I have a fun time reading this. Nice use of visuals and graphics. Nice introduction that situates your analysis and your readers well about the issue you intend to address. This is a pretty nice first draft, though there is still room for improvement. Please adopt suggestions as you see fit. Please post a separate new post of this assignment, and keep the old post intact with comments from me and others. This way it shows your revision effort and gets you bonus points. Enjoy writing and learning!
Also, this is not meant to be a blog comment as a peer; rather, it's written as recommendations for improvement. So, please do not emulate my style in making blog comments on each other's blogs. Please see Trello cards on tips on making constructive comments. Thanks.
Best, Frank
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER ORIGINALITY AND AESTHETICS.
I much appreciate your taking on a very current technological innovation failure of Google, which has little that has been written. All that has been written is a little emergent, meaning industry experts are still “figuring” things out. So, it’s very original to be figuring things out along with the experts, journalists, and CEOs. Very exciting indeed.
I appreciate use of videos and graphics, allowing you to show rather than tell your story to make a greater impact.
You have analyze this case in directions that surprised me by broadening the “industry boundaries.” Very creative approach that allows you to make creative insights and trenchant observations that are not typically expected.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER INSIGHTS AND PROVOCATION
Your thesis statement is clear and strong in the introduction: “Thomke and Reinertsen (2012) mentioned that R&D teams easily fall into fallacy “the more features we put into a product, the more customers will like it” and the case of Google glass may indicate that team is tempted to show off by producing brilliant technical solution that amaze their peers and management, however, not directly address the public need.” You also go about proving your position and arguments in creative ways.
I much enjoy your linking Google Glass to “wearable tech” and appreciate your sophisticated analysis there. The risk of being complex is that one might lose clarity (I would take out some of the irrelevant details that detract rather than add to your analysis: ask yourself if any details don’t belong; ask yourselves if understanding is diminished with certain details gone).
Also, I recommend work on improving the introduction to better situation your readers that you are situating your analysis on the broader context of “wearable tech”, which is a very specific kind of technological innovation. Mobiles are going in this exciting direction indeed; Apple Watch with smart phone capacity will be released in April: http://www.techradar.com/news/wearables/apple-iwatch-release-date-news-and-rumours-1131043 . You might also want to compare and contrast the Apple and Google strategies, which could be very fun and insightful: Apple being the best marketer who waits for "product category" to become clearer before introducing Apple Watch, while Google being the most innovative trend setter.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER MASTERY AND UNDERSTANDING.
Creative use of the Holistic Analysis on Business Environment for Google; your analysis informs Google’s technological innovation failure well. I’m pleasantly surprised, as few students chose to this this particular approach to industry, market analysis in the past. It’s a nice broad, general analysis, and your arguments are also broad with forest views on the matter of technological innovation.
The recommendation I have for improvement on analysis is to make sure that the stakeholder story is clear in your analysis: their interdependence, and ways that various stakeholders both ENABLE AND CONSTRAIN each other’s decisions in embedded, situated decision contexts that are specific in time, place in history. Here is a brief lecture using this particular approach that you and the rest of the class might find helpful: http://www.slideshare.net/ChristianKobsa/holistic-business-analysis.
At the moment, you might want on better connect your industry analysis to Google’s technological innovation failure. It’s little disjointed and isolated analysis without clear bridging at the moment. You might want to arguments such as: Google’s growing global dominance, Google’s strong buyer bargaining power, and weak threats of substitutes, and moderate threats of new entrants confer Google the luxury of learning and improving from technological innovation failures. Other technology companies would not have such deep-pocket luxuries of experimenting with little risk of market repercussion as well as such enjoyment in wallowing in learning from innovation failures and being trend and innovation setters rather than followers (which is part of Google’s organizational and innovation culture).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER SUPPORT AND EVIDENCE.
I appreciate your extensive research done on understanding the issue with exceptionally up to date information and data! You need to cite references in the APA style in the body paragraph itself, as well as in the references. Please see Trello cards for the APA guides.
Your references are almost completely perfect. I wouldn’t stress over the little details that are not. It’s a fine reference already; it has already exceeded my expectation on the library search and reference.
You need more analysis, applications of concepts from the readings and lectures, and arguments in support of the points you are making. You need a concluding point at the end: some culminating insight of your analysis or some recommendations for Google or other technology companies about pitfalls of technological innovations. The conclusion is a little descriptive and not linked to your nice thesis statements in the introduction; you might want to relate and bridge a little better.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER CLARITY AND COHERENCE
Nice introduction that situates your analysis and your readers well about the issue you intend to address. Nice use of provocative questioning in the introduction to encourage your readers to think out of the box. Nicely done! You might want to work on developing your analysis that leads to a cogent, concluding point and insight at the end that sizes up the gist, point, or recommendation of your analysis. I recommend figuring the point you want to make, and then work backwards and stage the progression of your arguments step-wise without gaps in logic or reasoning.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER MASTERY AND UNDERSTANDING.
