Unit summary This unit should have given you some idea of the issues surrounding the concept of innovation, in particular the key concepts of invention and innovation, and the negative as well as t…
Source: The concept of innovation
Unit summary This unit should have given you some idea of the issues surrounding the concept of innovation, in particular the key concepts of invention and innovation, and the negative as well as t…
Source: The concept of innovation
This unit should have given you some idea of the issues surrounding the concept of innovation, in particular the key concepts of invention and innovation, and the negative as well as the positive effects that innovations can bring. Although the business functions have been recognised in passing, you should be able to see how the functioning of an organisation can be affected by innovation. Remember that although innovation can take place within any one function of the organisation, this can have an impact across the whole organisation.
We hope that you have found this an interesting and challenging unit and that you now have a better understanding of the importance of innovation to organisations.
Now you have completed this unit, you might like to:
You might also like to:
Porter, M. E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York, The Free Press.
Postman, N. (1998) ‘New technology keeps whizzing into our lives’, The Guardian, 5 December (The Editor, pp. 12–13).
The content acknowledged below is Proprietary (see terms and conditions) and is used under licence.
Figure 1: (top right and left, bottom right): Mike Levers, The Open University;
Figure 1: (bottom left): Courtesy of Ford Motor Company;
Figure 2: Copyright © Ted Goff, www.tedgoff.com.
For any Donation: Please click here: (Thanks for your support)
So far we have suggested that innovation is a positive concept and, it appears, the rate of innovation continues to accelerate, led mostly by technology. The process is an example of positive feedback, in which the change is self-reinforcing: the development of technology itself increases the capacity for technological innovation, and raises the expectation of consumers for further innovation. While there seems little reason why this process of accelerating technological change should not continue for the foreseeable future, a counter-view argues that change for change’s sake is not necessarily always desirable. In the following paragraphs we introduce six questions that Neil Postman of New York University believes should be asked when considering innovations (Postman, 1998):
Postman concludes by saying:
Entrepreneurs like Morse, Edison and Disney created the 20th century, as Gates and others are now creating the 21st. I don’t know if much can be done to moderate the cultural changes they will enforce, but citizens ought to know what’s happening and keep an attentive eye on such people.
Examples of the second-order (indirect or unintended) effects of technological innovation are given in Box 1.
You should allow 0 hour(s), 30 minute(s).
Think of an innovation relevant to you through your work or in your role as a consumer. Answer the following questions in relation to that innovation:
We have chosen as an example the introduction of desktop publishing (DTP) technology, and have answered the questions as follows:
Joshua Mecael and Jairus James
APRIL 03, 2016
Can you think of any business topic that’s been hotter for longer than innovation? Trouble is, it’s hard to think of any business challenge where real progress has been harder to come by. By now, your company probably has a new business incubator, an idea wiki, a disciplined process for mining customer insights, an awards program for successful innovators, and maybe even an outpost in Silicon Valley—all fine ideas—and yet, most likely, it still struggles to meet its growth goals and seldom thrills its customers. And it’s not just your company. In a McKinsey poll, 94% of the managers surveyed said they were dissatisfied with their company’s innovation performance.
By comparison, think of the long strides many businesses have made in reengineering their supply chains, boosting product quality, and rolling out lean six sigma. These efforts have paid huge dividends. And yet when it comes to innovation, the gap between aspiration and accomplishment seems as big as ever. What’s the problem?
Over the past two decades, we’ve led dozens of innovation projects and have talked to thousands of managers about the challenge of building a high-performance innovation “engine.” What we’ve observed is that in most organizations, the innovation powertrain is missing several critical components.
Imagine a car motor that lacks a transmission, timing belt, water pump, or starter. The engine may be otherwise well built, but without just one of these components, it will be essentially worthless. So it is with innovation. However much brainstorming your employees do, it will come to naught if they don’t have access to the seed money they need to prototype and test their ideas. Likewise, no matter how slick your company’s online idea market, it won’t yield many high-value ideas if your associates haven’t been taught to think like innovators.
No single innovation tool or method will deliver consistent, profitable breakthroughs, and neither will a hodgepodge of misaligned or poorly integrated practices. It takes a systematic approach to build a systemic capability—whether that is Amazon’s logistics prowess or the near-flawless service you receive as a guest at a Four Seasons hotel. So it is with innovation. Skills, tools, metrics, processes, platforms, incentives, roles, and values all have to come together in one supercharged, all-wheel-drive, race-winning innovation machine.
So what are the parts of the innovation engine that most often get left out? Here’s our list of the top five:
1. Employees who’ve been taught to think like innovators
We’re a bit dumbfounded that so few companies have invested systematically in improving the innovation skills of their employees. The least charitable explanation for this oversight is that despite evidence to the contrary, many senior managers still assume that a few genetically blessed souls are innately creative, while the rest can’t come up with anything more exciting than suggestions for the cafeteria menu.
