Hey everyone!
So sadly this is my last blog post! I've been doing this blog for a university project and it's due in on Friday, so finishing ahead of time (somehow?) i'm posting my 14th and last post today.
From doing this blog I have become a lot more aware of how much thought it put into the world around me and how big a part psychology has when it comes to companies. They use innovative tactics to ensure we remember their company (webuyanycar.com etc); and that these tactics are based from the inventions of others which have been successfully implimented and allowed to evolve into an innovative process.
I've learned that knowledge is power but that knowledge can be split down even further (tactic, implicit etc) and that finding a balance between the two is hard to both find and measure and also that education can be a form of innovation.
So I hope everyone has enjoyed reading these blog posts, I've covered pretty much everything from halloween innovation, home delivery, educational innovation and even innovation in theme parks and cheerleading so I hope that everyone can find something in here they enjoy!
All the best!
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
Case study 2- Fun Farm
Hey everyone!
So I thought today I'd do a case study blog about a company I know really well- Fun Farm ltd. Anyone from outside of the Lincolnshire area would not have heard of them, basically it's a childrens play centre with slides, ball pits and a restaurant, the English equivalent of 'Chuck-y Cheese'. It also happens to be where I work; I am the duty manager of the Grantham branch and so know a lot about the companies innovation, both successful and non-successful.
Whilst not exactly a multi-national company, it has 3 large premises spanning across Grantham, Sleaford and Lincoln and has undergone a lot of innovative changes recently!
Firstly, when the recession hit, it hit our company really hard. People had less disposable income and so had to cut out luxuries such as days out in favour of essentials, resulting in us being £10,000 down from the previous year. Staff motivation was low as they were talks about closing and due to making a few members redudant, we all took on extra responsibilites in order to survive as a business. Unlike any other business, the recession hit us hard. However, we were fortunate to survive the recession, not by chance but by implimenting a number of innovative strategies.
Firstly, as mentioned above the management had to cut back on staff members. The main issue here was that every staff member has a varying degree of both tacit and explicit knowledge.
Image from- cognativedesignsolutions [online] accessed 18/1/12
As the diagram above shows, knowledge management is difficult because only 5% of an employees knowledge is physical items such as certificates, records etc (explicit). The rest is made up of 'tacit' knowledge, a psychological concept which we can not prove, only obvserve. We had members of staff who were very "skilled" in terms of their explicit knowledge, they were very smart no questioning that; but they were lacking in 'implicit' knowledge; being book smart does not mean you will be competant to work with customers, these are skills which you learn through doing now by reading (very much a Robert Baden-Powell type approach to thinking). Weighing up the opportunity costs of losing a staff member is always difficult and in some instances we were lucky enough to have a large number of staff members who had a good knowledge of the company and so only had to make redundant 3 employees. The knock on effect of this was that it lead to the current work force working harder; no doubt because they were scared of losing their job too.
Another issue we faced was that during week-days we were always quite, it was costing more money to stay open then we were taking in. The manager was aware of a number of parents who held creshes at their house during the weektime and this lead to an innovative idea. She created a facebook page and added all the local businesses and regular customers to it to build up our clientelle database. We then introduced an offer that had been running in the other fun farms, a discounted entry fee before 1pm in order to attract as many customers in as early as possible. The logic behind this was that if people turned up early, they would stay until at least lunch time and buy their food from our premises, however this plan backfired as many people simply left when they were hungry instead of buying from us. One thing we did learn though from this was that customers would have stayed longer if our food prices were cheaper, and so we looked into what our choices were in terms of supplier.
From doing this, we saw that we could actually save money by changed supplier, and by removing some items from our menu, we spent less on our food bills, meaning we were able to offer meal deals which were instantly popular. Through the process of finding out what our clinets wanted and implimenting it, you can argue that our company was innovative throughout the recession. Carol (1985) and Baron (1983) both agree that 'originality' is one of the key cognative factors effecting innovation and that was exactly what our idea was; it was original and thanks to this original innovative strategy our business has managed to survive the recession.
Reference list:
Baron, S "How effective are we at managing innovation?" (1983:2), published by: Ebsco publishing
Carol, S "Perspectives of innovation within organisations" (1985:4), published by :Ebsco publishing
Fun farm [online], found at : www.funfarm.co.uk, accessed 19/1/12
So I thought today I'd do a case study blog about a company I know really well- Fun Farm ltd. Anyone from outside of the Lincolnshire area would not have heard of them, basically it's a childrens play centre with slides, ball pits and a restaurant, the English equivalent of 'Chuck-y Cheese'. It also happens to be where I work; I am the duty manager of the Grantham branch and so know a lot about the companies innovation, both successful and non-successful.
Whilst not exactly a multi-national company, it has 3 large premises spanning across Grantham, Sleaford and Lincoln and has undergone a lot of innovative changes recently!
Firstly, when the recession hit, it hit our company really hard. People had less disposable income and so had to cut out luxuries such as days out in favour of essentials, resulting in us being £10,000 down from the previous year. Staff motivation was low as they were talks about closing and due to making a few members redudant, we all took on extra responsibilites in order to survive as a business. Unlike any other business, the recession hit us hard. However, we were fortunate to survive the recession, not by chance but by implimenting a number of innovative strategies.
Firstly, as mentioned above the management had to cut back on staff members. The main issue here was that every staff member has a varying degree of both tacit and explicit knowledge.
