How often do you pause for thought, testing yourself, questioning even simply for ‘just those few minutes,’  to allow yourself to openly challenge where you are and what you are attempting to do?

We keep relentlessly moving on, like a wandering herd of buffalo, always looking for fresh pasture, those new feeding grounds. It’s not good; we often hear and see things differently when we find the time to stand still.

Do you let those moments go? Do you ignore them, quickly pass over them, attempt to capture the issue as something worth investigating later, or just get them behind you in the here and now? We often do need to slow down and figure it out there and then.

Of course, I often get caught up in this restless pursuit of gathering more when I spend a growing amount of my time researching innovation. I keep coming across so many things that ‘trigger’ the thinking, pushing me to feel I am more often the “hunter-gatherer.”

By long-term habit, I keep reverting more into a hunter-gatherer, in my case, upon innovation insights, collecting the raw material that I am looking to translate and distribute as this growing knowledge stock eventually.

The outcome of appreciating both “reflective” moments and collecting more understanding I trust is moving me slowly towards becoming an innovation curator who, hopefully, is valued by others. Well, it’s a goal of mine.

I also regularly need what I call my ‘walkabout’ moments to chill out and regroup.

Walkabout is best known when an Australian Aborigine undergoes a journey, wandering in the wilderness for periods as long as six or so months.

This wandering mostly becomes a rite of passage; in my case, my walkabouts are aimed to move my innovation understanding from one state to another, hopefully improving what I have learnt and gathered.

I have so often to force myself to stop being a collector of ‘all things new’ that is written about innovation. I keep attempting to put as many of the existing pieces together, searching for the patterns and insights, trying to make a different sense of them, to add further to the innovation stock and innovation capital.

Craving for the innovative open road

I do like the idea of an open road on where we can go and what we might explore. Still, we actually do need to take some time to choose the routes, even when much of it can be serendipitous, as it has to contribute ‘just’ beyond knowledge into something valuable.

In our investigations, we need to watch out for all the signs (not necessarily signposts)  along the way, those signals, patterns and emerging trends as we both search the horizon but equally in fully appreciating what is all around us, as we travel building our understanding on that journey.

I often feel I am a journeyman and am undoubtedly comfortable with that.
I have to admit I am a happy man playing in my innovation sandpit, linking these thoughts into emerging solutions to tackle some client problems, move innovation along or answer some questions posed.

I work on these for others on given value propositions around the following: “you need someone who can put clear coordinates into the innovation world“.

I keep moving towards this concept of being a curator of innovation, collecting and distributing it, interpreting it, and re-ordering it to meet specific needs. To do this, I must keep up a given rhythm, filtering and funnelling, dampening or magnifying this growing knowledge around innovation.

 “Time starved, knowledge poor,” so when do we gain the luxury to think

When do we find the time to really delve into the necessary understanding of innovation in more profound and valuable ways? We are often just ‘reacting to daily issues’ and constant crises as we focus on delivering short-term results.

We lack a space to explore thoughtful analysis, deepen our knowledge and make all the right connections we would ideally like. We lack time and insights that can give more significant direction or answers.

We need those personal ‘curated’ spaces where our particular interest builds up in the required knowledge (collect, manage and apply) to be then able to build from this and move on to the following knowledge stream of value to you. We never find the ongoing opportunity to alter our innovation understanding and influence our future delivery.

What would help here? Is it innovation coaching, mentoring, providing an innovative knowledge platform, a place to go and find content-rich insights that yield impact and give a renewed intensity? What would be attractive? What would give to your understanding of innovation and its management?

How does one offer such a personal space where you can draw in the knowledge and interpret it appropriately to meet your innovation goals? Ideas that give you new creative thoughts, a fresh new way to tackle a problem or that brilliant moment, often called the “light bulb moment”, where you hit upon something completely different, and it changes what we presently know.

Walkabouts to give you personal time and space. They are so valuable to seek out and enjoy.

*Updating a previous post on Walkabouts

The post Innovation Walkabouts we all need for learning and testing ourselves first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

“Opening up our thinking towards ecosystems will have a powerful effect,

it alters the way we will approach problems today and in the future,

ecosystems offer a greater potential for collaborative growth, impact and sustaining innovating value”

Our understanding of innovation is changing; we are evaluating and changing our existing focus from closed (internal orientation) into open and far more collaborative innovation (external orientation), with our collective thinking offering the acceleration into improving our innovation performances, leading to higher chances of achieving greater impact and success.