We understand how a CEO might come to such a conclusion. Every day, senior executives get bombarded with ideas—and most of them are either woefully underdeveloped or downright batty. After a while, it’s easy to believe that all those dopey ideas must be coming from dopes, rather than from individuals who haven’t been trained in or given opportunities to practice innovative thinking, and who work within a system that hasn’t been properly designed to foster it.
Much has been written about where innovation comes from and what distinguishes an innovative mind. Our research and experience suggest that inquiry is at the heart of it. Innovators have an inclination and a capacity to examine what others often leave unexamined. So if you want innovation, individuals must to be taught to do four things:
With a bit of training, and some opportunities for real-world practice, just about anyone can significantly upgrade their innovation skills. Whirlpool Corporation’s strong innovation performance in recent years owes much to the fact that the company trained more than 15,000 of its employees to be business innovators. Any innovation program that doesn’t start by helping individuals to see the world with “fresh eyes” will almost inevitably fall short of expectations.
2. A sharp, shared definition of innovation
To manage innovation in a systematic way, you have to have a widely understood definition of innovation. Without this, it’s impossible to know how much “real” innovation is going on and whether it’s paying off. Just as critically, you can’t hold leaders responsible for innovation if no one can agree on what’s innovative and what’s not.
Coming up with a practical definition of innovation is harder than it sounds, particularly if the goal is to rank every new initiative or product by its “innovativeness.” When Heinz puts ketchup in a new squeeze bottle, is that innovation? When Comcast rolls out a new “triple play” pricing scheme, is that a breakthrough? When Whirlpool launches a washing machine that dispenses just the right amount of detergent, is that a game changer? While most people can distinguish between a genuine breakthrough (like the original iPhone) and a near-trivial product enhancement (like a new shade of Post-It® notes), it’s tougher to get agreement about all the shades of gray in between.
In our experience, it can take several months for a company to hammer out its definition of innovation. As a starting point, it is important to look back over a decade or two and identify the sorts of ideas that have produced noticeable margin and revenue gains.
For a product or service to be counted as innovative at Whirlpool, it must be unique and compelling to the consumer, create a competitive advantage, sit on a migration path that can yield further innovations, and provide consumers with more value than anything else in the market. This definition may seem somewhat generic. What makes it useful, though, is the understanding that has developed over time as these criteria have been used to determine which ideas are truly innovative and which aren’t. With use, the definition has gotten tighter, and differences of opinion have narrowed. It’s also important to periodically review the definition: did the products that got rated as highly “innovative” actually yield above-average returns?
Having a practical, agreed-upon definition of innovation makes it easier to set goals for innovation, to allocate resources to innovative projects, to plan a cadence of innovative product launches, to target advertising on high-value breakthroughs, and to measure innovation performance.
3. Comprehensive innovation metrics
Companies measure just about everything that has an impact on the bottom line, yet strangely, they often shy away from measuring innovation. Granted, it is difficult to measure. Historical benchmarks are of limited value when a product has no antecedents, and it’s hard to pin down the future value of an idea that exists only as a concept.
Nevertheless, there are ways of measuring innovation performance. A comprehensive dashboard should track:
Once you’ve established the metrics and a baseline, you’re in a position to set specific, unit-by-unit innovation goals, and to fine-tune the innovation engine. Recently, for example, Whirlpool’s Chairman and CEO, Jeff Fettig, set a goal for the company to double the value of its innovation pipeline over the next two years. Executives realized that to do this, they would need to reallocate some of the company’s innovation resources from late-stage product enhancements to early-stage product breakthroughs. Without a set of comprehensive metrics, Whirlpool wouldn’t have been able to set such specific innovation goals, to proactively rebalance its innovation spending, or to measure the results of those actions.
4. Accountable and capable innovation leaders
What percentage of the leaders in your company, from project managers to executive vice presidents, are formally accountable for innovation? What percentage have innovation-related targets that affect their compensation? If it’s anything less than 100%, innovation will be marginalized. Too often innovation is seen as the province of specialized units like R&D or corporate business development, rather than being the responsibility of every leader at every level.
Obviously, it makes little sense to hold leaders accountable for innovation if they haven’t been trained and coached to encourage innovation within their own teams. For a leader, this means:
In our experience, most leadership development programs give scant attention to these innovation-enabling attitudes and behaviors. Through selection, training, and feedback, companies must work hard to create a cadre of leaders who are as adept at fostering innovation as they are at running the business.
5. Innovation-friendly management processes
A car is more than its engine. Mate a 500 HP engine with a set of nearly bald tires and most of that power will get wasted. Again, the same is true for innovation. No matter how laudable a company’s innovation practices are, if its entire management model hasn’t been tuned for innovation, little of the engine’s power will reach the bottom line.