Image from- cognativedesignsolutions [online] accessed 18/1/12
As the diagram above shows, knowledge management is difficult because only 5% of an employees knowledge is physical items such as certificates, records etc (explicit). The rest is made up of 'tacit' knowledge, a psychological concept which we can not prove, only obvserve. We had members of staff who were very "skilled" in terms of their explicit knowledge, they were very smart no questioning that; but they were lacking in 'implicit' knowledge; being book smart does not mean you will be competant to work with customers, these are skills which you learn through doing now by reading (very much a Robert Baden-Powell type approach to thinking). Weighing up the opportunity costs of losing a staff member is always difficult and in some instances we were lucky enough to have a large number of staff members who had a good knowledge of the company and so only had to make redundant 3 employees. The knock on effect of this was that it lead to the current work force working harder; no doubt because they were scared of losing their job too.
Another issue we faced was that during week-days we were always quite, it was costing more money to stay open then we were taking in. The manager was aware of a number of parents who held creshes at their house during the weektime and this lead to an innovative idea. She created a facebook page and added all the local businesses and regular customers to it to build up our clientelle database. We then introduced an offer that had been running in the other fun farms, a discounted entry fee before 1pm in order to attract as many customers in as early as possible. The logic behind this was that if people turned up early, they would stay until at least lunch time and buy their food from our premises, however this plan backfired as many people simply left when they were hungry instead of buying from us. One thing we did learn though from this was that customers would have stayed longer if our food prices were cheaper, and so we looked into what our choices were in terms of supplier.
From doing this, we saw that we could actually save money by changed supplier, and by removing some items from our menu, we spent less on our food bills, meaning we were able to offer meal deals which were instantly popular. Through the process of finding out what our clinets wanted and implimenting it, you can argue that our company was innovative throughout the recession. Carol (1985) and Baron (1983) both agree that 'originality' is one of the key cognative factors effecting innovation and that was exactly what our idea was; it was original and thanks to this original innovative strategy our business has managed to survive the recession.
Reference list:
Baron, S "How effective are we at managing innovation?" (1983:2), published by: Ebsco publishing
Carol, S "Perspectives of innovation within organisations" (1985:4), published by :Ebsco publishing
Fun farm [online], found at : www.funfarm.co.uk, accessed 19/1/12
Analysis of Pete Allisons interview
Hey everyone!
So I wanted to do the analysis of the interview pretty much as soon as possible whilst it's still fresh in my mind, i'm just going to apply some innovation theory to explain some of the answers he had given me.
The main point I picked up on from the interview was that he believed that radio almost re-invents itself, instead of falling victim to the 'creative-destruction' Schumpeter describes, he believes radio is an exception to this rule- that instead of being destroyed by new inventions such as the television and computer; people still use the radio but their reasons and the way they go about it have changed, potentially explaing how it has managed to survive over a hundred years when most products have a life cycle of a few years (case in point: how many 'new' iPhones have there been in the past 3 years?!).
Instead of fading away, radio seems to be almost re-inventing itself to fit with todays modern world. People want to hear their local radio stations when driving to and from work, during the day they want music and the industry understands this and has innovated because of that; they have cut back on costs by analysing when their figures are at the lowest, then outsource their programmes to London based radio firms.
John O' Hara, a general manager at Microsoft talks about 'sustainable innovation' being the key to business success and we can definitely see aspects of this in the radio industry. He says: "For many large businesses, real innovation is more likely to be about making day-to-day improvements in how the business operates in terms of people and process" realinnovation [online] accessed 18/1/12 and this seems to be the case for the radio industry. Instead of paragidm shifts, the radio industry try out little steps daily to improve its service; undertaking major innovation changes very rarely, as Pete mentioned in the 3 years he has been working in the radio industry things have not changed much, they are just more aware of their customers wants, needs and listening habbits.
Where radio seems to have survived where others have failed is that radio almost has become part of our culture. We instinctively play it in the car and we become used to having it present in our life. The fact people are downloading apps for their phones so they can specifically listen to the radio backs this up; we are not willing to let the radio die out but instead support it. Customers are what drive innovation changes, as my previous blog has mentioned, the supply chain is influenced by customers spending habbits. If customers demand more, we need to supply more to meet market equilibrium. In an oligopoly market such as radio presenting, competition on who has spent the most on their programmes does not attract more viewers as people are happy enough to listen to their local station.
The global recession has meant many have had to become more innovative in terms of shifting their studios location or outsourcing their work to other companies during quieter times, but in the end the radio industry has been around for over a 100 years and is still going strong. TV stations have channels specifically for radio shows, which seems to prove the proverb: if you can't beat them, join them.
Reference list:
Realinnovation [online], found at: http://www.realinnovation.com/offsite.asp?A=Fr&Url=http://www.busmanagement.com/pastissue/article.asp?art=26868&issue=165, accessed 18/1/12
So I wanted to do the analysis of the interview pretty much as soon as possible whilst it's still fresh in my mind, i'm just going to apply some innovation theory to explain some of the answers he had given me.
The main point I picked up on from the interview was that he believed that radio almost re-invents itself, instead of falling victim to the 'creative-destruction' Schumpeter describes, he believes radio is an exception to this rule- that instead of being destroyed by new inventions such as the television and computer; people still use the radio but their reasons and the way they go about it have changed, potentially explaing how it has managed to survive over a hundred years when most products have a life cycle of a few years (case in point: how many 'new' iPhones have there been in the past 3 years?!).
Instead of fading away, radio seems to be almost re-inventing itself to fit with todays modern world. People want to hear their local radio stations when driving to and from work, during the day they want music and the industry understands this and has innovated because of that; they have cut back on costs by analysing when their figures are at the lowest, then outsource their programmes to London based radio firms.