The search is seemingly on to find greater value, which will increasingly coalesce around different innovation ecosystems. In many different ways, we need to form significantly more relationships that increasingly matter to each organization, add value and insight, and bring external expertise inside to work on ‘greater’ innovation solutions.

We are creating the potential to deliver innovative products and services that would not be delivered by only having one organization attempting it. Complexity is on the rise, offering discrete products is on the wane. Collaboration and Co-creation across diverse organizations sharing a common purpose are needed far more today to break through and provide new innovating solutions.

Firstly why are business ecosystems emerging as a real competitive force?

As we begin to open up our thinking and begin to focus on the concept of ecosystems, it will increasingly have a powerful effect on our future growth perspectives in considering alternatives and possibilities. Different partners’ networks will all contribute to this often ‘emergent’ thinking and quickly increase the total sum of the value.

The single industry and business-specific approach are seeing change; many companies are exploring the value of becoming involved in a business ecosystem that crosses a variety of industries to build new communities that have the capacity to transform existing environments.

One has to recall the famous rallying call of Nokia when Apple emerged: “the battle of devices (Nokia’s late recognition) has now become a war of building the better ecosystem.” It is not one single product that is chased in crowded, highly competitive fields. We are looking to increase the share of minds, engagement, and increasing preferences reflecting these changing habits, tastes, and lifestyles. To plugin to achieve this paradigm shift,’ the search is on forming the ecosystem or set of ecosystems that can deliver on this ‘transformation’ going on in front of our eyes.

The realization becomes one of embracing innovation ecosystems.

Today, this growing realization that thinking ecosystems allow for a new frame and mindset that taps into different and diverse relationships, partnerships, alliances, and collaborations unthinkable without the enablers to make these connections through technology and more open platforms, you can come together and collaborate.

The increasing value of participating in ecosystems allows for large and small organizations to create, scale, and serve markets in ways unimaginable previously. The ability to interact and co-create in increasingly sophisticated and novel ways opens up new opportunities. These ecosystems form a bond of shared interest, recognition, and purpose, which quickly becomes established as the new ‘commons’ in sharing and contributing.

So the challenge is for organizations to think differently.

Firstly, thinking about ecosystems allows you to go out of normal scope; it allows you to open up your thinking to exploring the unimaginable of the past and transform this past ‘norm’ into the practice of your future. We see that the most valuable companies emerging today are largely based on sophisticated platform business models where ecosystems are vital to their health.

There is a caveat to this need to change.

The more disruptive you seek to make your solution, the more the ecosystem must be shaped, changed, or created. Ecosystems are hard, demanding and complex work. If you commit to having an ecosystem design, be ready to challenge everything, and most probably, you will end up changing everything!

Placing a new product in an existing ecosystem, or worse, ignoring the ecosystem and expected total solution, means your product or service will have little impact and will become a commodity quickly. The “dependence” factor, the inter-relationship dependence is there as it builds around your basic concept; it builds the connected value.

Shaping or introducing a new ecosystem is not easy but transforms competition; it provides distinct competitive and customer propositions. Also, by thinking about ecosystems and platforms and equally developing the understanding of the seamless total solution that the customer expects, these necessary innovation ecosystems will emerge as innovation centres of the future.

Engagement in ecosystem system relationships and purposeful collaborative design ‘signals’ the amount of innovation that must be done on the product or service and the channel, the business model, and building and exploiting all the relationships within the network to make it distinctive and valuable.

Innovation needs to move into this different connected era. Is innovation software solutions facing the innovators dilemma in what it offers today? We need to integrate our collective thinking to break down complex challenges and find lasting, sustainable solutions that offer a distinctive difference from what we currently know.

Ecosystems are powerful; if you are not so comfortable with what this would mean, there is no better opportunity to begin finding out.

• 1st published in February 2021 on LinkedIn, updated for this post

The post The power of ecosystem thinking for resolving the innovation complexity of today first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

In my research, I am getting a real sense that the current Innovation Management Software model is about to be upended and disrupted as per Clayton Christensens’ “Innovators Dilemma.” 

