In this next video, I want to cover a series of questions. The first one I want to talk about is, one that I posted again which was how did your organization manage resource dependencies? And I posted this question, mostly just to see what your real world experiences were in regard to the theory presented of the week. And what was interesting is the variety of applications that you saw. I was amazed at how salient it had been for many of you. That a lot of you had gone through normative coordination or negotiation, or stock filing, or a smoothing, or forecasting, on it goes, and buffing terms. And many of you had gone through kinds of bridging efforts, including mergers. So, it was really neat to see that whole sequence, and variety of things that you've been exposed to, and all I can say about it is that, for those of you hoping to see real world applications, is that it would be worthwhile to read that thread. I think, you'll see a lot of variation, and differences, and it might be useful to you. The second question, I wanted to address, was which is a better management strategy for dealing with dependency relations, buffering, or bridging? And this was one posted by A plethora. And I think Amit had the answer that was probably the closest to what I would say, except that I would prefer to argue that buffering and bridging are different strategies of dealing with dependence and that, as we go through the buffering strategies into the bridging strategies, they get more extreme in terms of how we try to co-op the environment or bridge out to the environment or collaborate with the environment. So, as opposed to it being better or worse for dependency, I would say that the moderate efforts at buffering, really, are meant to buffer the technical core from infringements of the environment on your autonomy as a firm or to impose their will on changing your technological core to what they demand. So stock piling all these things kind of buffer you and, in contrast, bridging is an actual relationship into the environment and most of those cases. Where you actually forming contracts and relations outside in an effort to kind of manage these dependencies in a more predictable and certain ways that prevented from being worse than it could be. So I think that just a sequence of more extreme kind of efforts to deal with dependence as we go through all those strategies. So that's my general sense of that. The third question was, can we create a resource and make it necessary for others? And this was one Sylvia Matos posted. He was trying to say, basically, the billion dollar question here which is how to create a resource that everyone needs and values. From a resource dependence theory of you, I mean, this is about whether the resource you have is in demand, right, and is it valued, is it useful, is it something that everybody likes? And in addition, is it something in low supply and you have access over it? Is the rules created so that you have access over that? And in a sense that you accomplish those things for your firm, you do have this kind of monopoly over something. Paul actually had a nice response where he was talking about the progression, when he started reflecting on what a real answer to this question, about what in the environment actually is important resource and people making them. He talked about the progression in technologies toward these Palm Pilots, well, iPhones today and that they create new problems and need solutions so they're valued. So, has an awareness of this changing situation in which new resources will be needed. So the value of resource is not static, it changes over time. And with iPhones, for example, you see the need for materials in manufacturing. So, the stockpiling of semi precious metals was actually a prescient thing to do for China given the context that we're experiencing right now. With social media right now, that's a very booming industry, and for profit sector. And here you have kind of a need for data compilation and information processing and making sense of it. So, perhaps that salient has to what would be a resource and a knowledge economy. It's not just information anymore, it's knowledge about that information. With the hurricane that we just had in the United States on the East Coast, you could have predicted the hurricane and because of that, you could have stockpiled all kinds of scarce resources that you knew would become scarce. Like bottled water and the like. Apparently, even toilet paper and other things that you would have then have a scarce resource that you could charge more for, but that's kind of exploitive as you know, but you can also manipulate regulations or rules and laws in order to kind of create dependencies as well. So, for example environmental protection laws. They're creating a higher tax on certain kinds of energy usage that's making green technology more affordable and more in demand. So, there's all these shifts out there. It's not a static environment. You have some kind of sense of what to predict, probably. There are some things that are harder to kind of characterize like knowing what would be an innovation or knowing what would be of a taste. For example, who saw roller blades coming years back in comparison to roller skates, why was that such a need? And for example, why is it that secret sauces of a franchise kind of restaurant is so important and becomes a need? So, some of these things are soft taste, they aren't necessarily, they're trendy, right. Beanie Babies were these little dolls that had beans in them that, for a while, that people were demanding and they were kind of a hype, and they cost a lot and people seem to go out and find that. But, thinking about today, and the context that's shifting and thinking about what we need tomorrow is important. But you have to also think about the political context. It's a garbage can. Like why has an idea's time come? For example Moose, massive open online courses like this one. We had the