possible have complete information about potential markets. “As a matter of fact,” Schumpeter writes, “perfect competition is and always has been temporarily suspended whenever anything new is being introduced.” And the continual emergence of new products and new ways of doing things is “the fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion.”

Despite its irrelevance to perfect competition, he continues, big-business capitalism has proved its superiority, in the long run, at expanding total output and raising living standards: “The actual efficiency of the capitalist engine of production in the era of the largest-scale units has been much greater that in the preceding era of small or medium-sized ones. This is a matter of statistical record… the technological and organizational possibilities [of firms in the perfect competition model] could never have produced similar results. How modern capitalism would work under perfect competition is hence a meaningless question.”

lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012

J.A. Schumpeter (desde su biografía - 17)


“Since creative destruction is an evolutionary process, the performance of capitalism must be judged “over time, as it unfolds through decades or centuries.” Here, Schumpeter criticizes the approach of his fellow economists to the study of big business. It is useless, he says, to analyze a large company’s behavior at a single point in time –that is, to “accept the data of the momentary situation as if there were no past or future to it.” Yet this is the customary method. The typical economic theorist or government commission does not see the behavior of a major firm, “on the one hand, as a result of a piece of past history, and, on the other hand as an attempt to deal with a situation that is sure to change presently- as an attempt by those firms to keep on their feet, on ground that is slipping away from under them. In other words, the problem that is usually being visualized is how capitalism administers existing structures, whereas the relevant problem is how it creates and destroys them.”

Creative destruction constantly sweeps out old products, old enterprises, and old organizational forms, replacing them with new ones. “Every piece of business strategy acquires its true significance only against the background of that process and within the situation created by it.” Strategy, he goes on to say, “must be seen in its role in the perennial gale of creative destruction; it cannot be understood irrespective of it or, in fact, on the hypothesis that there is a perennial lull.” Any investigator who does not recognize these essential characteristics, Schumpeter concludes, “does a meaningless job.”

In using the term “business strategy” and likening corporate initiatives to military behavior, Schumpeter helped to set off a revolution in the analysis of business that is still thriving today. “Business strategy” and “corporate strategy” have gained extremely wide currency not only in the business press but in popular media as well. Numerous consulting firms specialize in strategy, and all business schools teach courses in it. Most of these schools have an entire department with the word “strategy” or “strategic” in its name. Hundreds of business books and thousands of articles published over the last six decades include “strategy” in their titles. It has been one of the most significant new ideas in business thinking since the 1940S. [Nota al pie:] “Schumpeter did not coin the term “business strategy,” but his use of it here was quite important in popularizing the idea. […] It is almost certain that in discussing business strategy along with entrepreneurs, Schumpeter was using a military analogy. As he wrote in 1946, “In my youth, I did, for instance, under a man who was considered an authority, some work in the history of strategy and tactics. The one thing that still stands out in my memory is that there is no unitary type of ‘military man’ or ‘great general’ and that the attempt to construct such a type only falsifies our picture of military history.”””