The book the “Innovation Dilemma” published in 2016 was written by innovation expert Clayton Christensen suggesting even though even the most outstanding companies can do everything right–yet still lose market leadership.

Christensen explains why most companies miss out on new waves of innovation. No matter the industry, he says, a successful company with established products will get pushed aside unless managers know how and when to abandon traditional business practices.

Today if the technology software solutions are not advancing and adapting to new ways of building open, collaborative exchanges across not just a single organization but multiple ones. This need of all coming together to co-create, often solving more complex problems, ideas are lost or not being spotted by the incumbents and over time, others recognize these “blind spots” will present opportunities to offer new approaches to solve problems.

In this book it expands on the concept of disruptive technologies, a term Christensen coined in a 1995 in an article “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave”. It describes how large incumbent companies lose market share by listening to their customers and providing what appear to be the highest-value products, but new companies that serve low-value customers with poorly developed technology can improve that technology incrementally until it is good enough to quickly take market share from the established business. (source Wikipeda)

Today the reversal is happening.

New companies can gain access to robust technology quickly, piece it together and launch alternatives that reflect a more relevant, current and needed set of solutions.

Within the Innovation Management Software space, two good examples I came across in this past week, emerging to “confront” the established provider of innovation software services may be the tip of this iceberg that has been under the surface for some time.

The shifting towards Ecosystems for Innovation

Firstly in an article written by Trevor Gorden on mini-ecosystems “Can an Innovation Management System Help with Experimenting with Mini-Ecosystems?” by arguing innovation management platforms could play a critical role in supporting co-creation through mini-ecosystems. By providing a central place for stakeholders to collaborate and exchange ideas, organisations can more effectively drive co-creation and innovation, both internally and externally.

I found that intriguing for equally supporting the dynamics of ecosystems .of ecosystems

He referenced Hypsous (https://www.hypsous.com/) plus I came across another one that is building a Business Intelligence Platform for Neuro Innovation Software. They are based in Zurich and Paris and only beginning to gain momentum from starting up, I think mid-last year (https://bluecallom.com/) but are challenging how we “think” innovation and the solutions we need

I like some of the movement going on, I was spending time on QMarkets (https://www.qmarkets.net/) and digging a little deeper into what and where they are evolving too.

I believe each of the established leading innovation software providers must be looking at how they can adapt (or die)

I feel those “stuck” in providing innovation management software in incremental components are about to be taken out unless they move from their current BM. I wrote an article “Where will innovation management software go? On this recently.

I think we are a point of disruption of the existing providers of innovation software, with a refreshing group of experimenters getting the importance of AI, Intelligence, Platforms and Clouds, Network building and open collaborations, exploring and finding new ways to combine these

The customer needs are for greater innovation change that brings significant new value and impact.

Why the needs of organizations are not achieving the level of impact, growth or transformational innovation they need, they are struggling to break out of their current straight jacket of open innovation into a greater collaborative, sharing, networking environment where partners are coming together looking to work on solving greater complexity or have growing visibility.

Innolead recently released a new Benchmarking Innovation Impact report, co-authored with KPMG with plenty of good insights but a few big nuggets where the innovation teams were struggling to get leadership excited about the (innovation) vision, a growing worry over improving alignment around innovation is an urgent priority” and the most worrying- the significant drop-off, in general, over three recent surveys, a decrease in focus on transformational — or Horizon 3 — work. Innovators reading this report should start worrying about how to get back the impact and value new innovation needs to deliver.

Yet, the one I pick up upon is “The Pain Points of External Innovation.” This points towards the trend that all big companies are trying to figure out how to access that external innovation more effectively. Be that through working with start-ups, collaborating, venturing, consortiums etc., etc. I think of more open, collective innovation where diversity of opinion, greater knowledge and intelligence can contribute to ideas and concepts towards new innovation.

The report link “Benchmarking innovation impact from InnoLead” by @innolead and @KPMG_US does offer an excellent stimulating overview that still reflects on so much of what still needs to be done in the innovation world.

I was asking in a fairly lengthy article on this benchmarking report: “are organizations becoming more risk-averse or organizations settling for less out of the innovation work? Is that due to it being “too risky” or the appetite for change, is less but due to what? This needs more investigation.

I believe most of the innovation we do should be placed on a “burning platform.”