John O' Hara, a general manager at Microsoft talks about 'sustainable innovation' being the key to business success and we can definitely see aspects of this in the radio industry. He says: "For many large businesses, real innovation is more likely to be about making day-to-day improvements in how the business operates in terms of people and process" realinnovation [online] accessed 18/1/12 and this seems to be the case for the radio industry. Instead of paragidm shifts, the radio industry try out little steps daily to improve its service; undertaking major innovation changes very rarely, as Pete mentioned in the 3 years he has been working in the radio industry things have not changed much, they are just more aware of their customers wants, needs and listening habbits.
Where radio seems to have survived where others have failed is that radio almost has become part of our culture. We instinctively play it in the car and we become used to having it present in our life. The fact people are downloading apps for their phones so they can specifically listen to the radio backs this up; we are not willing to let the radio die out but instead support it. Customers are what drive innovation changes, as my previous blog has mentioned, the supply chain is influenced by customers spending habbits. If customers demand more, we need to supply more to meet market equilibrium. In an oligopoly market such as radio presenting, competition on who has spent the most on their programmes does not attract more viewers as people are happy enough to listen to their local station.
The global recession has meant many have had to become more innovative in terms of shifting their studios location or outsourcing their work to other companies during quieter times, but in the end the radio industry has been around for over a 100 years and is still going strong. TV stations have channels specifically for radio shows, which seems to prove the proverb: if you can't beat them, join them.
Reference list:
Realinnovation [online], found at: http://www.realinnovation.com/offsite.asp?A=Fr&Url=http://www.busmanagement.com/pastissue/article.asp?art=26868&issue=165, accessed 18/1/12
An interview with Pete Allison
Hey everyone!
So I have gotten really lucky today! One of my friends, Pete Allison, has been nice enough to let me interview him for this blog! Studying Media production at Nottingham University, he quickly became involved with radio work as a hobby. A few years later and he has just won 'Best Male Presenter' at the National Student Radio Awards 2011, the same award which launched the career of Scott Mills, Alex Zayne and Kevin Greening to name just a few; and with offers lining up for specials on Radio one and a weekly presenter on 'The Hits' and 'Q radio', things are definitely looking up for him!
I interviewed him today (18/1/12) to talk about what innovation he has witnessed first hand since starting his career, hope everyone enjoys!
So how long have you been doing radio presenting?
"Well, not that long. You get a lot of people in radio who have always known they want to be on air - studios in their bedrooms etc, etc, but that's not what it's been like for me. I got into it when i came to uni through student radio, realised i love it and i've gone all out to be involved in it since then"
And you've just won an award, what is the exact name of it?
"I was Best Male Presenter at the National Student Radio Awards 2011"
Which radio company do you currently work for?
"I work for Bauer Media, who own stations across the UK, but i have shows on both The Hits Radio and Q Radio"
Through Baurer Media you also work for a number of small radio stations, with the same broadcoast being transmitted to 10 different radio stations, tell me more about that
"They own the second biggest network of stations in the uk behind Global Radio (that's Capital and Heart), I've been on air on the Bauer network which is 10 stations"
Is this a relatively new concept then? Being able to broadcast to a number of different radio stations at the same time?
"It's a sign of the times really. Go back ten years and you'll have had local programming through most of the day, but now more and more radio stations are scaling back, putting more networking programming on air. Galaxy is a good example - just over a year ago there were galaxy stations all over the country doing their own local programming for most of the day. Then the capital merger came in, galaxy became capital and now you only local breakfast and drive shows, the rest is networked from London. The same's happened to Heart and the same will probably happen to other networks in the future, it's a shame that radio's lost a big chunk of its locality, but its just how the industry's had to change with the times"
So do you think that this is a sign of creative-destruction? That the radio industry may not be around for much longer?
"No, radio's not in threat of disappearing at all. Listening figures are still massive, advertising revenue is still massive and radio's actually a huge part of people's lives. It's in their cars, it's in their kitchens and it's still going to be for years and years to come. All that's changing is the way that people consume radio - it's all about iphone apps, digital listening and online content now and radio's proved itself to be hugely capable to move with the times. If you look at radio 1 for example, it's got just as big a presence online as it has on air in terms of videos, interviews etc, etc. there's nothing to suggest radio's disappearing, it's just changing, but that's the same for every industry when you look at retail and things like that."
So to keep up with the times, you're saying that it's having to evolve how it goes about broadcasting it's programmes?
"Well from a programming perspective, there's a logic in cutting back daytime local programming. It's different for breakfast and drivetime shows, because you want that locality - you want to wake up and go home with someone who can tell you what's going on where you live. Capital now have from 10am to 4pm networked from London, but most people listening at that time are at work and they're only listening passively. They just want the music to keep them going through the day, they don't need locality as much. It's just a big shame that some brilliantly talented presenters are falling foul of cutbacks, but yes, radio has to evolve and that's the price to pay i suppose. It's a sign of the times sadly."
How much do things differ then from presenting on your local student radio station and presenting for Baurer Media?
"Oh massively. Typical student radio would be when you rock up with a hangover, dive head first into what's likely to be an unplanned show and just go with it. But the great thing about student radio is that that's where you can try things, develop ideas and find out what style suits you best. over the past few years it's been the training ground for some of the biggest broadcasters in the uk, so student radio let's people develop so they're ready to take on the big wide world of professional radio - like Baurer, like Global and like the BBC."
Presumeable with access to more funds, your radio presenting jobs have access to much more advanced equiptment?
"Oh yeah definitely, this is the Capital studio in London:
In professional radio, it's got to be workable and there can't be a risk that it's going to cut out (like it did often for us on student radio). Plus there's a whole lot more equipment involved in that you're going out on FM and digital radio, rather than just streaming online like we did on my student radio station (Fly)."
