Week 11 Reading Reflection

One of the most interesting aspects of this article were the timelines that were featured on pages 5-6. Seeing Corning's breakthrough innovations through the decades and even the centuries was fascinating. The beginning innovation being the glass envelope surrounding Edison's light bulb to Gorilla Glass which has exceptional damage resistance is a lot of innovation. Starting with light bulb glass which breaks easily to damage resistant glass is quite the innovation in that time span. It really makes you think about what the future will look like with start up products today from innovation and new technology.

One thing that was a little confusing is the Innovation Landscape Map on page 8 of the article. The 2x2 grid just seemed a little confusing for the information that the article was trying to give. I personally like 2x2 squares because often times it simplifies information however I don't think that was the case here. The square size I feel limited the amount of information that could fit in each box and didn't allow the examples to be expounded upon in as much detail as I would have liked in order to understand the information.

One question I have about this article would be related to crowdsourcing. The author did a good job of explaining it but my question is about the true price of the tradeoff in using crowdsourcing? I feel like this would have been a good section to do a pros and cons list for crowd sourcing to see what the tradeoffs really are as it relates to this topic.

Another question I have would be what is the most challenging innovation for a company to overcome if its competition gets to it first? For example Netflix began the streaming and the delivering of movies to your door service while Blockbuster was considered a top dog in the movie renting industry. This innovation proved difficult for Blockbuster to ultimately overcome since it eventually closed its doors and filed for bankruptcy.

There is nothing within this article that I believe the author was wrong about. The article was well written and extremely detailed, showing the amount of research that went into the author's findings for this article.