Where does innovation software fit in this set of worrying indicators?

Is software solutions recognizing the growing dissatisfaction that seems to be a growing trend coming from this sort of benchmarking taking place?

Am I right? Arguably time will tell but more importantly, new Software providers coming on stream show that classic bottom-up thinking and recognition that there is a need to challenge the existing business model as constraints to make innovation more compelling might be partly held back by the technology application or lack of it, inside organizations.

The tipping point is where a threshold or boiling point arrives for a more radical change to occur. Here it might come when the trust of customers and their needs for innovation software begins to be questioned. Do their present arrangements and the internal worry over staying relevant within the organization to shift the dynamics? Is there this growing recognition that renewing the increasing licence agreements, and that specific model is constraining? Is constantly trying to justify increased budgets for adding more licence fees in exchange for a “snail’s pace” of new module releases making future sense? When the innovator continues not to connect up the whole of the ‘needs to innovate’ must start questioning existing arrangements. A new solution model needs to be found.

When does the reluctance of the innovating team give way to try and convince senior management to recognize that change is needed and all the significant “invested ” legacy gets taken away and replaced by the search and scouting for different connected software solutions?

Migrating to new technology, platforms, and software solutions has become commonplace across the core of organizations’ business operating solutions.

Innovation software solutions need to be fully integrated across organization operating solutions, this gives greater visibility into the innovation (black) box, it opens it up to a wider audience of participants that can offer input and new insights, it enables a closer alignment to measure and assess innovation progress by management and a host of other “productivity and effectiveness” gains.

If there are ways for the transfer of data and ease of change to become “manageable” if the incentive of better technology, greater transfer of exchanges, data and insight exchanges becomes well laid out.

Timing, all depends on the possible alternatives and ease of transfer. Selling new software solutions to an organization is slow and demanding. Internally the need for compatibility, for security, for being sold that this new solution provides greater productivity, and access to creativity and offers a platform of better solutions than the current ones needs a powerful enabler for making the change.

Solving many of the past restrictions of keeping software inside the organization, constantly being updated is by having solutions in the cloud, built on platforms of “trusted” providers like AWS, SAP or Azure and achieving greater interoperability of software components to talk to each other and scale. Updates are more automatic and not requiring constant renegotiation of licence fees. Ones that do not get locked into restrictive licence practices of software providers but offer greater pay-as-you-go and data storage and broader and deeper analytical abilities to leverage the intelligence being collected and evaluated for new innovative concepts.

Are we about to see this or is this still caught in a market design where one provider against another has little incentive to make the change?

The key is the application of disruptive technology and new approaches, for me that means the application of ecosystem thinking and technology platform designs.

Any thoughts? Am I “wistfully thinking or sensing the shift winds? Are we seeing disruptive forces coming into play in the Innovation Management Software industry, simply because there is a better approach through applying this Ecosystem thinking and design in offering a more productive and scaling solution that enables greater collaboration? I think we are in need of change, as we have the technology converging to make this happen. Do you agree there are “winds of change within the innovation software solutions?”

The post Innovation Software, is it facing the Innovators Dilemma? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

I have always welcomed the KPMG LLP-sponsored InnoLead benchmarking report; this is for the third year.

I received a note from Scott Kirsner, who leads the team at Innolead, and he offered me a chance to read the report before its official release today at 12 PM ET time and suggested I can post anytime, so here goes. This is longer as a post as this benchmarking report brings out a lot in my view.

This report provides a definitive innovation benchmarking document for leaders in strategy, R&D, design, and other innovation roles inside large organizations. It includes survey data, interviews with senior executives, and perspectives from KPMG leaders.

The report link “Benchmarking innovation impact from InnoLead” by @innolead and @KPMG_US does offer an excellent stimulating overview that still reflects on so much of what still needs to be done in the innovation world.

The report, as suggested in the opening Welcome by Cliff Justice, U.S. Leader, Enterprise Innovation at KPMG, does provide a variety of ideas and considerations for those seeking innovation understanding.

What was collected was 216 qualified survey responses from professionals working predominantly in innovation, research and development, and strategy roles, and conducted eight interviews with senior leaders at companies across a wide range of industries, including Colgate-Palmolive, Mastercard, NASCAR, and Entergy, the New Orleans-based utility operator.

