Посты с тэгом: innovation strategy

How To Optimize Your Innovation Strategy by Making Your Idea a Sweet Idea

Published date: January 25, 2018 в 11:11 am

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Methodology,Strategy

Tags:

What’s the perfect New Year’s Resolution?

 

Hint: think re: innovation strategy

Well, if that wasn’t sufficient, here are two additional hints…

(1) It’s not only challenging but actually promises a significant change in your life;

(2) It’s not pie in the sky, but applicable to your daily life.

 

Let’s take a more practical approach…

If your goal is to get in shape, watching TV while standing is maybe not the most effective initiative. However, regular mountain climbing is probably a bit of a stretch if you are a fairly immobile city dweller.

This is the Near-Far-Sweet Idea Mapping Model as applied to your daily life.

Near – ideas that are pretty close to current practice. They are new, but probably not impactful enough to be worth your attention.

Far –  exciting ideas, but not viable. Either the market is not ready to accept them, or you will not be able to implement them.

When optimizing your innovation strategy you want your ideas to be neither too close to home (“Near”) nor too challenging to be implementable (“Far”). You want your ideas to be new and exciting but at the same time realistic and useful. This is your Innovation Sweet Spot.

 

Learn How To Enhance Your Innovation Strategy By Making Your Ideas Sweet:

This all sounds pretty obvious and common sense. Surprisingly, the distinction is often overlooked, or at least not given systematic treatment. Categorizing the results of an ideation session or workshop into Near, Far and Sweet – as seen in the visual on the right – will give you an important indication as to the practicality of your ideas. It can also be a useful tool to improve the outcomes of your innovation strategies, by pushing some Nears and Fars into the Sweet Spot.

But before we share a quick guide to applying NFS to NPD, here are some thoughts of how it can serve as a practical tool to support the “Dual Innovation Approach” as defined by Ralph-Christian Ohr. Ohr cites research that shows that the Dual Innovation Approach is used by 70% of the most innovative companies:

innovation strategy

[With Dual Innovation] innovation management follows a balanced portfolio approach. The entire innovation portfolio is divided into exploitation-oriented and exploration-oriented innovation initiatives, where the following characterizations hold:

 

  • Exploitation-oriented initiatives are related to running the core business by executing and enhancing existing business models or technological capabilities. The primary direction of impact is valued capturing (commercialization). Examples: Product, service or process innovation, portfolio extension, innovation of selected business model components (e.g. channel or operations), market research.
  • Exploration-oriented initiatives are related to developing future business by searching for the novel, and often disruptive, business models or technological capabilities. The primary direction of impact is value creation (configuration). Examples: Business model development, platform/ecosystem innovation, basic technology research & development, startup engagement, innovation intelligence.

(https://dual-innovation.net/a-model-for-dual-corporate-innovation-management/) Ralph-Christian Ohr

 

Ralph-Christian further introduces three playing fields of dual innovation:

  • Optimize the Core (Optimization of existing business models and technologies)
  • Reshape the Core (Transformation of existing business models and/or scaling up new business models/technologies)
  • Create the New (Creation of new-to-the-company business models and Technologies)

(http://integrative-innovation.net/?p=1765) Ralph-Christian Ohr

 

Integrating Ideas

He then elaborates on the true challenge of dual innovation: neither developing extensions of the product/service portfolio within the existing business model, nor coming up with completely new ideas, but integrating new ideas into your existing innovation strategy:

When it comes to integration, most companies face huge problems. This is the space where two main activities need to be conducted to achieve business impact from innovation and to future-proof the existing business model:

  • Validated breakthrough or even disruptive innovation concepts need to be scaled up for achieving business impact. If a company does not master Scaling-Up there is a high chance that all ideation will remain only innovation theatre.
  • In the light of Digital Transformation, adapting the established core business models by innovating selected elements (e.g. platform strategies, x-as-a-service business models, bypassing the middle man or automatization of service processes) is mandatory. If a company does not master adaptation it risks to lose in Digital Transformation.

(http://integrative-innovation.net/?p=1765) Ralph-Christian Ohr

Ohr presents a challenge: strategic ideas ought to be transformed to have maximum impact – to be innovative enough but not too disruptive. Through the NFS model, the SIT (Systematic Inventive Thinking) methodology invites you to apply two principles that, together, cover both directions:

1. Qualitative Change. Very often, “near” ideas are generated by incrementally improving on existing offerings, making them “bigger, faster, better”, i.e a quantitative change. The QC principle calls you to observe the basic logic of your product or service but change a fundamental relationship in this logical structure. Example: don’t offer your product at a discount, but offer it for free, generating revenue by a totally different business model. This is easier said than done, of course, but using the right tools, it allows you to push Near ideas into the Sweet Spot.

