Footnote in histories

2022-02-25 19:33:2201:50 11

声音简介

But just three years later, it was declared a colossal failure.Virtually nothing had worked out as planned.
While it's always easy to play Monday-morning quarterback about everything that should have been done differently, one thing is clear in hindsight: though the people picked by those companies to run the project were highly experienced, they were not the right people for the job.
Through the lens of McCall's theory, it begins to make sense why. While Pandesic's senior management team had stellar résumés, not one of them had experience launching a new venture. None of them knew how to adjust a strategy when the first one didn't work. None had had to figure out how to make a brand-new product profitable before growing it big.
The Pandesic team had been used to running orderly, well-resourced initiatives for their respective world-class companies. What Intel and SAP had done was handpick a team that could run an equivalent of either of the giants,but not a start-up. The team members hadn't been to the right school to create and drive a new-growth project.That relegated Pandesic to a footnote in Intel's and SAP's histories.
但是仅仅三年后，就宣布失败惨重。事实上，一切都没有按计划进行。
虽然人们总是马后炮地议论不同的事情，但的确事后来看，有一点是清楚的:尽管这些公司挑选的项目负责人经验丰富，但他们并不是这项工作的合适人选。
透过麦考尔的理论，我们开始理解为什么了。尽管潘德西奇的高级管理团队拥有出色的履历，但没有一个人有创办新企业的经验。当第一个策略不起作用时，他们谁也不知道如何调整策略。在做大之前，没有人知道如何让一个全新的产品盈利。
潘德西奇团队已经习惯于为他们各自的世界级公司运行有序的、资源充足的计划。英特尔和SAP所做的是精心挑选了一个团队，可以运行两个巨头中的任何一个，但不是一个初创公司。团队成员没有过创建和推动新项目的正确经验。这使得潘德西奇成为英特尔和SAP历史上的一个脚注。