Week 11: reading reflection

First, a link! You, too, can read this week's reading without the hassle of off-campus proxy.

I'm enrolled in GEB3373 International Business this semester with Dr. Amanda Phalin, and the Capsim business simulation is kicking my team's ass. I mean really burying us. What happened? We performed reasonably well in the practice rounds, and it looked like we were poised to capture a fair market share in competition. Our stock plummeted to $1.00, if that helps paint a picture.

Innovation strategy is what happened, a lack thereof. We were swimming in the performance pond but failed to present a product that delivered the speed and accuracy those customers need. We're still struggling with innovation, and as CFO, it's causing crazy anxiety for me. We're sinking, still failing to pinpoint what our customers care about and how to meet their needs.

Like Polaroid or Kodak, we aren't adapting fast enough, and if we can't catch up to our competitors, we'll be dead in the water.
  
And this week's reading dovetails perfectly with our Capsim disaster. Corning's strategy has notes of what we've been working on, namely avoiding outsourcing, but let's move away from my troubles.   

My biggest confusion this week is about the author's examples, which all seem rocky. Is there solid proof, or is every business's strategy a 50/50 shot at success? Corning, for example, has had success and failure over the years with their strategy so is the goal simply to have more successes than failures? 

The reading also touches on VRIN; where there is a valuable process/good/service, imitators will appear. 

I'm a little confused about the notion that routine innovation is suicidal, but I think that is based on a humdrum "okay, let's keep innovating without a clear goal or strategy" scenario rather than a sincere desire to continue to progress.

There is no one magic answer, I get that, but bringing that note to a discussion of crowdsourcing? Crowdsourcing is innovative, I suppose, and it does demonstrate the trade-offs the author is trying to explain, but it's a whole separate issue I would have left out of this article. Then again, maybe I'm wrongly hating on Pisano because of my bias against wishy-washy. 

What do you think? Gary Pisano doesn't say anything I can clearly call out as wrong. Can you find a loose thread? Do you agree "You Need an Innovation Strategy" isn't particularly innovative? 

Give me your words below!