All of the survey data was gathered in Q4 2022, and the interviews were conducted in Q4 2022 and Q1 2023, at a moment when many companies were still navigating decisions related to how they would use physical spaces to support innovation activity; absorbing predictions about a potential recession; and finalizing plans for 2023

There are many key questions every innovation leader and C-Suite executive is asking consistently, such as:
• How do we help to ensure that our innovation teams are set up for success?
• What can we do to build our innovation capabilities for the future?
• How does our innovation team compare to innovation teams at other companies?

To help meet these challenges, this report provides you with a meaningful understanding of some of the critical topics related to innovation: Budget and Resources, Collaboration and Spaces, Focus and Activities, and Challenges and Enablers.

Let me pick up on a number of points I gleaned from this report

Today it is increasingly hard to get leadership attention, grappling with threats of recession, inflation, supply chain breakdowns and an increasingly hostile world to operate it.

The job of the innovating team, as mentioned, is certainly “getting leadership excited about the vision” to continue to attract additional resources (money and people) and show the makeup of the key enablers of innovation success.

I was struck and somewhat surprised by how different the approaches to innovation success and its management seemed to be.

You can argue they might be at different points in time perhaps, but as most of these were mature, large global companies, I would have expected a greater commonality of what, why and where they were focusing, working on.

It raises the question of where can Innovation Management Software go ever to broaden out, and gain a scale and adoption momentum to support these (individual) efforts significantly.

Is it the innovating teams just within the innovation teams they create what they believe is the right approach in their opinion but I would wonder are these might be missing a well-defined, well-structured, systematic process of innovation? More on that later.

Is innovation actually an urgent priority?

I come at the summary differently to a key question asked; “improving alignment around innovation is an urgent priority” but treating innovation activities in the way this seemingly comes across lacks the transparency for others to look (deep) inside, and does it then have the rigour, structures, systems in place.

It strikes me it is very individual, perhaps too closed within the individual innovation teams, and do they “burn up” more time convincing others as it is not as transparent as it should be?

Innovation needs to be accessible and transparent to not just all involved in the process but countless others involved in the ultimate decision-making.

A point that might confirm this is the feeling they have less access to senior leadership, fewer opportunities for spontaneous interactions and a growing “loss of creativity” from too many structured meetings” – I assume within the team or is this in the wider organization?

Creating a new context for innovation needs bigger goals.

I then picked up on the “Creating a new context for innovation” I do tend to rile if I feel the next “shiny object” or talking point (such as ChatGPT) gets a deflection from the need for innovation delivery.

One point made was “we’re very intrigued by the prospects of Web3 and of the metaverse, and we’ve dipped a toe into those waters over the past 12 to 24 months“.

Now I might be taking this the wrong way to make my point but “intrigued”, or “dipping a toe” makes me puzzled about this. Is this a deflection from the need to stay on track or is this simple curiosity. Investing time needs a clear purpose not just to individuals but to potentially different outcomes. Equally in recognizing and knowing about these areas of future impact will be I incorporated perhaps so being aware readies managers to get management’s attention and approval to investigate further as it can have different impact?

I am always guilty of investing time in the potential tools, technologies and concepts that might lead to a different future, too much and sometimes forget the immediate need. Investigation is within all of our job remits but how much, at what cost and what benefit to the jobs on hand. Apologies if I might have felt uncomfortable on this point or misunderstood it in the way it seemingly came across

Also, I felt some concern about a reoccurring attitude of innovators. I often here caught up in the seemingly never-ending testing, further prototypes or experiment cycles that stay locked inside the organization, with a comment like this one from the report: “whether there was a scale in that or revenue in that was not really ever the goal. It was exploratory; it was more understanding where we might be able to fit in”.

I hope I am not reading into this report more than I should, but I sense a lack of “real drive” to achieve innovation, but I do hope I am wrong here. Are we experimenting for the sake of it?

I believe most of the innovation we do should be placed on a “burning platform.”

Downshifts on transformation innovation– a really worrying trend

The worry in the report is the significant drop-off, in general, over three recent surveys, we’ve seen a decrease in focus on transformational — or Horizon 3 — work.

That is a worry, is it organizations becoming more risk-averse or organizations settling for less out of the innovation work? Is that due to it being “too risky” or the appetite for change, is less but due to what? This needs more investigation.