Creative use of the Holistic Analysis on Business Environment for Google; your analysis informs Google’s technological innovation failure well. I’m pleasantly surprised, as few students chose to this this particular approach to industry, market analysis in the past. It’s a nice broad, general analysis, and your arguments are also broad with forest views on the matter of technological innovation.
The recommendation I have for improvement on analysis is to make sure that the stakeholder story is clear in your analysis: their interdependence, and ways that various stakeholders both ENABLE AND CONSTRAIN each other’s decisions in embedded, situated decision contexts that are specific in time, place in history. Here is a brief lecture using this particular approach that you and the rest of the class might find helpful: http://www.slideshare.net/ChristianKobsa/holistic-business-analysis.
At the moment, you might want on better connect your industry analysis to Google’s technological innovation failure. It’s little disjointed and isolated analysis without clear bridging at the moment. You might want to arguments such as: Google’s growing global dominance, Google’s strong buyer bargaining power, and weak threats of substitutes, and moderate threats of new entrants confer Google the luxury of learning and improving from technological innovation failures. Other technology companies would not have such deep-pocket luxuries of experimenting with little risk of market repercussion as well as such enjoyment in wallowing in learning from innovation failures and being trend and innovation setters rather than followers (which is part of Google’s organizational and innovation culture).
I appreciate your extensive research done on understanding the issue with exceptionally up to date information and data! You need to cite references in the APA style in the body paragraph itself, as well as in the references. Please see Trello cards for the APA guides.
Your references are almost completely perfect. I wouldn’t stress over the little details that are not. It’s a fine reference already; it has already exceeded my expectation on the library search and reference.
You need more analysis, applications of concepts from the readings and lectures, and arguments in support of the points you are making. You need a concluding point at the end: some culminating insight of your analysis or some recommendations for google or other technology companies about pitfalls of technological innovations. The conclusion is a little descriptive and not linked to your nice thesis statements in the introduction; you might want to relate and bridge a little better.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER CLARITY AND COHERENCE
Nice introduction that situates your analysis and your readers well about the issue you intend to address. Nice use of provocative questioning in the introduction to encourage your readers to think out of the box. Nicely done!
You might want to work on developing your analysis that leads to a cogent, concluding point and insight at the end that sizes up the gist, point, or recommendation of your analysis. I recommend figuring the point you want to make, and then work backwards and stage the progression of your arguments step-wise without gaps in logic or reasoning.
DEAR TEAM 14 ICatcher,
回覆刪除I have a fun time reading this. Nice use of visuals and graphics. Nice introduction that situates your analysis and your readers well about the issue you intend to address. This is a pretty nice first draft, though there is still room for improvement. Please adopt suggestions as you see fit. Please post a separate new post of this assignment, and keep the old post intact with comments from me and others. This way it shows your revision effort and gets you bonus points. Enjoy writing and learning!
Also, this is not meant to be a blog comment as a peer; rather, it's written as recommendations for improvement. So, please do not emulate my style in making blog comments on each other's blogs. Please see Trello cards on tips on making constructive comments. Thanks.
Best, Frank
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER ORIGINALITY AND AESTHETICS.
I much appreciate your taking on a very current technological innovation failure of Google, which has little that has been written. All that has been written is a little emergent, meaning industry experts are still “figuring” things out. So, it’s very original to be figuring things out along with the experts, journalists, and CEOs. Very exciting indeed.
I appreciate use of videos and graphics, allowing you to show rather than tell your story to make a greater impact.
You have analyze this case in directions that surprised me by broadening the “industry boundaries.” Very creative approach that allows you to make creative insights and trenchant observations that are not typically expected.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER INSIGHTS AND PROVOCATION
回覆刪除Your thesis statement is clear and strong in the introduction: “Thomke and Reinertsen (2012) mentioned that R&D teams easily fall into fallacy “the more features we put into a product, the more customers will like it” and the case of Google glass may indicate that team is tempted to show off by producing brilliant technical solution that amaze their peers and management, however, not directly address the public need.” You also go about proving your position and arguments in creative ways.
I much enjoy your linking Google Glass to “wearable tech” and appreciate your sophisticated analysis there. The risk of being complex is that one might lose clarity (I would take out some of the irrelevant details that detract rather than add to your analysis: ask yourself if any details don’t belong; ask yourselves if understanding is diminished with certain details gone).
Also, I recommend work on improving the introduction to better situation your readers that you are situating your analysis on the broader context of “wearable tech”, which is a very specific kind of technological innovation. Mobiles are going in this exciting direction indeed; Apple Watch with smart phone capacity will be released in April: http://www.techradar.com/news/wearables/apple-iwatch-release-date-news-and-rumours-1131043 . You might also want to compare and contrast the Apple and Google strategies, which could be very fun and insightful: Apple being the best marketer who waits for "product category" to become clearer before introducing Apple Watch, while Google being the most innovative trend setter.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER MASTERY AND UNDERSTANDING.
