3 ms·

Is this really the assumption you operate with? I'm not trying to sound condescending because this is pretty much what I observed at a certain major tech compan

Is this really the assumption you operate with? I'm not trying to sound condescending because this is pretty much what I observed at a certain major tech company. The whole thing wasn't very far from a giant meat factory and it was exactly why there hadn't been any innovation in decades. You can argue that if your business model is so good that you don't need to innovate to stay in business then by all means milk it for what it's worth but that doesn't feel like a long-term strategy. Microsoft and friends have R&D departments that rival the best research institutions in the world and they pay a premium for it. If some of that was a natural byproduct of their core business operations then maybe they wouldn't need to pay a premium for it.

lotharbot 12y ago
It's close to the assumption I operate with. For a sufficiently large business, it's important to be stable/robust -- that is, to be able to withstand change. A business that's heavily reliant on individual brilliance across the board has the disadvantage of potentially collapsing if enough brilliant people leave without training equally brilliant replacements. Yes, you want some brilliant people specifically in R&D / innovation. You want brilliant people overseeing the entire system. Brilliant people in key positions might improve your overall efficiency by an order of magnitude on a particular project -- but you don't want the whole project to fall apart just because Joe moved out of state or Jane went on long-term maternity leave or Jake was hit by a bus. Microsoft does have a world-class R&D department, but they also have a lot of average code monkeys and average janitors and average HR people.