The importance of welcoming diverse thought.

With regard to a physical, prototyping, or collaboration space dedicated to innovation…How frequently does your organization use its innovation space(s)?

In the interview section with Robert Long at Chief R&D Officer of Kimberly-Clark, he focused on the Innovation that Meets the Consumer.

He explains, “Diversity of thought is most relevant [because] we have a lot of segmentation among consumers, and you want your technology to meet the needs of the maximum number of consumers possible”.

He comments: “We would like our workforce to look like our consumer base because we believe a workforce representing the consumer base is likely to get the maximum appeal within that consumer base. But when it comes to the actual dynamics in the culture, it’s really important to create a safe space for everyone to bring their lived experiences. … These experiences shaped how you look at the world.“

“Gender, age, and ethnic diversity bring a collective set of experiences that no individual can bring to the table alone. So, as we’re looking to satisfy a broad array of consumers, having those perspectives is very helpful“

KPMG offered their thoughts on space, diversity and interactions

KPMG is investing significantly in engaging, multisensory physical spaces— called Ignition Centers—that offer bespoke in-person interactions that are strategic and purposeful. Our growing network of Ignition Centers curates key elements of accelerated, outcome-focused innovation: visionary thinking, advanced technology capabilities, teaming and collaboration, data-driven analysis, opportunities for experimentation, and insight-based decision-making.

Sessions engage the senses, appealing equally to visual, kinesthetic, auditory, and verbal learners. Distraction-free interactions foster effective collaboration and authentic teaming. Advanced tools and data accessibility deliver relevant insights that would take weeks to achieve in the virtual world.

I totally concur. I feel that seeking diversity, finding and fully using dedicated spaces, the critical importance of face-to-face interactions etc., are really important to building out “breakthrough” innovation and the world needs these.

As KPMG point out, research supports their experience, showing that solving complex problems takes collaboration among key thinkers and focused time to work through details.

This is perhaps one of those areas we have forgotten, forced to change due to the pandemic but having time, space, and attracting a diversity of opinion into a dedicated room for a two to three-day period to begin to really break down complex problems might allow “transformational innovation” to begin to go back on the rise. Both of these parts of the report have great building or reflecting points to them.

Yet, the one I pick up upon is “The Pain Points of External Innovation.”

I think it is a trend that all big companies are trying to figure out how to access that external innovation more effectively. Be that through working with start-ups, collaborating, venturing, consortiums etc., etc.

This is, for me, the insight (or confirmation). The part towards the end of “Six Questions to Get on the Same Page with Your CEO.”

It is Q5 that is my main point of focus, as this points towards my belief that the innovation management system needs changing.

The advice is given here: “Innovating with impact requires an ecosystem of diverse tools, people, capabilities, partners, and insights — not a group of technologists operating in a bubble. It requires a global and local network, macro and micro, internal and external. A network that comprises stakeholders and collaborators, with input from industry and functional players, innovation champions, startup communities, academia, customers, and investors, among others. New ideas and solutions, inside and out, must be incubated and accelerated while the organization provides incentives and opportunities to bring innovative concepts to fruition.”

I believe we are not opening up to Innovation Ecosystems’ thinking and designs. We are simply keeping innovation inside the closed loop of the organization. I have increased my focus on Innovation Ecosystems and, within a dedicated posting site, www.ecosystems4innovating.com.

I make a case for opening up and embracing ecosystems. Such posts build this view out, such as “Building Ecosystem Thinking and Design” and “Thinking about Innovation Ecosystems” opens up the arguments for making a (radical) change to managing innovation.

If we can embrace “ecosystem thinking and design” you will find “diversity” far more than “just” within one company, you will gain more “creative space”, and you will be pushing harder for “results” as the transparency in a good ecosystem design forces the pace as more collaborators have vested interest and increasing “skin in the game.”

The point made of “Hey, we need different capabilities to deliver new solutions in the future.” suggested by Erin Spring, Senior Director of Material Science, does sort of feeds into my point of focus about opening up our thinking towards Innovation Ecosystems.

