Cha2,
Thank you for your positive response to my post. I am glad you liked my ideas about "platform" and "star node." As part of strategic control, the extension of "architecture" to "platform" was at the heart of my five-part series. The idea of a "star node" just came to me from some unobserved part of me on Thursday morning as I was writing. It is always a rewarding experience for me to find a new idea, which I did not know that I had, suddenly emerging.
I was particularly pleased by your comments about my discussion of Qualcomm, specifically by these sentences, "This is exactly the combination of concepts at the theoretical level and tests in the real world that brings home theory by example. (And shines light on the example.)" That is high praise indeed, and who does not need "thanks and praise" sometimes to make them feel appreciated or to validate their work.
Also, earlier this week, Eric L. kindly and graciously praised a previous installment in this series, which I also appreciated and found personally rewarding. Two such thoughtful expressions of appreciation are sufficient to make me feel my work is valued.
Here, however, is the big "BUT." I was surprised by the difference in the responses here and on the NPI board to my commentary contained in Thursday's final two sections. The first part, where I made a case for the value of the concept of "platform" as a form of strategic control that extended Moore's idea of "architectural control," elicited 26 positive recommendations on the NPI board. Without in anyway detracting from your response, Cha 2, the only public or private one that I received here, this unexpected high-number of positive responses really was a rewarding and validating experience for me.
Now, I had laid out my case quite carefully, and only after reviewing the gospel in the field manual, I made only a weak claim of clarity and convenience for the term "platform," in addition to introducing to G&K the idea of "trajectories of performance," which I borrowed from Christensen who borrowed it from Dosi, and which many of you may have already known. I was so cautious and careful specifically because I was trying to help Moore''s model of the gorilla game grow, to expand and evolve. Theories, like products, architectures, and platforms, also bcome obsolescent when they are not continually cannibalized and updated as relevant ideas from related models or evidence from new cases becomes available.
Nonetheless, this thread is known for its firm allegiances to G&K, given how many people have been politely invited to go RTFM. So I tried to tred softly just to make sure that no one would confuse my positive intentions in this effort with an outcry of rebellion or a call for revolution.
Gauging from the relative dearth of response from the G&K thread, when compared to the NPI thread, my concerns appear now to be much ado about nothing. (Or, my work was much ado about nothing, or I am myself too much ado about nothing, or something of the sort.)
My final section, which I labeled "speculation", which you so graciously praised, Cha2, elicited 32 positive recommendations. Wow, the NPI members really seemed to like my work! This thrilled me. The first written response to me suggested that I should not be so "modest." Because no one has ever given me that feedback before, in fact, "cocky" is a far more frequently ascribed attribute, I decided that I had succeeded in being circumspect in my claim for a minor advance the gorilla game.
Not only was this piece widely recommended, so far it has initiated a thread of 21 related posts, including an excellent one by Mike Buckley on Qualcomm, which I hope you will read. Now this is the sort of community response that I hope to stimulate but rarely achieve. And, I am far more than justly compensated by it for my efforts.
However, I am curious about why the same post created such a positive response over there and, apparently, except for you, did not elicit the same attention here. Can you, or anyone else who does not have me on IGNORE, please help me understand this puzzling, yet psychologically intriguing, difference in levels of response? Any discreet public or, better yet, private messages that might help me understand the psychology of this difference would be appreciated.
Best,
Don |