If, for example, a company’s budgeting process is inherently conservative and makes it difficult for first-line employees to get funding for small-scale experiments, any investment in innovation skills will be wasted. If its product development process places too much emphasis on removing risk from new launches, few new-to-the-world products will make it to market. If its assessment and compensation system doesn’t reward innovation performance, it will end up with managers who are more bean counters than trailblazers. If it lacks a financial reporting system that tracks innovation investment and staffing, no alarm bells will ring when an innovation project gets sacrificed on the altar of quarterly earnings.
The point is, any process that significantly impacts investment, incentives, or mindsets needs to be re-engineered for innovation. Over the past decade, Whirlpool has done exactly that. Its HR leaders, for example, built an innovation-focused assessment exercise into the company’s MBA hiring process. Candidates who get invited to the company’s headquarters participate in a multi-day project designed to test their capacity to think creatively. On-campus interviews also feature an innovation exercise. Whirlpool’s investment process has also been tuned for innovation. Each year, the company devotes a board-sanctioned share of its capital budget—typically around 20%—to projects that are deemed to be truly innovative.
Over the past couple of decades, virtually every company has comprehensively overhauled its operating model for efficiency and speed. Global supply chains have been optimized, business processes have been outsourced, and huge investments have been made in new IT tools. Thus far, though, few companies have devoted anywhere near this level of effort to retooling their management practices for innovation.
Taking a systemic view
Retooling an organization for innovation is a daunting task. When Whirlpool’s then-chairman, Dave Whitwam, committed himself to building a culture of innovation in 1999, he told his colleagues that the journey would take at least five years, and that during that time innovation would remain his top priority. He made it clear that this wasn’t going to be another program du jour. Moreover, he clearly understood the scope of the challenge. “Ultimately,” Whitwam warned his colleagues, “every job and every process will change.” In our experience, there aren’t many CEOs who think that systemically about making innovation a ubiquitous capability.
Typically, when we’re invited into an organization to review its innovation efforts, we find a jumble of tools and methods that are not only incomplete, but also poorly integrated. Individually, each piece makes sense—the crowdsourced idea contest, the internal venture fund, the customer sentiment analysis, the stage-gate product development process—but the whole is less than the parts. It’s as if a dozen different executives wandered into an auto parts store and each came back with something they thought would be useful in constructing a car. While you can’t build an engine without all the necessary bits and pieces, it’s the integration of those components that turns a parts bin into a smooth-running machine. That’s why the innovation skills a company instills in its employees have to be consistent with its particular definition of innovation, which has to match up with the innovation metrics it selects, which have to be woven into the performance management system. Likewise, all of the ancillary innovation processes must mesh with this set of core components.
No matter how committed, a CEO can’t single-handedly reconstitute a company for innovation. The entire top team has to be on board. Beyond this, the re-engineering efforts need a strong C-suite leader to be responsible for the design and construction of the company’s innovation engine. We call this the “innovation architect.” He or she is a bit like the lead engineer on a car program, whose job is to make sure that all the pieces come together in one coherent system. In the case of innovation, this means making sure that innovation is measured in the right way, that employees at all levels have been trained as business innovators and have access to the right insights and tools, that customers and suppliers are plugged into the company’s innovation platform, that innovation projects are adequately funded and monitored, that hiring and promotion criteria help to strengthen the company’s innovation “gene pool,” that innovation values get continually reinforced, and that the company’s innovation pipeline is robust enough to meet the company’s growth objectives.
In recent years, a number of companies have appointed a “Chief Innovation Officer” to oversee major new growth initiatives. In our conception the responsibilities of the innovation architect are broader, including not only business development but competence development as well. The ultimate goal is a company where innovation is “built in,” rather than “bolted on”—where it is instinctive for every individual, and intrinsic to the organization itself.
If your company is really serious about building an innovation engine, then it needs to upgrade everyone’s innovation skills, agree on what counts as innovation, establish comprehensive metrics, hold leaders accountable for innovation, and retool its management processes so they foster innovation everywhere, all the time. These can’t be isolated initiatives; they must work in harmony.
Do all this and you’ll have a company that can win, and win again, in the twenty-first century’s creative economy.
We hope the conversations that take place on HBR.org will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To comment, readers must sign in or register. And to ensure the quality of the discussion, our moderating team will review all comments and may edit them for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted per the moderators’ judgment. All postings become the property of Harvard Business Publishing.
Sign in to get more free content each month and build your own personal library on HBR.org.