Two additional insights I briefly touch upon from the report

Firstly the discussion with Steve Dertien, Chief Technology Officer of PTC and their use of the Geoffrey Moore model, “zone to win.” I found this a great structure for different innovation “buckets.” There’s an
incubation zone, a transformation zone, and a productivity zone. It is worth picking up on Geoffrey Moores’s books around his thinking.

Secondly, I did like Ann Tracy. the Chief Sustainability Office Colgate-Palmolive with their ‘SWORDS AND SHIELDS where they use the analogy of swords and shields… “Our strategy has 11 big actions with over 50 targets, ranging from environmental actions to social actions to product-specific actions. By “sword,” we mean what are the actions where we want to really lead and be known for it? The actions which are the “shields” are what we have to do because there’s a barrier to entry or reputational risk if we don’t do it. Those areas where we want to lead… we believe can be communicated in the right way to our brands to help them grow. I liked this.

Innovation is being tackled, but is it still too ad-hoc?

This benchmarking report does prompt many different aspects of how organizations are tackling innovation. I do think we really need to get seriously under the current innovation hood of Ideate, Refine and Initiate or what other simple moniker and recognize innovation struggles to get the attention of the Board, it constantly lacks resources (people, funds) as it has still not become a core within an organization.

I leave you this set of thoughts, partly triggered by this benchmarking report.

How are we getting ready for the challenges yet to come? how and why? Challenging times (yes), Budget pressures (yes), pushing the boundaries (yes, but how). We simply have not organized and invested in all the tools, structures, and processes to do the job innovators are asked to do. What we need is to equip all innovators for the changing future, and that is still not, in the vast majority, in the present way we are undertaking innovation. We are holding the true potential of innovation back!

The report link “Benchmarking innovation impact from InnoLead” by @innolead and @KPMG_US does offer an excellent stimulating overview that still reflects on so much of what still needs to be done in the innovation world.

Innolead asks that you not republish or post this report in its entirety; if you quote from it or reference it, then please credit InnoLead and KPMG. To access prior InnoLead research reports, visit innolead.com/research.

The report released on 7th February 2023 and is a © 2023 Innovation Leader LLC. All rights reserved.

The post Benchmarking Innovation Impact, from InnoLead first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

We are possibly at a series of inflexion points in our current business environment. Here’s one you will be required to address.

What seems to be occurring increasingly in many different market spaces is defining an opportunity that directly impacts the current status quo and then seeking to make some radical moves to achieve that differentiation. Technology is a fundamental disrupter or enabler; it is the catalyst for making this change.

Markets are changing significantly, and collaboration and partnerships are rapidly forming and coalescing around the concept of Ecosystem thinking and Platform design. This potentially is a radically different business entity design.

These might already be happening around you, changing the accepted market space or definition. Still, you are reluctant to recognize their impact or be ready to make the level of change needed to ‘ready yourself’ for all the potential disruption or different thinking these Business Ecosystem designs require and bring. Shifting to a different business model or business design is hard, complicated and systematic work. The last thing it needs is to be rushed.

So often, we all get caught out by looking at market conditions through the established lens and not the different ones we need. So often, the entrenched player, who has so much vested interest and legacy, chooses to ignore the growing reality. Often it is simply “the fears of the unknowns.“

The emergence of Business Ecosystems is one of those potential areas to understand the future impact.

The emergence of Business Ecosystems ( links to my dedicated Ecosystem posting site) is upon us; it is coming in different ways and at different speeds. The underlying technology platform (backbone) forms the growth engine of transactions that lead to discovery, creativity and new value creation. Transaction in knowledge exchange and flows, partnership collaborations or access to common applications and process designs. It has the necessary right platform that scales and can adapt.

It recognizes the change in business model, changing how we operate and what and how we focus in different, more open ways that need pulling together; otherwise, others will steal the momentum and the market shifts, and you are left behind—the market reforms around a different type of solution that offers greater value to the buyer.