2. Closed World. The second basic principle of SIT is rather counterintuitive: when innovating, try as much as possible to utilize only those elements that already exist in the system.

innovation strategy

Instead of reaching out of the box, innovate inside the box. Instead of searching for new elements, find new angles and possibilities in the existing ones. By applying several tools under this principle, you will be able to pull in some Far ideas, turning wishful thinking into viable options and improve your innovation strategy

So, here’s a NY’s resolution that hopefully resides within your Sweet Spot: Map your new ideas on an NFS diagram, consider whether enough of them are in the Sweet Spot, and then push and pull those that are not to create exciting but viable options for development of your innovation strategy. Enjoy.

Want to keep learning? Check out what you can learn from an innovation facilitation session.

Building ROI and data into your innovation process

Published date: December 7, 2015 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,

Delivery via drones, real-time data insight into your operations, transformation of your business models— what will 2016 bring for your innovation practice?
For innovators working within the confines of large enterprises, the possibilities for transformation, especially with mobile and digital products, are endless. Lean, digital disruptors threaten their larger, more rigid corporate counterparts. Many in the C-suite view these innovations as not only a way to maintain market share with consumers, but also usher in new eras of productivity, efficiency and customer engagement.
And yet, many of these investments will fail to meet those lofty goals, and not because the ideas themselves are rife with fundamental flaws. It’s the execution and refinement of the initial idea that dooms the project. Many innovators take on a project without a plan to measure and revise the return on investment projection (and course-correct) as the product evolves.
For example, a large enterprise wants to digitize its sales operations to shorten the length of the sales cycle, from initial contact to closed deal. Inexperienced sales reps often show or send the wrong collateral for the prospective customer’s needs, and lack the ability to quickly access the collateral and tools out in the field. Leadership wants to digitize the collateral into a web-based desktop app. Here’s the problem: the team missed the insight that a bulky laptop is just as bad as a stack of papers out in the field, along with their need to access documents offline. After the release, these conditions resulted in the app making no foreseeable dent in the length of the sales cycle because about 90 percent of the users abandoned the app.
When our group was brought in to rescue the project, our research revealed that the mobile sales force needs quick interactions and more guidance as to when different collateral should be shown to prospective customers. A mobile application that works offline and has a sophisticated tagging system, with tags for the type of customer and stage in the sales cycle, significantly reduced the length of the sales cycle for that team. As new features were added, the return on investment for those additions, such as allowing users to create personal “sets” of collateral, was calculated.
A Strategy Framework to Drive Innovation– and ROI– at Large Enterprises
It is possible to drive a creative and thoughtful process without losing sight of the return on investment. Really.
The key is to prioritize the end-users’ needs. About 70 percent of software projects fail because of user adoption. If an innovation fails to make an impact for an end-user, they will develop a workaround to not use it on their way to abandoning it completely. Every innovator will eventually hear user feedback– the difference is getting that feedback in the beginning significantly lowers the cost of changes. For each phase of a mobile app, researchers at NASA found a ten-fold increase in cost to make changes to the requirements.
Just ask Ford: When they debuted a new system to merge 30 disparate systems to serve their suppliers, it was a multi-year $400 million project that promised big payoffs for their relationships with their suppliers. The only problem was that once it was released to the suppliers, they were taken through as many as five screens to see only a portion of the data they needed, according to reports. This additional frustration and effort led users to abandon the system, later followed by the entire company.
As the design wireframes and prototypes bring the product to life, measuring and testing the efficiency and effectiveness of the user interactions, as well as interviewing users about their decision-making process when testing the product, make the return on investment projection and performance targets increasingly realistic.
For example, our team worked with a large utility company, who sought to improve the customer service experience of their call line. Unless the customer is calling to set up or turn off the service, customers are reaching out because of frustration, i.e. a service outage or a bill dispute. What made that experience worse was the multiple screens, random shut-downs, and different program jumps it took for the call center representative they were speaking with to solve their issue. A simple bill dispute took 53 clicks to resolve.
After understanding the common call issues and the call center operators’ needs, it was clear how to roll out a simplified user interface that increased time-on-task for operators. The result: increases of time-on-task by 79 percent and operator efficiency by 400 percent. A simple bill dispute was concentrated in one screen with 9 clicks. Training for new hires, which mainly focused on navigating the system, was cut in half.
This provides crucial proof of concept for IT and innovation managers as they push the company to invest more in transformative innovation.
As you look to 2016, make ethnographic research of your end-users your highest priority to see the ROI and real business impact of innovation– and your innovation budget in 2017 will thank you. Check out our free guide to innovation strategy for a comprehensive overview of our field-tested strategy framework.
 
Bio: Rachel Nitschke is the Content Marketing Specialist at ChaiOne. After graduating with a degree in journalism, she worked in nonprofit communications before landing at ChaiOne to focus on demand generation and content marketing.