To help facilitate a strong leadership conversation about innovation objectives and innovation goals, here are some examples of why you might choose to enable an innovation engine for your organization:
Defining the Innovation Goal
The innovation goal should be visionary and exciting. It should be something that has not seen before, measurable at least once per year (eventually more often), customer focused, and ultimately delivering value (top line, mid line and bottom line).
Following are some examples of innovation goals:
These are good examples of innovation goals to consider. Use the list to engage senior leaders in dialog, debate, and consensus. Then, define innovation goals for your company and for each business unit.
If your innovation initiative is for the entire enterprise, one goal should be directly linked to the business strategy.
If you are rolling out innovation only in your own business unit or information technology department, the goal should be aligned to the area’s business or operational strategy.
Whatever you choose as your innovation goal, it should be fixed for a minimum of three years. At the end of three years, you can always enhance it or pick an alternative.
The Takeaway
To communicate the innovation agenda to your organization you must first clearly define the innovation strategy, objectives and goals.
Over to you. Please comment below.
You can download FREE articles at www.desai.com/resources.
Tags: Innovation Management, Organizational Strategy, Vision
For any Donation: Please click here: (Thanks for your support)
In the Philippines, a lot of foreign venture funds are doubling up their efforts to invest in app makers. Most of them are hoping that the increase of smartphone sales will trigger the need for more home-grown applications.
500 Startups, a San Francisco-based venture capital company, has launched 500 Kulfi fund, named after a well-known Indian sweet dish, to invest in the local makers of mobile applications. Since 2011, 500 Startups has made investments in more than 50 companies in the Philippines, where they have had over 20 deals. After China, Philippines has the second biggest internet population all over the world with over 400 million users. By 2020, the number of smartphones is expected to reach more than 900 million.
Most people in the Philippines use their smartphones in almost every aspect of their lives, even more so than computers. This is very beneficial for app-makers and their respective investors, especially now that smartphone sales in China are slowly declining.
According to Alex Yao, SVP Strategy, Innovation at PhilTech Mobile China will most likely be the remaining growth engine for mobile internet, and given the likeness in terms of its large population, what happened in China could very well repeat itself in the Philippines in upcoming years.
Interview to Joshua Mecael Abuhan, R&D Manager at PhilTech Innovation.
INTRODUCTION:
PhilTech’s equipment and systems are technologically advanced. Among the applied technologies, which are the most remarkable?
Mainly, this kind of equipment has an advanced design regarding electronics and photonic elements. Lately, there are also two key aspects regarding the electromagnetic impact of printed circuits and the elements and design of programmable logic.
PRINTED CIRCUITS:
Regarding printed circuit boards, how does their design affect your products?
There are two factors that concern the design of the boards: the higher connection pad density required involves challenges in the design and manufacture of circuits with a high number of layers. Another challenge is to transport high-speed digital data signals preserving their form to prevent errors. This is called signal integrity.
But this part just interconnects components and does not make any other specific function, does it??
That is true. But sometimes it may be a limiting factor of the design performance. Likewise, its development must be in line with that of the components with a new packaging, such as BGA.
Why is this part strategic for designs?
It could limit our transmission and process capacity.
Does PhilTech manufacture these circuits?
We do not need to. In Asia there are very competent companies in this field with which we collaborate closely. PhilTech prepares the design and selects materials.
Where is this technology going?
The materials used and manufacture processes are continuously evolving in this field. However, the most radical trend is going towards the integration of complex functions on silicon, this is, the use of integrated circuits adapted to the applications.
PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC:
What do you call “programmable logic circuits”?
They are components that harbor a large amount of simple-logic functional cells that may be programmed and interconnected to perform a function jointly.
In our case, we also use those equipped with circuits suitable for the speed we are processing.
How does the use of digital programmable parts improve your products?
The production of functional blocks adapted to our data transmission and processing purpose, together with the integration of all the design logical functions (microprocessor, interfaces, communications…).
Which is the possible alternative to these circuits?
So far, for these speeds, the only alternative was the use of application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC). It involved issues of availability and adaptation to the amounts required for their use.
Which are the advantages of your approach to the use of specific circuits?
We are more versatile and independent of other manufacturers. Our design cycles are shorter and their use is very well adapted to our projects and manufacture batches.
How is the design process of these elements?
First, we analyze the functions we must carry out in order to select afterwards the appropriate circuit in terms of capacity and size, as well as the processing speed.
Source text: PhilTechInnovation.com.ph
This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.
Arun Sasidharan 3 days ago
Very Informative….Innovation success or failure is hugely related to the complexity of the business model of any organization. An organization business model may have leaders representing different Industry vertical or sectors and it’s important to analyse, align and centralize these vertical/sector interest to the Innovation framework for an equal participation rather than autonomous initiatives. Designing, Developing and Implementing a systemic Innovation framework may sometimes not produce results / outcomes because of the lack of alignment or agreements within the business model.