Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Linkedin button
Delicious button
Digg button
Stumbleupon button

Business thoughts

A Practical Guide to Managing Innovation – By Robert Goldsmith

Re-publishing from Forbes.com (Original link).

 

What does innovation mean?

It used to relate mainly to products, and that’s still important. But over the last decade or so, businesses have been putting more and more emphasis on innovating new services and business models as well. In light of this, it’s time companies take another look at how they manage innovation.
Innovation is one of the least well-managed areas in most companies,says David Midgley, a marketing professor at INSEAD and author of The Innovation Manual. “This leads to wasted resources and costly mistakes. It’s not the effort that companies put into innovation that decides success. Instead it is how firms go about doing innovation that separates leaders from the rest.”

Most of the information about managing innovation available today is siloed, addressing specific issues such as technology or finance. But as the boundaries of innovation expand, more managers will need practical knowledge and tools that transcend these functional silos.

 

More than good electronics

In addition to providing this practical knowledge and the toolkit to go with it, The Innovation Manual examines what is known about innovation management and asks if it still applies today when an innovation may indeed be a product, but a product with a service attached and driven by a totally different business model than a few years before.

To illustrate this idea, Midgley uses the example of the Apple iPod. Apple has sold hundreds of millions of iPods since introducing them in 2001. But, he says, that success is not because the iPod is an innovative product as there are many similar devices. The real point behind the iPod is the service that allows the customer to easily download music and the business model that allows both Apple and the music industry to make money from those downloads.

“Apple negotiated a business model with the music industry that allowed everybody to get what they want — the music industry to get their royalties, Apple to sell downloads and the iPod itself, and the customer to be able to select the songs they want rather than putting up with the compilations the industry offered because of its previous business model,” Midgley says. “These are Apple’s real innovations – the rest is just good electronics.”

 
No longer simple

Back when innovation related only to products, it was easier for companies to manage. One group of employees designed the product and passed it on to another group who sold it. But the broader boundaries of innovation have complicated things for company managers responsible for delivering innovations to the marketplace.

Implementing an innovation today may require making major organisational changes. For example, implementing an innovative service could mean making changes to employee training programmes and company procedures. A business model innovation entails getting everyone to understand the new way of making money, or, if this is not possible, setting up a new business unit.

To understand what sort of organisational changes are required for an innovation, a manager first needs to understand what sort of challenge the innovation is going to pose. For Midgley, there are three categories of challenge – the customer, technology, and business model. Understanding which category the innovation falls into is the key to understanding what steps the company needs to take next.

“If it’s a customer challenge, then you need to orient your intelligence and services one way,” Midgley explains. “If it’s a challenge on the organisational side, then it’s another way. If it’s a breakthrough in all three then you might want to think it’s a big risk.”

The customer challenge addresses how far away this innovation is going to be from the way the customer usually thinks. For example, Nintendo designed the Wii video game console to appeal to an entirely new customer base, namely people who wouldn’t ordinarily think of playing electronic games.

“What’s interesting in the Wii is not the technology, which is fairly straightforward,” says Midgley, “and it’s not the business model, because it’s actually quite a traditional business model for the gaming world. The really innovative and creative thing is making games that appeal to the grandmothers, or to families or the people who don’t play ‘shoot-‘em-up games’ on PS3 (PlayStation 3).”

The second type, technology, asks how much of a challenge the innovation is going to be for the organisation. The PS3 posed a typical technology challenge for Sony because the company was inventing a new superprocessor for their existing game console and customer base. The business model challenge addresses how the company can get money out of the existing value chain. This is what Apple overcame with the iPod.

The beginning is the end

The ultimate goal of any innovation is to create value in the minds of the customers. Midgley identifies five key tasks the organisation needs to do to accomplish this and provides the tools for managers to use to accomplish the tasks.

The first task is organisational and involves setting the direction and fixing the rules for implementation. The second is setting up the team. Teams are key to success, so the firm needs to select the most appropriate team for the type of innovation.

Task three involves working with customers as co-creators. “You get much more mileage by working with the right customers at the right time than by suddenly popping up and saying: ‘Here’s our bright and shiny new thing, how do you like it?’” Midgley says.

Once the goal has been defined, the right team selected, and a solution defined that meets a strong customer need, the fourth task is to make the necessary organisational changes to deliver the solution. This is especially true for service or business model innovations.

The fifth task is to build momentum in the market for the solution. Managers need to design and create markets for innovations with a thorough understanding of how customers accept or reject them, which is something companies don’t always do right.

For example, the personal digital assistant (PDA) was a highly innovative product which flopped when it was first introduced by Apple, Tandy and Motorola. These companies didn’t choose the right target customer to get the market moving, nor did they understand how these customers would get best value out of the innovation. As a result, all three companies ended up emphasizing the wrong features of the product.

