When it comes to the process of ideation, I've come across two main lines of thought. The first, which is the more "sexy" notion, is that organizations and people should focus their energies on that "aha!" idea or concept...that earth-shattering, paradigm-shifting, industry-shaping concept that then turns into a billion dollar industry within 5 years.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who believe that there is no such thing as a "new" idea. This line of thought follows that all ideas are just simply recycled ones from other industries or previous times...that any "new" idea is a result of just combining a few good ones to create something meaningful for a particular organization or industry. As a result, people who agree with this thought process also believe that spending time on the aforementioned "paradigm-shifting" idea is a waste of resources, since the probability of that occurring is very rare.
I bring this up because I wonder which track the HR/Recruiting space is following?
Or is it following either at all?
More to come as the week goes on...
3 comments:
Hmm, perhaps some people do some (paradigm shifting) and othes look closer to home? That said, I'm more a fan of the paradigm moves... look at organisations over the decades and I think there is sufficient evidence of these 'large' changes.
Should be an interesting series...
Hmm, perhaps some people do some (paradigm shifting) and othes look closer to home? That said, I'm more a fan of the paradigm moves... look at organisations over the decades and I think there is sufficient evidence of these 'large' changes.
Should be an interesting series...
I agree, the paradigm moves are more "sexy." But there is also something to be said for organizations that look at the effort behind such movements, and question the ROI on them.
It's almost equivalent to how pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars on drugs that may or may not ever make it to market. There's long been the question if there could be a more efficient system to develop drugs.
Post a Comment