So what you're saying is that through the advancement of digital radio, the radio itself has had to become much more innovative with the equiptment it does have?
"Hmm, not necessarily. The development of digital radio has seen more of a change for the consumer and the audience than it has for the stations themselves. The studios are much the same, but rather than listening on a clapped out fm radio, people are listening on an iPhone, or a digital radio that's of a better quality. There's not much difference for the stations apart from the odd bit of equipment in the studio and a different transmitter"
So you've not really seen that much change in forms of the equiptment used? More so change in the way your program is listened?
"Yes, but i've only ever really been involved in radio in the digital radio age. I'm sure if you stuck someone who was broadcasting in the 80s in a modern studio they'd notice a huge difference, it's just developed over the years"
You've been lucky enough then to be at the pinical of radio presenting? Nothing really has changed in the past 3 years?
"Well, things will change. there's huge debate already over whether the future of the uk radio industry lies in DAB radio and there are other formats and platforms in use all over world that could potentially be better. you can't underestimate how much people use smart phones now too - they're a big part of radio's future. Basically, you have fm, which is old school radio, tuning in in your car, etc etc. or now you have DAB, which is one type of digital radio but it's what a lot of people mean when they refer to digital radio in this country. But there are more forms of 'digital radio', like on your phone, on the internet etc, etc"
So do you think that the future lies with digital radio (DAB) or an alternate form?
"Well that is THE BIG QUESTION. But it's likely to be DAB here in the UK - a huge part of radio listening is done in cars. The government want us all to switch over to DAB in 2015 - like they've done with tv and we now all need freeview etc, etc. 2015 is probably a little ambitious, but a lot of car manufacturers have started fitting DAB radios in new cars as standard - Audi now do it as standard and i think Ford are about to do the same - so that's a very very big step towards us all going digital.
But there's a very big on going debate about this going on in the industry because a lot of people say DAB's not the best format and it's not really a step forward. There's something called DAB+ in use in some parts of Europe which is supposedly better quality (and doesn't cut out completely like DAB does sometimes when you lose signal). But once car manufacturers all jump on board with DAB, then that'll probably pave the way for that to be the way we consume radio for the foreseeable future."
SO THERE WE HAVE IT! Hope everyone had a great time reading this; Pete was a great sport and has given me some great things to talk about, i'll analyse his answers in my next blog.
Anyone who wants to hear him in action, click here!
A huge thank you to Pete Allison for all his help with this, all the best in the future!
Reference lists
Image from- http://www.apogeecorp.com/imgs/content/large-team-apogee-cheque-presentation.jpg
Student radio awards [online], found at: http://www.studentradioawards.co.uk/winners/jsqhdz accessed 18/1/12
So I have gotten really lucky today! One of my friends, Pete Allison, has been nice enough to let me interview him for this blog! Studying Media production at Nottingham University, he quickly became involved with radio work as a hobby. A few years later and he has just won 'Best Male Presenter' at the National Student Radio Awards 2011, the same award which launched the career of Scott Mills, Alex Zayne and Kevin Greening to name just a few; and with offers lining up for specials on Radio one and a weekly presenter on 'The Hits' and 'Q radio', things are definitely looking up for him!
I interviewed him today (18/1/12) to talk about what innovation he has witnessed first hand since starting his career, hope everyone enjoys!
So how long have you been doing radio presenting?
"Well, not that long. You get a lot of people in radio who have always known they want to be on air - studios in their bedrooms etc, etc, but that's not what it's been like for me. I got into it when i came to uni through student radio, realised i love it and i've gone all out to be involved in it since then"
And you've just won an award, what is the exact name of it?
"I was Best Male Presenter at the National Student Radio Awards 2011"
Which radio company do you currently work for?
"I work for Bauer Media, who own stations across the UK, but i have shows on both The Hits Radio and Q Radio"
Through Baurer Media you also work for a number of small radio stations, with the same broadcoast being transmitted to 10 different radio stations, tell me more about that
"They own the second biggest network of stations in the uk behind Global Radio (that's Capital and Heart), I've been on air on the Bauer network which is 10 stations"
Is this a relatively new concept then? Being able to broadcast to a number of different radio stations at the same time?
"It's a sign of the times really. Go back ten years and you'll have had local programming through most of the day, but now more and more radio stations are scaling back, putting more networking programming on air. Galaxy is a good example - just over a year ago there were galaxy stations all over the country doing their own local programming for most of the day. Then the capital merger came in, galaxy became capital and now you only local breakfast and drive shows, the rest is networked from London. The same's happened to Heart and the same will probably happen to other networks in the future, it's a shame that radio's lost a big chunk of its locality, but its just how the industry's had to change with the times"
So do you think that this is a sign of creative-destruction? That the radio industry may not be around for much longer?
"No, radio's not in threat of disappearing at all. Listening figures are still massive, advertising revenue is still massive and radio's actually a huge part of people's lives. It's in their cars, it's in their kitchens and it's still going to be for years and years to come. All that's changing is the way that people consume radio - it's all about iphone apps, digital listening and online content now and radio's proved itself to be hugely capable to move with the times. If you look at radio 1 for example, it's got just as big a presence online as it has on air in terms of videos, interviews etc, etc. there's nothing to suggest radio's disappearing, it's just changing, but that's the same for every industry when you look at retail and things like that."
So to keep up with the times, you're saying that it's having to evolve how it goes about broadcasting it's programmes?
