Idea practitioners: Key to every organization's success<\/p>\n
Hermawan Kertajaya, Contributor, Jakarta<\/p>\n
What's the Big Idea?: Creating and Capitalizing on the Best
\nManagement Thinking Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak with
\nH. James Wilson Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
\nMassachusetts (April 2003) 256 pp<\/p>\n
As a consultant, I am well aware of the importance of creative
\nideas in the consulting business. Every consultation project with
\na client has its own uniqueness, and is naturally always
\ndifferent from previous ones.<\/p>\n
Because these projects cannot be approached using the same
\nmethods and generic tools, creative people with new and fresh
\nideas are always needed to solve problems and simultaneously to
\ndevelop an organization's competitive advantages.<\/p>\n
Davenport and Prusak, veterans in the consulting business,
\napparently also hold to similar ideas. In their latest book, they
\ndescribe a group of executives who, to date, have stayed \"hidden\"
\nbut are behind businesses' success. The writers refer to this
\ngroup as \"the idea practitioners\". They are the people who study
\nthe thinking of business gurus, adjust them to suit real problems
\nthey face, then put the modified ideas into practice within their
\nown organizations.<\/p>\n
As their first example, the writers compare Westinghouse and
\nGE, both diversified, innovative conglomerates. The businesses of
\nboth, too, have some similarities, for instance in broadcasting,
\npower generation, industrial equipment and financing.
\nNevertheless, why was GE able to become one of the most
\nsuccessful businesses within the last 100 years, while
\nWestinghouse became bankrupt?<\/p>\n
Davenport and Prusak consider that the difference in the fates
\nof the two lies in their differing embrace of ideas for business
\nimprovement. GE has a reputation primarily for its innovative
\nbusiness and management ideas, rather than any breakthrough
\nproducts or services. In contrast, although Westinghouse did have
\ninnovative products, the only business notions it pursued
\ninvolved financial analysis, acquisition and divestiture, and a
\nlate-in-the-game approach to quality.<\/p>\n
GE, especially under Jack Welch, did not just talk about
\nideas; it applied them in the practice of its day-to day
\nbusiness. Welch was assisted by a group of his advisers, who
\nincluded academics, consultants and GE's own employees. The group
\ncame to be known as idea practitioners.<\/p>\n
They were a link between ideas and action. Without them, ideas
\nwould have just stayed that way and would never have been put
\ninto practice. These idea practitioners possess key skills of
\n\"translation, harmonization and timing\". They can tell whether an
\nidea needs modification to work inside the firm. They also have
\nthe capacity to harmonize key themes which exist externally as
\nwell as internally, as well as knowing the right timing to adopt
\nan idea in an organization.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, Davenport and Prusak have also identified the
\npersonalities of idea practitioners. Idea practitioners are able
\nto filter and then synthesize from multiple ideas, modifying them
\nto suit their organization's needs. They are thoughtful and
\nreflective managers capable of distinguishing good ideas from
\nbad. But, even though they are passionate about their ideas, they
\nare neither fervent or militant proponents, nor unquestioning
\nbackers of ill-conceived ideas of others. Most seem quite mild-
\nmannered at first meeting.<\/p>\n
On the characteristics of good ideas themselves, the writers
\nexplain that almost all share one or more of three business
\nobjectives: improved efficiency (doing things right), greater
\neffectiveness (doing the right thing), and innovation in products
\nor processes (doing something new). These three underlie a great
\nmany of the business-oriented goals of most management notions.<\/p>\n
So, how good are business gurus as sources of sound business
\nideas? These people -- apart from CEOs or Company Chairmen -- are
\nthose the media has put in the spotlight and publicized; they are
\nnot idea practitioners. The latter mainly work quietly behind the
\nscenes. Davenport and Prusak argue that these gurus do not really
\ncreate business ideas. They tend to just assemble, package, and
\nbroadcast business ideas; they will rarely create the whole thing
\nfrom scratch.<\/p>\n
One example is the idea of core competence popularized by Gary
\nHamel and C.K. Prahalad at the beginning of the 1990's. The idea
\nitself was then not actually new. The concept of a \"resource-
\nbased view of the firm\" had been discussed for decades by
\nacademics, including by Edith Penrose in 1956.<\/p>\n
The backgrounds of business gurus are also looked at in depth
\nand completely explained. Hence the reader can learn about the
\nline of thought underlying the \"birth\" of their ideas. Davenport
\nand Prusak divide up the backgrounds of these business gurus into
\nfour groups: Business academics (for example, Michael Porter,
\nC.K. Prahalad), consultants (Adrian Slywotzky), practising
\nmanagers (Jack Welch, Andy Grove) and journalists (Tom Stewart,
\nJohn Byrne).<\/p>\n
Based on analyses of the Harvard Business Review and MIT Sloan
\nManagement Review in 1998-1999, Davenport and Prusak found that
\nthe majority of writers in these two business journals came from
\nacademic backgrounds, only then becoming consultants and
\nmanagers, and finally journalists.<\/p>\n
The writers also did not forget to put forward the interaction
\nbetween ideas and the market. It must be remembered that ideas
\nmust also be \"sold\", not just stored in the minds of idea
\npractitioners. The relationships between idea buyers (managers),
\nidea sellers (the advice industry of consulting, investment
\nbanks, business schools, law firms, rating agencies and so on),
\nidea market channels (publishing, conferences, and education),
\nand idea brokers (research groups within investment banks,
\nconsulting and IT industry analyst firms) are set out in detail
\nso we can follow this interplay between markets and ideas.<\/p>\n
All the authors' arguments concerning the importance of idea
\npractitioners are put forward descriptively and completely,
\nreflecting a high degree of insightful analysis, but still
\nstaying reader-friendly all the way. Many examples are put
\nforward. Apart from GE, as mentioned earlier, other examples
\ngiven in the book include Taco Bell, BP, Dell, Xerox, Johnson &
\nJohnson, and the World Bank.<\/p>\n
As a rather interesting addition, the writers also provide an
\nappendix with a list of business and management ideas, a list of
\nthe idea practitioners they have been able to identify, together
\nwith the rankings of the top 200 business gurus, with Michael
\nPorter occupying top place.<\/p>\n
Overall, Davenport and Prusak have succeeded in presenting
\nboth a complete and systematic framework and guide for business
\nideas. This book is also not just head-in-the-clouds concepts,
\nbecause it is based on the writers' experience as consultants to
\nvarious businesses over many years.<\/p>\n
Inevitably, this will be one of those works which will be a
\nfuture classic among business and management books.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/idea-practitioners-key-to-every-organizations-success-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}