Comments on: The corporate “bow wave” problem, aka the Postrel effect http://cultureby.com/2007/04/the_corporate_b.html This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:43:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: TJIC http://cultureby.com/2007/04/the_corporate_b.html/comment-page-1#comment-3038 TJIC Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:32:27 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=489#comment-3038 Even if I agree that the corporation tends to make the word more interesting / challenging / information dense, I don't see why that's a "problem" instead of a "feature", or - neutrally - just an effect. Even if I agree that the corporation tends to make the word more interesting / challenging / information dense, I don’t see why that’s a “problem” instead of a “feature”, or – neutrally – just an effect.

]]> By: Terry Rock http://cultureby.com/2007/04/the_corporate_b.html/comment-page-1#comment-3037 Terry Rock Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:31:21 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=489#comment-3037 Are you talking about one particular corporation or the corporate form? The corporate form continues to evolve new structures of advantage, sucking up and incorporating the latest technologies, ideas, etc. Value is created in new and exciting ways, while those stuck in the old form adapt or die. Mary Tripsas' study of the typesetting industry remains one of my favorite examples of this. Waves of technology change wiping out most firms in an entire industry... over and over... certain elements of corporate structure were associated with survival (meta-structures more like it). In the Strategic Management literature, this explains the emergence of the "resource-based view of the firm," and more recently the "dynamic capabilities" school (though I'm no longer an armchair practitioner... for some reason I was possessed to try it myself!). If you're lamenting the need for particular corporations to always have to work to reinvent themselves... hmmm. Is this a problem? Or were corporations just able to be lazy before? The Postrel Effect has always been... and now it has accelerated. Are you talking about one particular corporation or the corporate form?

The corporate form continues to evolve new structures of advantage, sucking up and incorporating the latest technologies, ideas, etc. Value is created in new and exciting ways, while those stuck in the old form adapt or die. Mary Tripsas’ study of the typesetting industry remains one of my favorite examples of this. Waves of technology change wiping out most firms in an entire industry… over and over… certain elements of corporate structure were associated with survival (meta-structures more like it).

In the Strategic Management literature, this explains the emergence of the “resource-based view of the firm,” and more recently the “dynamic capabilities” school (though I’m no longer an armchair practitioner… for some reason I was possessed to try it myself!).

If you’re lamenting the need for particular corporations to always have to work to reinvent themselves… hmmm. Is this a problem? Or were corporations just able to be lazy before? The Postrel Effect has always been… and now it has accelerated.

]]>