Posted by TheFallen on October 21, 2004
In Reply to: Re: Unbundling posted by Lewis on October 21, 2004
: : : Hi,
: : : I read an article from Design Management Review. There's a sentence I found very confusing. Could anyone here kindly help me out? Could you please phrase the whole sentence in a simpler way? especially the 'as due to rationalization......reducing risk' part and 'by some six degrees ' part. Thank you very much for your help.
: : : "Its [Strategic Initiatives Group] mere existence could be interpreted by some business analysts as due to the rationalization of innovation investments that comes as industries mature and become more competent at reducing risk. This is often done by 'unbundling' the corporation--of separating, sometimes by just six degrees, from the company's normal operations the generally higher-risk business of innovation that sets out to achieve sustained high growth by finding gaps, incongruities, and opportunities in the marketplace."
: : Some business analysts consider that as industries mature and become more competent at reducing risk, they are in a better position to rationalize their investments in innovation. The Strategic Initiatives Group exists to help them to do this. Innovation in business sets out to achieve sustained high growth by finding gaps, incongruities and opportunities in the marketplace. It generally bears a higher risk and can often be separated (unbundled) from the company's normal operations.
: "Unbundling" is also used where a business usually provides a complete service, but instead offers to restrict the scope of its work to a less than complete service for a cheaper price or for the convenience of the client.
It's a very inelegant paragraph and seems to be written in deliberately stylised "corporate speak", presumably in an effort to lend it more weight. Frankly, to me it read like a piece from Dilbert.
"As due to" is almost a sin as a construction. Far better and more clear would be "to interpret something as *being* due to something else". Whoever the author is, I think that he/she would be ideally suited to working for Microsoft as VP in charge of stultifyingly boring and meaningless Powerpoint presentations... it'd clearly be a natural fit.