Remove Agile Remove Disruption Remove Radical Innovation Remove Strategy

Key Issues in Innovation Management – Revisited – Part 1

Tim Kastelle

At the beginning of 2013, Tim Kastelle and I identified four key issues in innovation management for the time to come. From our point of view, all of the issues pinned down at that time have gained significant importance, are being intensively debated and can still be considered cutting-edge for companies to stay ahead in managing innovation. Let’s have a brief look at each of them: Differentiating and integrative innovation concepts.

Why radical and disruptive innovation might not always be the answer

Ideanote

Surely , in a time where terms like sustaining and incremental innovation have a negative light, who would glorify them ? Isn’t there a risk of next radical or disruptive innovation blindsiding the company, potentially bankrupting the organization ? . In a world where the image of corporations are sluggish, start-ups are the fast and agile destroyers and the elusive “entrepreneur” is the new golden ticket. Even disruption does not occur overnight.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Startup Engagement in Corporate Innovation

Integrative Innovation

From an innovation perspective, the ultimate objective is to validate promising initiatives and selectively scale them up in order to adapt or even renew the existing core business. Recently, Match-Maker Ventures and Arthur D. Little have released an interesting report, titled “ The Age of Collaboration “ The study does a good job in synthesizing the global state of play of corporate-startup collaboration and latest findings on success requirements for its implementation.

Modern Dual Corporate Innovation Balances Defense with Offense

Integrative Innovation

Modern Dual Corporate Innovation Management approaches encompass two complementary directions of impact : Transforming the Core (by largely changing or even disrupting the existing operating model). Creating the New (by largely changing or even disrupting the existing business model). With more and more established companies facing disruptive threats and opportunities, deliberate process and operating model innovation proves to be a major source of competitive advantage.

Scaling Up Startups in Corporate Settings

Integrative Innovation

tapping into novel, occasionally disruptive, technologies or business models – most of which are not created inside the company walls. outsourcing’ uncertainty, particularly in early phases of radical/disruptive innovation activities. Those tools are often organized as independent units or activities within the corporation or are ideally embedded in a single unit dedicated to explorative innovation altogether along with internal ventures.

Digital Innovation Units: Recommendations, Trends and Conclusions

Integrative Innovation

Infront Consulting and business magazine Capital recently published their second joint annual study (in German) on the Digital Innovation Unit landscape in Germany. The study authors differentiate between three types of Digital Innovation Units : Innovation Lab : Bundling of company-internal resources in one or more interdisciplinary. teams for repeated identification and prototyping of digital innovations. Recommendartions for action: Innovation Labs.

Scaling-Up: The Foundation

Integrative Innovation

The – in the truest sense of words – ‘billion-dollar-question’ we are addressing is: How can companies generate more business impact from non-incremental innovation? The solution to this question lies in the middle part of an end-to-end process for non-incremental innovation. In Dual Innovation, this Playing Field has its own, dedicated operating model, just like the explorative and the exploitative innovation domain.

The Case for Dual Innovation

Tim Kastelle

The first time I was advocating the idea of a dual innovation approach, here also referred to as organizational ambidexterity, is now more than 5 years ago. As recently outlined, I consider organizational ambidexterity to be a key innovation issue for organizations in 2016 and beyond. Let’s sum up some relevant findings of these studies, making the case for dual innovation management: BCG: Most Innovative Companies 2014 . Accenture: 2015 US Innovation Survey.

Survey 156

15 most important Innovation Theories your company should be using

Idea to Value

Every company says that innovation is important, and that they value the ideas of their people. Yet the problem lies in the fact that so few established companies actually know how to go about getting value out of their innovation ambitions, let alone turning it into profit. In fact, according to some estimates by Doblin , 96% of all new innovations which established companies attempt fail to make a return on investment. Suggested viewing: 12 – Disruptive Innovation.

So Where Is Innovation Heading?