Palm then introduced essentially the same product but, by studying how their customers would use it, the company was able to market a feature with a strong customer appeal. In the end, their highly successful version of the PDA sold in the millions.

By Robert Goldsmith
For more on the Innovation Manual, go to: www.theinnovationmanual.com

[This article is republished courtesy of INSEAD Knowledge http://knowledge.insead.edu Copyright INSEAD 2008]

Original Forbes.com link is available here.

Be LEAN .. this year !

 

In last few days I have been fortunate enough to participate in the workshop for LEAN service framework. And thus, I am trying to share my experiences and learning on LEAN here.

The LEAN framework originates from the manufacturing system developed by Toyota called Toyota Production System [TPS] that pursues the principle of optimum streamlining throughout the entire system through the thorough elimination of waste and aims to build quality in at the manufacturing process while recognizing the principle of [ongoing] cost reduction. It also includes all the accompanying technology & tools necessary to accomplish those aims.  [Reference .. here]

The process that Toyota developed for Just-in-time production was called TPS until 1990. MIT researchers tossed the term LEAN in their 1990 book called “The Machine that Changed the World” to describe the principles of Toyota Production System. Thereafter, of course, the process was known to the world as LEAN Service Framework.

In a nutshell,

LEAN is an integrated system of principles, work practices & processes that empowers the operational users to drive the relentless pursuit of perfect customer value creation. 

Although LEAN was innovated and started in the manufacturing industry and especially at Toyota, it, over the years grown out of the manufacturing industry and into other verticals, not to mention the IT/BPO industry.

LEAN underpins 5 principles in the framework as follows,

 

Lean Principles

 

 

 

  • Eliminate Waste – As per the LEAN principles, the waste could be due to the idle time spent by the employees waiting for work, or spending extra hours to exceed customer expectations (without customer asking for it), excessive testing etc., activities and all such activities that do not add add direct value to the customers.
  • Eliminate Variability – This talks more about complexity of the work within the team. LEAN suggests eliminating the variability of work done by the employees so that activities & individual performances are streamlined to carry out typical activities. This also talks about the external work that comes within such as ticket trend, business requirements etc., and suggests to streamline.
  • Eliminate Inflexibility – This suggest more about the resources capacity and the work segmentation and align the efforts and create skill pools so as to better utilize the knowledge, performance & work practices against repetitive / common tasks.
  • Performance Management – LEAN suggests to compute the performance of the individuals as well as the team and making the results publish to the individuals / teams and discuss with them on a regular basis. LEAN recommends that regular performance discussions enhances the team morale, gives them goal to enhance performances etc.,
  • Involvement of workers – LEAN, more than a process is more of a philosophy and change in the thinking of the workforce and suggest to have the workforce participate and understand these principles so they themselves are aware of the waste being created around they can eliminate themselves.

 

Many IT companies have implemented LEAN successfully. IBM has been doing the LEAN implementation for the customers since last 3+ years. Over the years, being LEAN organization has been a selling point for the IT vendors and equally the customers have been demanding. 

The benefits of LEAN include reduce waste, reduction of inventory costs, cross trained employees, reduced cycle time & obsolescence, high quality & reliability and may more.

 

This, of course was a drop in the ocean of the knowledge of the LEAN framework, even for me. If you are interested in knowing more and reading more, suggesting the following reading

Principles of LEAN Thinking

Lean Manufacturing  &  Lean Software Development

What is LEAN?

Benefits of LEAN

LEAN – The Machine that changed the world !

Bye the way, if you have read the above carefully, the following video might tell you something.  Have a look (with audio ON) and let me know what you think ?

 

Caltex – going extra mile !

Technology for business .. or vice versa?

This is the post I recollected from my very very early days of blogging (read year 2003) and was in response to one of the debates we had in our group of office colleagues.

I guess pretty much I said that time about 6 years ago looks rubbish to me now anyways .. however I guess there are still a few valid points :-)

So here is how I went on my old blog.

Technology for Business

Some Cons against "Technology for Experiment" ….

  • Industry is never driven by only "Technology". The needs of the business generates the need for "Technology". So, lets first identify the facts of business, so called " Business Verticals" and divide the tasks for those verticals rather than the "Technology Horizontals".
  • The industry is continuously changing, becoming more cautious about the spending and cost/benefit analysis for the organizations.
  • The time has gone when the companies use to spend lots n lots of dollars just to change the look n feel of some of their useless sites just for the sake of "New Technology Adoption".
  • The expectations of the business from the IT companies have grown up to very high standards because of very competitive market and clear division of the market on the basis of the "Business Verticals".
  • Technology is a "Short Living" thing. On an average a technology becomes old within first 3 months of its origin.
  • The real challenge lies in "Foresight" predicting the way the IT will go in next say 5-10 years and act accordingly.
  • Only "Technology" really lacks in attracting more business now a days. e.g. A "beverage" organization will think twice before implement an XML standard even if you have done some significant work for some "finance sector" client, but on the other hand if we stick to the vertical then its not a big deal to attract more and more clients, at least through something called "Domain Experience".
  • The market is globally getting very tough and only the "Survival of the Fittest" is the only thing that is fact.
  • Admit the fact that a company can not compete and win a project against another one who is working in a particular domain for say last 5 years. e.g. Company A is technically very very sound. Company B is comparatively not so much but company B is very strong in its (say) Finance domain and working for it since last 5-6 years. Both are bidding for a Finance client…… you are intelligent enough to guess who is the ultimate winner.
  • Finally if you feel we are not intelligent enough to judge the battle. Look for the giants like "SAP", "Microsoft", "IBM" are doing to their products. Every giant has a product for a business verticals and virtually admitting that the industry is getting split vertically.

