Platt Perspective on Business and Technology

Creating value from constructive conflict 3: thinking through the creative commons from a business model and corporate culture perspective

Posted in HR and personnel, strategy and planning by Timothy Platt on December 5, 2014

This is my third posting, after a long pause to a series on building and offering a creative commons as a safe place to share, explore, debate and argue the case for new proposed innovations and new ideas and approaches. And my orientation in this is on how a creative commons approach can be built into and supported by the underlying business model and by the ongoing commonly shared corporate culture that are in place (see Part 1 and Part 2.)

I specifically note that I have been explicitly leading up to this posting from the beginning of this series’ first installment when I stated that I was going to discuss the open commons as a resource for developing innovative potential from a business model and corporate culture perspective.

I have written in this blog and through a succession of posting contexts, about how a business’ owners and leaders can significantly shape and influence the corporate culture in place, but that ultimately corporate culture is what its employees come to believe and assume as givens. Starting with the corporate culture side of this set of issues here, a business’ owners and senior executives can thwart and stifle the creative conversation but it is up to the people who would participate in this to make it work. This means offering them opportunity to use creative commons resources that are made available and a sense of safety in doing so, where time can be made available and ideas tried – and even if they do not always succeed.

This means allowing for a corporate culture that allows for and encourages thought and the sharing and collective creation and refinement of new ideas. And it means allowing for both success and failure, and with opportunity to learn from both in moving on towards better.

• If a corporate culture sets the stage for this by affording permission and opportunity as workplace features that people would be comfortable pursuing and utilizing, then the business model and its operational implementation provide the structure and framework where that actually happens.
• Rigid and inflexible business models and their implementations do not allow for or support failures or even slow-downs. As such they do not allow for or support creativity, experimentation or fundamental change of any real type or measure.
• Business models that both strategically and operationally allow for flexible, well considered risk taking and the creativity that this can make possible, position themselves for long-term business effectiveness and competitiveness by enabling their being able to offer New, and by enabling their being able to offer unique sources of competitive value in the years to come – and in a way that their more rigid and restrictive competitors cannot match.

I am going to conclude this posting and this series, at least for now by raising a final question and by offering at least the start to a response in answer to it. Can a rigidly inflexible business that does not actively allow for disruptive creativity with its risks as well as its opportunities in its own systems, remain effectively competitive long-term simply by acquisition of proven and vetted new ideas and approaches from other businesses and from individual innovator entrepreneurs?

• In principle at least, this is possible and I have seen businesses try it and even succeed very effectively – with specific individual innovation acquisitions that they buy into and integrate into their current systems and offerings.
• But ultimately that calls for openness and flexibility too, and if not in the original conceptualizing and designing of an innovation, then in converting it from a potential source of acquired value into a realized in-house source of value that can be cost-effectively put into ongoing production.
• And I add that even if this can be made to work piecemeal and on an individual innovation by individual innovation basis, a rigid and inflexible acquisitions-oriented business is not likely to find opportunity this way to develop or implement a balanced flow of such change and innovation that would best meet its specific needs.

With that set of points in mind, I am certain to come back to the issues that I have been addressing here in this series, just as I came back with this series to issues first raised early in writing to this blog in my September 25, 2009 posting: Connecting an Organization Together, Version 2.0. Meanwhile, you can find this and related postings at Business Strategy and Operations – 3 and also at Page 1 and Page 2 of that directory. And you can also find this and related material at HR and Personnel and its Page 2 continuation.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: