...
- are behemoths that turn very slowly
- survive because there big enough to stomach the punches from the competition
- are risk averse relying on smaller organisations to absorb the risks of entering into areas of work that would be deemed to be too risky and there would be little benefit to them yet
- can generally deliver solutions that a small organisation couldn't deliver
- have a brand and a reputation that is crucial to their ongoing success (this is true for smaller organisations to)
- can be chaotically run and managed, surviving because of its sheer number of employees
- be very poor in its management of its financial resources
- can be littered with reduandant redundant and legacy systems, processes and assets
- tend to be more risk-averse
Smaller organisations
- may well be less risk aversewilling and able to take risks
- lack the resources (financially, people and tooling) to engage on major projects
- may have a brand but are not as protective over it
- can be run in a chaotic manner, at the mercy off the good will of its employees and owners
- be very poor in its management of finances in terms of record keeping but highly nimble and efficient in its use of its finances
- can be a a lot more pragmatic in its approach to its legacy systems, and will have very few redundant systems for very long
...