1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
What surprised me the most was reading about how the pharmaceutical companies shield themselves from market input. It seems very sketchy to me, though I sort of expect those kinds of things with a pharmaceutical company seeing as most of them are fairly corrupt.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
The part that confused me the most was the part that talked about how the innovators made money. The process seemed very confusing and involved multiple steps that seemed rather unnecessary
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
I would ask the author:
1) Do you think trying to be an innovator without any sort of strategy would be financially worth the risk?
2) What is the largest impact of having a strategy compared to not having a strategy?
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
I disagree with him saying that companies don't align their innovation with their business because I feel like a company wouldn't even be successful without the innovation making something that was worth promoting for the company.
0 comments:
Post a Comment