McKinsey sure can take a good idea and turn it into meaningless corporatespeak drivel. I was reading through CNET and saw this headline:
From Push to Pull: The Next Frontier of Innovation (from partner McKinsey)
That sounded familiar, I had written a post called “From Push to Point“, and so I figured, hey, let’s see what they have to say. Here’s the “teaser”:
* Most companies now mobilize resources by deploying push systems, in the mistaken belief that they promote efficiency.
* Push systems—characterized by top-down, centralized, and rigid programs of previously specified tasks and behavior—hinder participation in the distributed networks that are now indispensable to competitive advantage.
* More versatile and far-reaching pull systems—characterized by modularly designed, decentralized platforms connecting a diverse array of participants—are now starting to emerge in a variety of arenas.
* As pull systems reach center stage, executives will have to reassess almost all aspects of the corporation.
Oh. My. God. No way am I reading another word….
I don’t see how this is meaningless.
It’s a summary, and it quickly explains the differences between push and pull. Granted, it’s not much of a teaser since someone interested in the article will already know all this.
It’s true that we don’t get an idea about the specific contents of the article, but if the report is only meant as an introduction to the concept, I think it’s quite apt.
I’ve been through some evil experiences with McKinsey anal-ysts. This is par for the course!
I know that was english, but what did it say? My eyes are burning!
It doesn’t exactly get to the point, does it?
I guess what John is saying, isn’t that it is plain meanlingless, but it sure is fra from well written. Consider a whole report written like that. This kind of pseudo-language is absolutely effective in taking a simple concept, and presenting it as almost completely incomprehensible. Every half-hearted (french) academic knows this old trick. 🙂
pagerankın hakkını ver hakkını