Innovation’s New World Order

Published date: November 16, 2015 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,

The shifting map of global innovation In the 2015 Global Innovation 1000 study, Strategy&, PwC’s strategy consulting group, provides new insights into the ways corporate innovation spending—which totaled $680 billion last year—has been changing in recent years, and examines the implications both for the future course of global economies and for corporate performance. How and where innovation is performed matters: As Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter, author of classic texts on corporate strategy and the competitive advantage of nations, has noted, “Innovation is the central issue in economic prosperity.”
If you look at global innovation spending in terms of where companies are headquartered, it’s not obvious that much has changed over the years: It always looks like North America is number one, Europe is number two, and Asia is number three. But that conceals what has actually been happening. If you instead focus on where the world’s largest companies actually do the work of innovation, the story is very different.
We’ve done that analysis in this year’s study, comparing today’s data with the situation in 2007, when we first examined the globalization of corporate innovation spending. Just eight years ago, the top region for R&D activity was Europe, which accounted for 35 percent of the global total, followed by North America with 34 percent, and Asia, with 27 percent. Today, the order has reversed: Asia is now number one, with 35 percent, North America is still second, with 33 percent, and Europe is last with 28 percent. A complete reversal in just eight years.
Asia’s rise and Europe’s decline
The fact that innovation spending is rising in Asia is not a surprise, but our study details the magnitude and rapid pace of the growth: Total corporate R&D activity grew 120 percent in China, for example, between 2007 and 2015, and by 115 percent in India. Most of this spending is being conducted by companies from Europe and the U.S., and they are not primarily seeking lower labor costs. According to R&D executives, their chief motivations are to be closer to their customers and suppliers in these fast-growing economies, and to gain access to the right technical talent.
The relative weakness of R&D spending in Europe, however, is a surprise. Innovation spending in Europe grew by only 9 percent from 2007 to 2015, while the amount of R&D spending European companies did in other regions increased 46%. The decline of particular counties has been even sharper. In Germany, for example, inflows of R&D spending from other countries fell by 7 percent from 2007 to 2015, while R&D “exports” to other countries rose 76 percent. In France, inflows fell 21 percent, while exports rose 46 percent. Overall, the data suggest that Europe is seeing a relative “hollowing out” of its innovation capabilities.
The U.S., in contrast, has maintained its #1 relative position in corporate R&D activity, despite the fact that U.S. companies still exported quite a bit of R&D to Asia and Europe. One reason is that U.S. companies continued to increase their R&D spending in the U.S. at healthy levels; the other is that the U.S. benefitted from significant imports of R&D activity from other regions—including from European companies who have been attracted by the U.S.’s stable economy, its flexible and innovation-oriented business culture, and the depth of R&D talent available—especially in software and digital businesses.
Global innovators outperform
Our study also shows that globalizing innovation pays: Companies that overweight their R&D spending outside their headquarters country outperform their less globalized competitors. Our study found that companies that deployed 60 percent or more of their R&D spending abroad in 2015 earned a premium of 30 percent on operating margin and return on assets, and 20 percent on growth in operating income.
I’ve guided the Global innovation 1000 study since its inception 11 years ago, and our analyses of R&D spending by corporations have provided many important insights. We’ve demonstrated conclusively, for example, that the amount of money a company spends on R&D does not correlate with its success as an innovator, or with its financial success. Instead, we’ve shown that what matters is a company’s ability to translate its innovation spending into superior products and services via superior end customer insight and R&D portfolio management. This, in turn, flows from an innovation strategy that’s tightly aligned with the company’s business strategy, a well-tuned capabilities system, and a corporate culture that supports innovation. (All previous Global Innovation 1000 studies are available online.)
This year’s study suggests that that the globalization of R&D spending will continue to yield benefits. As companies further develop and optimize their global innovation networks, they will continue to tap into more diverse talent pools and gain deeper insights into growing markets. The net result will be more innovative and profitable companies, and further increases in global economic prosperity.
 
AUTHOR BIO: Barry Jaruzelski is a thought leader on innovation for Strategy&, PwC’s strategy consulting business. Based in Florham Park, N.J., he is a principal with PwC US. He works with high-tech and industrial clients on corporate and product strategy and the transformation of core innovation processes. He created the Global Innovation 1000 study in 2005, and in 2013 was named one of the “Top 25 Consultants” by Consulting magazine.

Can Blackberry Dig Themselves Out of the Hole?