education, not the education, but the technology to do this a while ago. And there were systems out there that were feasible. Now all of a sudden they've taken off. The question is why the timing now? We didn't predict it perfectly as to when that would happen. The other thing to consider too is that resource dependence is not necessarily valued in a soft sense of. Some of the things we know are resources are pretty hard wired like food, shelter, health. There are other things that are pretty predictable, debt, taxes. There's a bunch of unavoidable and predictable needs, other things are kind of luxury items. So, I think thinking about the differences in that can also help. One example that you're experiencing right now in terms of a resource in generating one is, think about foreign posts and which ones become threads. Some of you are actually better at doing that and remarkably, I am admittedly not too talented at it per se. I have power in a way of running this course and being a little pin post. But others of you are effectively, posting early or you have a following or stars in terms of reputation, and you seem to post a sticky idea. Meaning that that resources that you're putting out there is something that will draw attention and people will want to consume. So I think there's something to that in thinking about creating a resource. That you've created a knowledge thread that is substantive and has kind of feedback to it, that probably has some value to the rest of us. Another question that was posted by Eugenia was, what type of resource is the most powerful? And [LAUGH] the discussion here is kind of grey, it was a lot of discussion about human resources, people are the most powerful asset for firms. And others of you talked about knowledge as an asset, particularly that in a knowledge economy that we're experiencing now, that knowledge and those kinds of information was king. But then someone else posted a neat insight, I think, in terms that this might be the situation for developed countries in the knowledge economy but it hasn't necessarily reached industrial ones where physical and financial matters and those kind of resources are perhaps more important. Another question was by Victoria Solar, who said about the best and brightest graduates, how does a corporation attract those, and how do you know what those are? What is the best and brightest human resource? I'm not sure if I have much more to add than Paul's long reply. It sounds like some of you have actually worked in recruiting and have far more of a sense that's practical about who would be a good employee for your firm. But, from my angle, I kind of wonder how are people a resource and in what ways are they valued? What kind of people and why? I think for many of you, it's just to think of how your employees actually act as a resource to the firm and the question becomes, are people, or most people a resource or some. Is it equivocally so or is there some kind of disparity in terms, the kind of returns they give to your firm. Now, this is a very instrumental view of employees, mind you, which probably could be applied to for-profits but not to, say, an educational institution where once you value certain students over others, that becomes kind of a problem in a political environment outside where you're supposed to treat people equally and universally, or you have these kind of wars outside. But, let's go a little further with the for profit view. I can view a few dimensions on which people or resource or value and one is very simple human capital, they have certain skills, intelligences in the like that might be varying. Another one could be their financial capital, there are firms like a venture capital firm, were hiring someone with a huge trust fund is of great value to purchasing power and the like, other features may be secondary. There could be other kinds of capital that you look for in your employees, like social capital. And here, the social capital can be in terms of their connections with other people, it could be external ties that bring you resources. It could be in terms of the teamwork, their capacity for working internally with others. Or even whether they're positive interacting with them is a positive experience or not right. That could be a feature of social capital that you attribute to an employee. And finally it's a cultural capital or the wisdom in breath with some of these individuals that can be quite an asset that you would like to have in your firm. So, in terms of wisdom of course and cultural sensitivities that people have, might be regarded as some kind of, for example, like teachers have children that they take to museums and everything like that. They have broad education and training, but not a lot of financial capital. And so in some ways, that cultural capital. Someone's awareness of other cultures can be an asset to you and that's what I'm trying to get out. So, I think best and brightest graduates is hard because there could be multiple dimensions on which you value people. And moreover, I mean, there is literature that suggests that the best and the brightest can be kind of a pain in some cases if they feel like they should, if you need a lot of leaders, that's fine. Or a lot of kind of creative types that's fine but if your industry doesn't need that, it may be kind of a problem. Moreover, there's all kind of different needs that your firm probably has so considering what is valued and the dimensions on which that value can occur. And thinking ahead about what your firm would most benefit from is probably the most reasonable way forward. All be it if you're a non-profit or some other sectors, your notions of value may be distinct. And possibly in conflict with this kind of instrumental view as opposed to more of a public good and a resource towards that public good. So these are things just to consider. I don't think I've resolved this fully but hopefully I've kind of brought some insight and further thought to it.