"Well from a programming perspective, there's a logic in cutting back daytime local programming. It's different for breakfast and drivetime shows, because you want that locality - you want to wake up and go home with someone who can tell you what's going on where you live. Capital now have from 10am to 4pm networked from London, but most people listening at that time are at work and they're only listening passively. They just want the music to keep them going through the day, they don't need locality as much. It's just a big shame that some brilliantly talented presenters are falling foul of cutbacks, but yes, radio has to evolve and that's the price to pay i suppose. It's a sign of the times sadly."
How much do things differ then from presenting on your local student radio station and presenting for Baurer Media?
"Oh massively. Typical student radio would be when you rock up with a hangover, dive head first into what's likely to be an unplanned show and just go with it. But the great thing about student radio is that that's where you can try things, develop ideas and find out what style suits you best. over the past few years it's been the training ground for some of the biggest broadcasters in the uk, so student radio let's people develop so they're ready to take on the big wide world of professional radio - like Baurer, like Global and like the BBC."
Presumeable with access to more funds, your radio presenting jobs have access to much more advanced equiptment?
"Oh yeah definitely, this is the Capital studio in London:
In professional radio, it's got to be workable and there can't be a risk that it's going to cut out (like it did often for us on student radio). Plus there's a whole lot more equipment involved in that you're going out on FM and digital radio, rather than just streaming online like we did on my student radio station (Fly)."
So what you're saying is that through the advancement of digital radio, the radio itself has had to become much more innovative with the equiptment it does have?
"Hmm, not necessarily. The development of digital radio has seen more of a change for the consumer and the audience than it has for the stations themselves. The studios are much the same, but rather than listening on a clapped out fm radio, people are listening on an iPhone, or a digital radio that's of a better quality. There's not much difference for the stations apart from the odd bit of equipment in the studio and a different transmitter"
So you've not really seen that much change in forms of the equiptment used? More so change in the way your program is listened?
"Yes, but i've only ever really been involved in radio in the digital radio age. I'm sure if you stuck someone who was broadcasting in the 80s in a modern studio they'd notice a huge difference, it's just developed over the years"
You've been lucky enough then to be at the pinical of radio presenting? Nothing really has changed in the past 3 years?
"Well, things will change. there's huge debate already over whether the future of the uk radio industry lies in DAB radio and there are other formats and platforms in use all over world that could potentially be better. you can't underestimate how much people use smart phones now too - they're a big part of radio's future. Basically, you have fm, which is old school radio, tuning in in your car, etc etc. or now you have DAB, which is one type of digital radio but it's what a lot of people mean when they refer to digital radio in this country. But there are more forms of 'digital radio', like on your phone, on the internet etc, etc"
So do you think that the future lies with digital radio (DAB) or an alternate form?
"Well that is THE BIG QUESTION. But it's likely to be DAB here in the UK - a huge part of radio listening is done in cars. The government want us all to switch over to DAB in 2015 - like they've done with tv and we now all need freeview etc, etc. 2015 is probably a little ambitious, but a lot of car manufacturers have started fitting DAB radios in new cars as standard - Audi now do it as standard and i think Ford are about to do the same - so that's a very very big step towards us all going digital.
But there's a very big on going debate about this going on in the industry because a lot of people say DAB's not the best format and it's not really a step forward. There's something called DAB+ in use in some parts of Europe which is supposedly better quality (and doesn't cut out completely like DAB does sometimes when you lose signal). But once car manufacturers all jump on board with DAB, then that'll probably pave the way for that to be the way we consume radio for the foreseeable future."
SO THERE WE HAVE IT! Hope everyone had a great time reading this; Pete was a great sport and has given me some great things to talk about, i'll analyse his answers in my next blog.
Anyone who wants to hear him in action, click here!
A huge thank you to Pete Allison for all his help with this, all the best in the future!
Reference lists
Image from- http://www.apogeecorp.com/imgs/content/large-team-apogee-cheque-presentation.jpg
Student radio awards [online], found at: http://www.studentradioawards.co.uk/winners/jsqhdz accessed 18/1/12
Famous theorists part 2- Robert Baden-Powell
Hey everyone!
Here is part 2 (of 2) of my famous theorists blog, today i'm looking at Robert Baden-Powell; "made famous for his contributions to scouting" Infed [online] accessed 18/1/12. He was a soldier in the Boer war and the founder of the boy scout movement, however I will be focusing on him in terms of being an educational innovator.
His educational innovations came through the concept that "a boy is not a sitting down animal" Baden-Powell, P (1908:1). Although many of this theories can now be discredited through the creative-destructive nature of other, more realistic concepts, at the time he was to many an innovator in his own right, introducing and implimenting new innovative concepts that he had used in the army to younger children, such as 'learning through doing' and 'obeying orders' Baden-Powell, P (1909:3). In 1989 his concept of 'learning through doing' was investigated by Dr Montessori, whose research proved that 'by encouraging a child in its natural desires, instead of instructing it in what you think it ought to do, you can educate it on a far more solid and far-reaching basis' Infed [online] accessed 18/1/12. From this alone it would be just to call him an eductional innovator- he took a concept used within the army and implimented it on his Boy Scouts movement; and by introducing this concept to the right target market (young children), he turned it from an invention to an innovative educational concept.
However, he did more than just impliment his finding from the army onto his own scout movement, he also studied literatured based around educating young men, looking into physical culture through to cultures within African tribes and "John Pounds methods on educating in ragged schools" Rosenthal, M (1986:64). He was the first person known to impliment other authors educational concepts into his scout movement successfully, he knew from his previous experiences what concepts would work with younger children and this led to the huge success his Boy Scout mvement, concepts which are still being implimented to this day.
Although discredited by some as being outdated, at the time he utilised these methods (1900s), they were apt for the children he was teaching and for the cultural environment at that time.