Paul Hobcraft

I have written a fair amount about the new innovation era, offering a view on its future design. One that is jumping to a fresh cycle of innovative design. We are in the middle of it, some of you may not have noticed its impact and change but it is significant on the understanding of innovation, in it’s future design. To achieve this innovation has gone digital, pure and simple. So the need to innovate comes from digital as the source.

Key Innovation Issues for 2016 and Beyond

Integrative Innovation

Hence, I gave it some thought, starting by revisting an earlier reflection: Beginning of 2013, Tim Kastelle and I identified four key issues in innovation management for the time to come. From my point of view, all of the issues pinned down at that time have gained significant importance, are being intensively debated and can still be considered cutting-edge for companies to stay ahead in managing innovation. Innovation can’t be tackled through broad-brush recipes or tools.

Striving for the innovation balance: between exploring and exploiting.

Paul Hobcraft

In our innovation activities there is an even greater pressing need to build into our thinking the ability to find more dynamic capabilities. It is a constant innovator’s dilemma to think through and get right. These ‘states’ are viewed to be really helpful in accelerating an organizations growth potential and improve greatly on the innovation cycles. Somehow we need to respond in more agile, fluid and adaptive ways.

Exploring the Intrapreneurial Way in Large Organizations

Paul Hobcraft

Large organisations sense they are missing out on radically different business opportunities and cast their envious eyes towards the young start-ups, not just coming up with original ideas to solve existing problems and pent-up needs, but seeing the work as potentially disruptive to those managing in the existing space. It is tapping into an internal need for everyone involved, to innovate in different and more radical ways.

Agile 122

Exploring the Intrapreneurial Way in Large Organizations

Paul Hobcraft

Large organisations sense they are missing out on radically different business opportunities and cast their envious eyes towards the young start-ups, not just coming up with original ideas to solve existing problems and pent-up needs, but seeing the work as potentially disruptive to those managing in the existing space. It is tapping into an internal need for everyone involved, to innovate in different and more radical ways.

Agile 122

Tomorrow thinking for CEOs

The Future Shapers

Why does it seem that most large organisations are too paralyzed to move fast enough in times when corporate agility is the only response that will help them win? In his latest book “The day after tomorrow”, he is asking four pertinent questions to help you with that a bit more: Why is it almost impossible for large organisations to spot new and radical technologies quickly, and develop their potential? Ambiguity into Agility. Innovation is a contact sport. Disruption.

Agile 65

Balancing Large and Small Firm Capabilities

Integrative Innovation

The corresponding integration of incremental and radical innovation can basically be achieved in different ways: Building ambidextrous and lean startup capabilities. Established organizations with larger size usually target at extending their core business by incementally innovating their existing business model. This focus, however, often hinders them to explore new businesses, to drive radical innvation and to respond to disruptive shifts in their environment.

The Case for Dual Innovation

Integrative Innovation

The first time I was advocating the idea of a dual innovation approach, here also referred to as organizational ambidexterity, is now more than 5 years. As recently outlined, I consider organizational ambidexterity to be a key innovation issue for organizations in 2016 and beyond. Let’s sum up some relevant findings of these studies, making the case for dual innovation management: BCG: Most Innovative Companies 2014 . Accenture: 2015 US Innovation Survey.

Building upon the four essential pillars for innovation

Paul Hobcraft

It is always welcome to read a thoughtful article that reminds me, no, it actually inspires me, by reinforcing my own belief that innovation is progressing, even if this is sometimes frustratingly slow. The innovation architecture is progressively being recognized and put into place, it’s forming the building blocks of the innovation platform we need to build upon, ones for more radical innovation outcomes. Establishing a Comprehensive Innovation Strategy.

Tools 138

Treating Innovation Risk Differently, Dealing with Uncertainty

Paul Hobcraft

We need to open up our thinking about risk and innovation management. We should aim for a really healthy construct that does help all involved or associated with innovation and managing risk, that gives a better chance of pushing beyond the incremental innovation that avoids most risk and disappoints those seeking real growth. In this post two, within a three part series, I build the argument on why we need to treat innovation differently within any risk assessment.