Some Pros for the "Technology" ..

  • Technology keeps the industry live.
  • Despite of various things it is still a fact that over 100 companies are still alive only because someone like Microsoft or IBM are developing more technologies and relative products.
  • Technology keeps your knowledge grow at a fast pace (I have used a word Knowledge and that does not mean Business).
  • Finally Its really a fun learning new technologies…..

 

Might have been an interesting debate really. Do not recollect enough as to what made me write this but looking at this … must have been a fun !

Cheerio

World of Web 2.0

I found the following photo via Stumbleupon and I was really really impressed with the work done by the author for creating this picture of social networks and various Web 2.0 technologies used in the world.

This is really impressive piece of art.  Full credit to Brian Solis & JESS3 for their work and I take my hats off for them. 

World of Web2.0

Copyright: Brian Solis & JESS3

I am sharing the above picture under the Creative Commons License and if you want to copy this, please do so under the same.

There is another work of art done by AJ Batac on http://eggnyte.com/ and that is also very good. However, I like the one mentioned above because it segregates the portals based on their usage / category and its easy to map to your needs.

worldofweb20_webfront

Again, the above URL is copyright of AJ Batac and is shared under Creative Commons License and I am sharing the same under the license. This is also a very good work by the author and must be acknowledged. 

Also, if you want to search your favourite site within the world of web 2.0, you can do so by visiting the site http://www.go2web20.net/. This is a search engine for finding out and discovering the sites based on their tags. So off you go and find out your on useful sites of web 2.0

Please respect the copyright and enjoy the world of Web 2.0

Outcome based results & individual accountability

Whilst on the lunch table today, one of my colleagues in other project mentioned the possibility of our company introducing the performance based accountability factor in one’s salary and pay cheque and I was really stunned with the way things are now going downwards..!

Essentially the point my colleague was making that there are discussions happening within the organization to make individual more accountable by introducing ‘fines’ against someone who would make mistake while implementing the product or change that would eventually lead to any monetary losses to the company. This is probably something that was never heard of for the permanent employees, possibly has happened and happens for contractors though !

I think this may or may not be a wise step to do, especially within the Production Support and Application Support environment where teams are expected to work 24×7 under a pressure cooker scenario.

If taken in a right spirit (which normally does not happen), it may help keep the people on their toes whilst doing the critical job and make them extra cautious and avoid obvious mistakes. I am afraid, it might turn out to be a disaster if individual people are blamed and put to sword, in front of other colleagues, it might turn them off and leave them demoralized. Its like dishonouring individual’s contribution to the projects, however successful, if they make one single mistake.

I remember one incident in the past that happened with one the other projects where one of the DBAs accidently deleted few tables from Production database instead of the pre-production environment. This led to the production portal being down for 3 consecutive days whilst the recovery was ongoing in background from backups etc. This issue, forever left a blemish on his career and he was always perceived as ‘the person’ who took production down, rather than how good this person was and what previous contribution he made in the projects.  He was immediately sacked from his role and probably had left the company as a consequence.

Whilst, I am in favour of stronger accountability across the management chain and down to the individual, I am strongly against putting the blame on one single individual or a group of team members who work day / night to ensure that the project stays on track and the product is delivered on time. Normally the rewards are taken by the management, if the team does brilliantly, but all the issues and problems cascade to the down-most possible level of organizational hierarchy. 

In my opinion, the people within organizational chain, who are directly involved in the outcome of the project, should all take their share of blame.  However, traditionally what is seen in the organizations (as depicted in the picture below), the accountability of the project lies most with the lowest leagued people, whereas the bonuses earned by Sr. Management are the highest !

Accountability-Bonuses

Picture – Traditional models for accountability vs year end bonuses paid !

Whilst I do not want to make any recommendations with regards to the suggested model for introducing the ‘fines’ to individuals, I think the blame should be shared with all those people who are directly involved in making the project success. Be it the person who is developing it, the one who is doing quality check, the one who is project managing it, the one who is actually implementing it and of course the people who are providing infrastructure to make whole thing work !

As usual, rest is left to you to think and make your own judgement !