回覆刪除Creative use of the Holistic Analysis on Business Environment for Google; your analysis informs Google’s technological innovation failure well. I’m pleasantly surprised, as few students chose to this this particular approach to industry, market analysis in the past. It’s a nice broad, general analysis, and your arguments are also broad with forest views on the matter of technological innovation.
The recommendation I have for improvement on analysis is to make sure that the stakeholder story is clear in your analysis: their interdependence, and ways that various stakeholders both ENABLE AND CONSTRAIN each other’s decisions in embedded, situated decision contexts that are specific in time, place in history. Here is a brief lecture using this particular approach that you and the rest of the class might find helpful: http://www.slideshare.net/ChristianKobsa/holistic-business-analysis.
At the moment, you might want on better connect your industry analysis to Google’s technological innovation failure. It’s little disjointed and isolated analysis without clear bridging at the moment. You might want to arguments such as: Google’s growing global dominance, Google’s strong buyer bargaining power, and weak threats of substitutes, and moderate threats of new entrants confer Google the luxury of learning and improving from technological innovation failures. Other technology companies would not have such deep-pocket luxuries of experimenting with little risk of market repercussion as well as such enjoyment in wallowing in learning from innovation failures and being trend and innovation setters rather than followers (which is part of Google’s organizational and innovation culture).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER SUPPORT AND EVIDENCE.
I appreciate your extensive research done on understanding the issue with exceptionally up to date information and data! You need to cite references in the APA style in the body paragraph itself, as well as in the references. Please see Trello cards for the APA guides.
Your references are almost completely perfect. I wouldn’t stress over the little details that are not. It’s a fine reference already; it has already exceeded my expectation on the library search and reference.
You need more analysis, applications of concepts from the readings and lectures, and arguments in support of the points you are making. You need a concluding point at the end: some culminating insight of your analysis or some recommendations for Google or other technology companies about pitfalls of technological innovations. The conclusion is a little descriptive and not linked to your nice thesis statements in the introduction; you might want to relate and bridge a little better.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER CLARITY AND COHERENCE
Nice introduction that situates your analysis and your readers well about the issue you intend to address. Nice use of provocative questioning in the introduction to encourage your readers to think out of the box. Nicely done!
You might want to work on developing your analysis that leads to a cogent, concluding point and insight at the end that sizes up the gist, point, or recommendation of your analysis. I recommend figuring the point you want to make, and then work backwards and stage the progression of your arguments step-wise without gaps in logic or reasoning.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER MASTERY AND UNDERSTANDING.
回覆刪除Creative use of the Holistic Analysis on Business Environment for Google; your analysis informs Google’s technological innovation failure well. I’m pleasantly surprised, as few students chose to this this particular approach to industry, market analysis in the past. It’s a nice broad, general analysis, and your arguments are also broad with forest views on the matter of technological innovation.
The recommendation I have for improvement on analysis is to make sure that the stakeholder story is clear in your analysis: their interdependence, and ways that various stakeholders both ENABLE AND CONSTRAIN each other’s decisions in embedded, situated decision contexts that are specific in time, place in history. Here is a brief lecture using this particular approach that you and the rest of the class might find helpful: http://www.slideshare.net/ChristianKobsa/holistic-business-analysis.
At the moment, you might want on better connect your industry analysis to Google’s technological innovation failure. It’s little disjointed and isolated analysis without clear bridging at the moment. You might want to arguments such as: Google’s growing global dominance, Google’s strong buyer bargaining power, and weak threats of substitutes, and moderate threats of new entrants confer Google the luxury of learning and improving from technological innovation failures. Other technology companies would not have such deep-pocket luxuries of experimenting with little risk of market repercussion as well as such enjoyment in wallowing in learning from innovation failures and being trend and innovation setters rather than followers (which is part of Google’s organizational and innovation culture).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER SUPPORT AND EVIDENCE.
回覆刪除I appreciate your extensive research done on understanding the issue with exceptionally up to date information and data! You need to cite references in the APA style in the body paragraph itself, as well as in the references. Please see Trello cards for the APA guides.
Your references are almost completely perfect. I wouldn’t stress over the little details that are not. It’s a fine reference already; it has already exceeded my expectation on the library search and reference.
You need more analysis, applications of concepts from the readings and lectures, and arguments in support of the points you are making. You need a concluding point at the end: some culminating insight of your analysis or some recommendations for google or other technology companies about pitfalls of technological innovations. The conclusion is a little descriptive and not linked to your nice thesis statements in the introduction; you might want to relate and bridge a little better.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER CLARITY AND COHERENCE
Nice introduction that situates your analysis and your readers well about the issue you intend to address. Nice use of provocative questioning in the introduction to encourage your readers to think out of the box. Nicely done!
You might want to work on developing your analysis that leads to a cogent, concluding point and insight at the end that sizes up the gist, point, or recommendation of your analysis. I recommend figuring the point you want to make, and then work backwards and stage the progression of your arguments step-wise without gaps in logic or reasoning.
Practical Wisdom,
回覆刪除This is old post before Frank's comment, you should comment on new post.
Icatcher