Treating Innovation Risk Differently, Dealing with Uncertainty

Paul Hobcraft

We need to open up our thinking about risk and innovation management. We should aim for a really healthy construct that does help all involved or associated with innovation and managing risk that better chance of pushing beyond the incremental innovation that avoids most risk and disappoints those seeking real growth. In this post two, within a three part series, I build the argument on why we need to treat innovation differently within any risk assessment.

What is innovation, and how can it benefit your company?

mjvinnovation

For many companies, innovation means taking products and services and changing them in detail: color, shape, features, size, etc. However, this form of incremental innovation alone does not work anymore in many markets. In summary, innovation is always a big challenge – it needs to be understood, first, and foremost. We offer to demystify innovation and show you how your organization can benefit from it, as well as the steps needed to achieve it. Open Innovatio

Rethinking the measuring of innovation

Paul Hobcraft

I’m a little tired of the lack of original thinking that goes into measuring innovation. Leaders want to hear this, the sad true is getting a ‘decent ROI’ for innovation constructed (note constructed) is really hard. If the innovation is new to the world, how can it have a clear financial return on investment until much later? We need to appreciate new innovation balance sheet thinking. There are hard and soft measures to measuring or judging our innovation.

Report 147

Co-creating volume 3

Innovation 360 Group

Now we start the work co-creating volume 3 of the Complete Guide to business Innovation and you are invited! INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 3: INNOVATION SYSTEM FROM IDEATION TO GOVERNANCE. Innovators are always saying that they want to make the world a better place, so why isn’t it any better? Every one of us has full access to an infinitely varied and vastly underused resource: Innovation. Innovative thinking alone will not be able to get there, though.

Entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship? What do you think?

The Future Shapers

If you are looking for models on how to manage innovation, I would strongly recommend “ Zone to win “. Because I would maintain that innovation and/or intrapreneurship are crucial for your business survival. Hence “Transforming Legacy Organisations: Turn your Established Business into an Innovation Champion to Win the Future”. The book also starts with the premise that innovation is much more difficult in established organisations than it is in startups.

Successfully Merging Theory and Practice in your Innovation Program

Qmarkets

Eric Gabas-Varini is the Partner and Co-Founder of Innovation Framework Technologies, a consulting firm which was founded in Paris, but has since established regional offices in the United States, South Korea & Japan, with a network of associate offices in Latin America and the Middle East. With a strong background in R&D, Eric now uses his expertise to help leading organizations deliver innovations across a range of industries and use cases.

Co-creating volume 3

Innovation 360

Now we start the work co-creating volume 3 of the Complete Guide to business Innovation and you are invited! INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 3: INNOVATION SYSTEM FROM IDEATION TO GOVERNANCE. Innovators are always saying that they want to make the world a better place, so why isn’t it any better? Every one of us has full access to an infinitely varied and vastly underused resource: Innovation. Innovative thinking alone will not be able to get there, though.

Successfully Merging Theory and Practice in your Innovation Program

Qmarkets

Eric Gabas-Varini is the Partner and Co-Founder of Innovation Framework Technologies, a consulting firm which was founded in Paris, but has since established regional offices in the United States, South Korea & Japan, with a network of associate offices in Latin America and the Middle East. With a strong background in R&D, Eric now uses his expertise to help leading organizations deliver innovations across a range of industries and use cases.

Why do innovation programs fail

hackerearth

It is the failure to innovate that led to its “demise.”. In other words, it is because sometimes innovation strategies fail to produce products/ services that the customers want. And as the saying goes, “disrupt or get disrupted.”. Which brings us to the question, “Why do innovation programs fail?”. Below are 6 reasons why innovation programs can fail. Leaving innovation to chance is more often a gamble where odds are not always in your favor.