Reference list
Baden-Powell, Robert. Scouting for Boys (London: Horace Cox, 1908:1). Republished as The Official Handbook for Boys, (BN Publishing, 2007)
Baden-Powell, Robert. Scouting for Boys (London: Horace Cox, 1909:3). Republished as The Official Handbook for Boys, (BN Publishing, 2007)
Infed [online], based up the works of: Smith, M. K. (1997; 2002; 2011). 'Robert Baden-Powell as an educational innovator', the encyclopedia of informal education, found at: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-bp.htm, accessed 18/1/12
Rosenthal, M. The Character Factory. Baden-Powell and the origins of the Boy Scout Movement, (1986:64) London: Collins
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Famous theorists part 1: Joseph Schumpeter
Hey everyone!
So anyone who has studied economics will no doubt have looked in depth at some famous economic theorists- Keynes, Marx and also Schumpeter. Joseph Schumpeter, titled 'The Father of Creative Destruction' by Wired magazine (March 2002), was a law graduate who drew his theories through aspects of scentific exploration and market transitions, made famous mainly due to his adaption of Marx's 'Creative Destruction' theory.
In his own words, Schumpeter describes 'Creative Destruction' as: "process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one" Schumpeter, J (1942:82). Put simply, he sees it as being where creating a new product destroys the old one, for example creative destruction can be seen in television market- colour tv destroyed the black and white tv market, HDTV destroyed the standard definition market and potentially 3D TV could creatively destroy the HDTV market. Capitalism is a form of economic change and creative destruction "is the essential fact about capitalism" Schumpeter, J (1942:82). The graph below sums up the process of creative destruction:
Image from: ClemsonEDU [online] accessed 17/1/12
Although an economist, Schumpeter's theory is underpinned by innovation- if we use an example from the image above: electrictry came about due to the destruction of steam powered energy. But why did this occur? The answer is simple: because of innovation. It was innovation that brought about this 'new wave'; as we can see the pace of innovation slowly increased until it reached a peak, upon which time this product becomes out-of-date and a new one replaces it, destroying the old one theoretically. Through scientific exploration, we discover more about the world we live in and how we can utilise it to our advantage, and through this scientific exploration leading to new findings, we can impliment these findings within the global economy; be that by creating a faster computer or inventing a more greener energy source. These new products bring about a market transition, with the main benefit being a greater choice of goods and services for the public, but at what cost?
1984-1985 saw the closure of around 20 mines under Margret Thatchers power. Although a huge number of factors contributed to this (trade unions, new government laws etc); this can also be seen as the end of a 'wave' of creative destruction, leading the way for nuclear power to replace it. Unemployment levels soared, it was not uncommon for some villages to have half it's population unemployed because of the closure of the mines and although an extreme example, the basic concept is the same. When one product comes to an end, unemployment occurs. People who had skills that were suitable for mine production did not have skills suitable for power plants, people who had skills suitable for creating a laptop do not have the neccessary skills for producing a tablet etc. As much as you can train people, this takes time and so there will be a period of time in which these people are learning the new skill and so will be unemployed. As much as companies try and compete with their competitors; there are always going to be some who can not survive when faced with a new product threating to destroy theres, and this concept of 'creative destruction' shows no sign of stopping in the future, as the proverb goes: history is doomed to repeat itself.
References:
Anderson, C "Wired Magazine" (2002:1), published by: Wired
ClemsonEDU [online], found at: http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/FacultyPages/PamMack/lec122/techrev.htm, accessed 17/1/12
Schumpeter, S "Creative Destruction" (1942:82-83), published by: Harper
Inventive or Innovative?
Hey everyone!
So it seems that the word 'innovation' recently seems to be thrown about as if it is meaningless; today alone I heard it on a politcal programme on the news, on a car advert, on a face wash bottle and on a shampoo advert- every company recently seems to claim to be 'innovative'; their product is the most innovative or their company is the most innovative. 10 years ago they would not think to use this word, they would more than likely say their product is the most 'inventive'. But what are the differences between these two words?
The best way to go about this would to first look at the official definitions of these words; The Oxford English Dictionary [2007] defines 'Innovation' as : "a new method, idea or product", whilst Dictionary [online] defines it as : "an new idea, service or product that is newly introduced". Combining these two therefore it would be fair to say, summed up, that innovation is:
'The introduction of a new method, idea or product'
Whilst The Oxford English Dictionary [2007] defines 'Invention' as : "The action of creativing something, typically a product or device"; coming from the latin word 'invenire' meaning to 'discover'.
As we can see therefore, 'invention' is simply creating the product whilst 'innovation' is how this invention is introduced. Just because a company has a new product does not mean they are innovative; although how modern day companies throw about the word 'innovative' it would be fair to assume it did.
We have all heard of 'Sony'. "Sony manufactures audio, video, communications and information technology products for the global consumer and professional markets" Sony [Online] accessed 16/1/12, and with 1,035 consolidated subsidiaries worldwide and a yearly turnover of around £45.6Bn it would be fair to say they are good at what they do. Very good in fact! Churning out countless new products each year, it would also be fair to say they are very innovative; in a global climate where peoples spending habits have shifted from spending less on 'luxury' items- such as any of Sony's products-they have still managed to keep their shareholders very happy with such record-high profits.
However, Sony owe all their success to another company- AT&T. Last year they turned over $10Bn; still quite an achievement but less than 1/4 of what Sony have done.