Published date: November 5, 2013 в 3:00 am

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

As Albert Einstein noted, one cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it. That seems to be Blackberry’s predicament as it faces another drop in its stock value. However, with a fresh investment by Fairfax Holdings and a new CEO, Blackberry may have time to reinvent its business model. The new leadership team will need to think differently. It is a perfect time to apply systematic innovation tools to create a new future.
Here’s how.
New Merger Targets:  Use the SIT technique called Subtraction to reframe and see new merger possibilities.  Make a list of the major components of the company (sales force, products, brand, employees, customers, network). Create a phrase like this: “Blackberry has no products, but it has all the other components.  What company has the ideal set of products that would best fit the remaining resources of Blackberry?”  For example, would a company in data-mining or other information-based services find synergies within the Blackberry enterprise? Companies like LexisNexis, Authernative, and Lifelock come to mind.  Continue searching for more insights by doing the same exercise for each component, one at a time.
Reverse Assumption:  Don’t just challenge assumptions. Reverse them. This technique helps “break fixedness” and see new options.  To use it, list all the obvious business assumptions about Blackberry and its industry.  For example:

  • Consumers want more functionality.
  • Blackberry is for enterprises.
  • Cellphones are the dominant form of communication.

Reverse the assumptions one by one.  “Consumers want less functionality.”  Perhaps the new business model is to create stripped down products used by a different market segment.  Perhaps Blackberry becomes a system strictly for young people, not enterprises.
Innovate in Adjacent Markets:  Apply systematic innovation methods to stretch opportunities beyond Blackberry ‘s current business model.  Ask these questions:

  • What substitute products are non-category consumers using to fulfill the need? Where are they buying it?  What complementary products go along with these substitutes?
  • What other products do loyal Blackberry customers buy, perhaps at the same price point or to fulfill the same or similar brand promise?
  • Why do multi-brand customers use several brands?  Is it time-dependent?  Situation-dependent?  Why does it vary?  What other products are used when the competitive brands are consumed?
  • What other category of products do Blackberry ‘s competitor sell?  How do those fit into their product line?  How could they fit into Blackberry’s?

Innovate the Core Competency: Blackberry cannot compete with iPhone and Google on functionality (apps) and design.  Instead, it needs to innovate around its core competency of privacy. Privacy is highly valued in today’s environment of government snooping.  The trick is to extend the idea of privacy management beyond just data and voice communications.
First, re-frame the problem as: “How do we give our customers more privacy?”  Notice the problem statement is devoid of technology, process, product, or anything that implies how to do it.  Next, apply the SIT technique called Task Unification. This technique forces you to assign an additional job to an existing resource, usually in some counterintuitive way. For example,

  • Applications:  Create a list of all key functions and applications now on a Blackberry handset such as email, phone, maps, GPS, SMS texting, weather, contacts, calendar, photos, and so on.  One by one, create a phrase like this:  “The maps function has the additional job of delivering privacy to the use.”
  • Daily Routine:  List the parts of an everyday routine:  wake-up, shower, dress, take medication, eat, drive to work, check mail, have meetings, call clients, go shopping, drive home, watch TV, eat dinner, go to bed.  One by one, take each activity in the day and make the statement:  “Blackberry gives me privacy about (fill in the blank).”
  • Entities: Create a list of people and organizations you want to keep out of your affairs: family members, neighbors, co-workers, strangers, government, banks, employers, stores, churches, and so on.  Once again, take each component and create the phrase, “Blackberry will protect my privacy from (fill in the blank).”
  • Information:  List the types of information to be protected: financial, political, religious, demographic, employment, educational, relationship, etc.  One by one, create the hypothetical scenario: “Blackberry protects all my (fill in the blank) interests.”

Treat each of these phrases as a hypothetical solution and test whether it delivers a new consumer benefit.  Only then would Blackberry seek a technological approach to deliver the benefit.
Blackberry can remake itself, but the key will be to innovate its brand promise and be relevant in every part of the consumer’s life. If Blackberry focuses just on innovating its technology, it will succumb to the same thinking that got it in this mess.
 

Innovating to Compete

Innovating is a form of competitive behavior.  When we innovate, we compete with someone or something.  We innovate to survive. We innovate for glory.  We innovate to win.  Leaders of organizations need to understand and leverage this competitive aspect of innovation to embed it into the organization.

Innovating to compete occurs at many levels:

  • At the national level, governments compete with other nations for trade, economic power, and global political influence.
  • At the municipal level, cities compete aggressively to attract investment, firms, and employees to stimulate jobs and economic growth.
  • At the industry level, competition among sectors is fierce.  Industries want to attract customers, investment, talent, and favorable government treatment.
  • At the company level, firms want to be more competitive by differentiating themselves in the marketplace.
  • At the business unit level, franchises compete with one another for budget resources and manpower.
  • At the individual level, peer rivals compete with each other for promotion and bonuses.
  • At the personal level, we compete with ourselves to achieve a new “personal best” when overcoming challenges.

Here are suggestions of what leaders can do to embrace competition and drive innovation:

Get our innovation model that has worked for 1000+ companies.

    No thanks, not now.