So why the difference? "June 17, 1946 - A driver in St. Louis, Mo., pulled out a handset from under his car's dashboard, placed a phone call and made history. It was the first mobile telephone call."- ATT [online] accessed 16/1/12. In 1946 AT&T was the first company in the world to invent wireless telephone calls due to their invention of the wireless transmitter. The same device used in most of Sonys products to this day. But AT&T had an issue, "with only 5,000 customers making 30,000 weekly calls, the service was far from commonplace". Although they had invented something ground breaking, they were not innovative. They didn't create the whole advertising and marketing campaigns, promote their product well nor did they improve their product throughout the years. So in 1952, they sold this technology to Sony. Sony would simply not exist if it wasn't for AT&T.
Where Sony succeed where AT&T did not was that they were more than inventive, they were innovative. Sony understand their customers and therefore introduce their new inventions to the market place effectively; as we said early innovation is 'the introduction of a new idea, product or service'; and due Sony's effective introduction of AT&Ts idea, Sony is 4 times more profitable than AT&T in present day.
Inventors invent, innovators create.
Reference List
ATT [online], found at: http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/46mobile.html, accessed 16/1/12
Dictionary [Online], found at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovation, accessed 16/1/12
Sony [online], found at: http://www.sony-europe.com/article/id/1061464971856, accessed 16/1/12
Weiner, E & Simpson, J "The Oxford English Dictionary" [2007: 464,486], published by Oxford
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Innovation, supply chains and global influences
Hey everyone,
Fast forward to present day, the all-star cheer music industry is very much an oligopily dominated by 2 major music producers: Patrick from cheermusicpro.com and Jrizz from xtremetracks.com; both of which charge around $3,000 for a 2:30 mix, and each year will be maxed out with teams asking for their services. But how can they afford to charge these extortionate prices for mixes? The rules are identical to how they were 6 years ago, the time is still exactly the same and the cheer music industry is saturated with mixers trying to get their foot into the door. As we can already see this is an imbalance of power, as seen prominantly within the US auto-manufacturers industry (90% being dominated by 5 industries) FCRM [Online] accessed 12/1/12.
The supply chain is influenced predominantly by market shifts and product development, and when applying this to the cheer music industry it is clear to see there has been a huge development in these mixes, Patrick has managed to get Ke$ha and Celine Dion to do voice overs for his 2012 mixes whilst Jrizz has hired a bunch of specialist voice-over artists to do raps, a massive change for 6 years ago when many teams mixes only had their team name as a voice over.
If we look at a team in particular, for example Cheer Athletics 'Wildcats' in 2006 had their music produced by Jrizz, and again this year (2012) it is been produced by the exact same producer, but the videos below show the difference in how the music has evolved due to innovation:
And again 2012:
And then proof that Celine Dion and Ke$ha have been used this year:
As we can see, the innovation throughout the past 6 years has created almost two completely different products; from an outsiders view it is evident that there are a lot more voice overs whereas from a more in-depth analysis the whole composition of how the music is made has changed, the transitions, back beats etc have all changed to match the innovation of the voice overs.
For a company to survive it must grow and expand, the old proverb of not putting all your eggs in one basket is definitely the case for the cheer music industry. Many producers now double up their studios where they mix their music as music studios for bands and other artists meaning that these producers now have alternate areas to expand into. The global recession has not stopped these companies from increasing their prices; their clinets will continue to use their services as their mixes are "stand-out" mixes; completely unique and original and therefore stick out more for the judges and spectators. This in turn brings in added revenue due to a greater exposure and fan base, and so in one instance it would be fair to say that in fact the mixes are investments for the cheer gyms themselves. Demand for cheer music is on the increase, especially with it's increased popularity within the UK and other countries now, so it seems unlikely Patrick, Jrizz and any of the other music producers will see a decline in orders over the forseeable future; after all when you can offer someone exclusive voice overs from Ke$ha and Celine Dion not many people would turn that down!
Reference List:
Cheermusicpro [Online] found at: www.cheermusicpro.com, accessed 12/1/12
FCRM [online], found at: http://www.fcrm.ir/mads/ebk1051.pdf, accessed: 12/1/12
Xtremetracks [Online], found at: www.xtremetracks.com, accessed 12/1/12
So I know that this may seem like a completely dull topic to blog about but I’m going to try my hardest to make it interesting so just hear me out. After posting my last blog I was worried it seemed a bit too generic so for this one I’m going to be drawing in an example to hopefully make this a lot more interesting!
My main hobby which takes up about 10 hours a week for me is all-star cheer, to anyone outside the USA you probably do not have a clue what it is, so below are a few pictures summing it up:
Basically it’s competitive gymnastics with elements of cheer involved, no pom poms or chanting before you get that image in your head! Anyone who vagulely follows the sport will have noticed a HUGE change over the past 5/6 years in terms of the music these teams perform to. Early days (1980’s when it first started becoming popular) teams would compete their routine to one song, very basic and simple like pretty much most items or products when they are first released. Fast forward to 2006 when events such as the worlds finals dominated America, being aired on ESPN to an audience of around 20million people worldwide; every single team competing (all 100+) of them had highly complex mixes to perform their 2 minutes 30 second routine to, including custom voice overs and cost around $800 for the privilege. Why do teams pay that much for a 2:30 mix? You can argue that if you are performing in front of 20million + people, you want to come off as professional as possible, and so paying that little bit extra for the music is worth while.
Fast forward to present day, the all-star cheer music industry is very much an oligopily dominated by 2 major music producers: Patrick from cheermusicpro.com and Jrizz from xtremetracks.com; both of which charge around $3,000 for a 2:30 mix, and each year will be maxed out with teams asking for their services. But how can they afford to charge these extortionate prices for mixes? The rules are identical to how they were 6 years ago, the time is still exactly the same and the cheer music industry is saturated with mixers trying to get their foot into the door. As we can already see this is an imbalance of power, as seen prominantly within the US auto-manufacturers industry (90% being dominated by 5 industries) FCRM [Online] accessed 12/1/12.
The supply chain is influenced predominantly by market shifts and product development, and when applying this to the cheer music industry it is clear to see there has been a huge development in these mixes, Patrick has managed to get Ke$ha and Celine Dion to do voice overs for his 2012 mixes whilst Jrizz has hired a bunch of specialist voice-over artists to do raps, a massive change for 6 years ago when many teams mixes only had their team name as a voice over.
If we look at a team in particular, for example Cheer Athletics 'Wildcats' in 2006 had their music produced by Jrizz, and again this year (2012) it is been produced by the exact same producer, but the videos below show the difference in how the music has evolved due to innovation:
And again 2012:
And then proof that Celine Dion and Ke$ha have been used this year:
As we can see, the innovation throughout the past 6 years has created almost two completely different products; from an outsiders view it is evident that there are a lot more voice overs whereas from a more in-depth analysis the whole composition of how the music is made has changed, the transitions, back beats etc have all changed to match the innovation of the voice overs.
For a company to survive it must grow and expand, the old proverb of not putting all your eggs in one basket is definitely the case for the cheer music industry. Many producers now double up their studios where they mix their music as music studios for bands and other artists meaning that these producers now have alternate areas to expand into. The global recession has not stopped these companies from increasing their prices; their clinets will continue to use their services as their mixes are "stand-out" mixes; completely unique and original and therefore stick out more for the judges and spectators. This in turn brings in added revenue due to a greater exposure and fan base, and so in one instance it would be fair to say that in fact the mixes are investments for the cheer gyms themselves. Demand for cheer music is on the increase, especially with it's increased popularity within the UK and other countries now, so it seems unlikely Patrick, Jrizz and any of the other music producers will see a decline in orders over the forseeable future; after all when you can offer someone exclusive voice overs from Ke$ha and Celine Dion not many people would turn that down!
Reference List:
Cheermusicpro [Online] found at: www.cheermusicpro.com, accessed 12/1/12
FCRM [online], found at: http://www.fcrm.ir/mads/ebk1051.pdf, accessed: 12/1/12
Xtremetracks [Online], found at: www.xtremetracks.com, accessed 12/1/12
Saturday, 7 January 2012
The relationship between creativity and innovation
Hey everyone,
First off it makes sense to explore what a “creative” organisation is and what it consists of. If we look at the three domains of creative action as mentioned in Gundry et al (1994): 
So is there a link between creativity and innovation? Theorists all seem to believe conclusively that there is a positive link between creativity and innovation and personally due to the success witnessed by pretty much every company that encourages a creative and innovative environment I would agree so too. If a company does not succeed within the market, you can just as easily argue that their failure could be down to two issues: not being creative and innovative enough, or, being too creative and innovative. Consumers do not respond well to dramatic changes, products such as Amstrads personal organisers in the 1990s are proof that being creative doesn't always pay off, if you are too creative you will end up with a product or method that people do not respond positively too.
REFERENCES Amabile, T (1997) Vol. 40, No. 1. By permission of The Regents Googleblog [online], found at: http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/index.html accessed 2/1/12 Gundry, Lisa K.;Kickul, Jill R.;Prather, Charles W. (1994) Building the Creative Organisation, published by: Apa Psych Spiked [online], found at: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10899/, accessed 2/1/12
This blog entry aims to explore whether or not there is a link between creativity and innovation; do organisations that encourage creativity therefore experience greater innovative changes than those organisations that do not encourage creativity?
A creative organisation is one that consists of a combination of education, environment and application. Through education, staff members will, in theory, come up with new creative ways of solving problems, and environment which supports this will lead to the application of these creative ideas, leading to more innovative processes and ideas. The key issue here is that for this model to work, it requires all three key sectors to be implemented within an organisation. Due to the recent economic climate, it would not be unjust to assume that companies are much less willing to risk financial gains for risk taking in the form of creative ideas. The company may comprise of well educated workers who are trained in creative thinking, but if the work environment does not for them to apply their ideas then innovation will never occur.
However, in reality how realistic is this link between creativity and innovation? And also, just how does it impact on the company’s success? The most obvious example to look at here would be internet search-engine giant “Google”. “At Google, innovation and creativity keeps our projects changing and improving. Our consistency comes from our Googlers – smart, amazing people who foster an environment of collaboration and fun” Googlejobs[online] (accessed 2/1/12). From this it is clear that Google is the epitome of what Gundry et al describes as being a ‘creative organisation’; it combines the three key areas of education, environment and application.
Looking more in depth at Gundry’s model and applying it to Google, there is an argument in which we can say that it is simply not enough to smart and be in an environment which encourages creativity and the application of that. Motivation and experience also play a part in this, as Amabelies model (1997) suggests:
Both Gundy and Amabelie agree that creativity and innovation have a positive relationship, however Amabelie argues that education can be broken down into a combination of the employees/teams motivation, expertise and creativity skills and in fact it is a collaboration between three components of the work environment and three components of a team/individual which in turn leads to innovation; all of which are interdependent upon each other.
Uncreative organisations
The fact that is was nearly impossible to find articles on any business that is perceived as being uncreative suggests in itself that without creativity and innovation a company will not survive, especially in today’s tough economic climate. However; I have found one article that pretty much slates “Britain’s uncreative approach to design”, in which the author suggests that, with the exception of a few companies such as Rolls Royce, Britain is lacking in creativity when it comes to designing new products and this is why our biggest export is financial services, we could not be able to survive on the income generated through new products produced within Britain. The read the article click HERE, it only takes a few minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)