Ecosystems will change the nature of business activities. Let me take four of these:

• Ecosystems will have the potential to expand capabilities and enable experiences beyond anything possible today in the present world that most of our business organizations operate in, ones that are operating in their own ‘disconnected’ world, internally focused, constrained by limited technology connection and resources.
• Ecosystems open up the world. They connect it for richer access to diversity and different sets of discoveries not possible within one organization’s current capabilities or capacities. It is highly collaborative and interactive.
• Gaining a network of thriving relationships. This very nature of opening up, interacting, and building a growing relationship interdependence is driving the new innovation potential. One is looking to create and explore new greater business value by acting and collaborating together, having a position appreciating common and shared goals, which offers the potential for outcomes to be greater than the sum of the individual parts.
• An urgent need to coalesce around complex challenges. As our world becomes more complex, ecosystems offer ways to coalesce around those sorts of challenges, bringing together within the ecosystem community the potential to build, solve, share and exchange goals and concepts that help solve these complexities,  achieved in highly collaborative ways.

Tackling potentially disruptive business models, changing revenue streams, and the process of how to operate in a more open, connected and collaborative environment with partners is potentially as big as it can get. How do we overcome the fear and see the pathway to new possibilities?

Understanding Ecosystems and how they work is becoming essential for us all to understand

Recognizing ecosystems is vital; combining humans, technology, and data allows us to pursue multiple possibilities, explore them faster than before, evaluate them in quicker, smarter ways and scale those that show promise for all of us to be more efficient, considerate and respectful of finite resources. Ecosystem designs allow us to undergo a change from individualism to revaluing community and supporting each other in resourceful ways and respecting all that is around us needs to be more balanced.

We can search for and build entirely new capabilities by connecting technology and different people.

The power of ecosystems can allow us to innovate differently, and be more designed for a sustainable future as we connect, learn and leverage diverse knowledge, experience and discipline mindset.

Business Ecosystem thinking and technology Platform design needs a well-thought-through approach, it needs depth in understanding what this all means. This is an inflexion point in transforming our business to radically open up, collaborate and build stronger, deeper networks and relationships.

I can only urge you to ‘invest’ in understanding all of what this potentially means before you are forced to embark on the level of change you will be called upon to make in the coming years, irrespective, so make it early to fully understand what is involved and what will be possible impacts.

The post We are possibly at a series of inflexion points. Here’s one first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

When the established order begins to creak and dismantle, seemingly in front of our eyes, those fears of the unknown can kick in, especially if you have been used to managing in an established (slowly) evolving way for most, if not all, of your business life.

We seem confronted with rapid change, and it is primarily within the business world related to technology and market uncertainty that is driving this. We need to counter “fear” with a different approach, recognizing most of what we feel might be the ‘unknown’ is actually ‘known.’

We need to recognize our unknowns, search out others who might be experts in that point of not knowing and gain their help in piecing the parts that might be fragmented together to bring that need for recognition and clarity in our mind.

Fear can immobilize us.

In a recent exchange I had within one innovation community discussion, it was suggested that Innovation Business Ecosystems did not have the expected uptake because of this “fear of the unknowns”.

What initially prompted this was my post on making the business case for “Thinking about Innovation Ecosystems” Well, we need to address fear to get past this mental blockage of the “fear of those unknowns”.

So this short post is on tackling fear and dealing with the unknowns.

I would argue that far more of those unknowns are really knowns, often to others, than you might think. Our individual problem often lies in the time we have to discover, learn and explore new and different things. As well, and ask, are we really interested? We do need to ‘lean in’ on many specialists and experts to help us, not just business consultants!

We need to move beyond fear to invest in specialised thinking, open our minds up and seek out others who might offer expertise or insight that prompts and encourages a shift in thinking through their power of argument or insights.

What holds us back? It is fear of the unknowns. How can we move forward?

It is simply we have too many unknowns. That lack of investment in time and understanding to recognize the value and impact of opening up the thinking to different ideas, concepts or solutions. We need to find a better mechanism to manage our fears.

Let me provide some important points to consider in dealing with unknowns that have building blocks to reduce fear and reluctance to change.

NINE points of recognition to build into your thinking that can reduce fear:

1. Keep monitoring the industry and market trends, do ongoing market research and consistent risk analysis, and stay informed about changes and developments, however weak in initial signals.
2. Build relationships, network with industry leaders, and collaborate with industry experts and peers.
3. Stay flexible, agile and adaptable, and have up-to-date contingency plans in place to adjust course if needed and, in a controlled manner, options to existing business strategy.
4. Seek advice and support from a strong support network of mentors or peers that keeps you questioning and keeping you up to date. A dedicated coaching session or two can always help.
5. Develop a positive and proactive growth mindset and embrace failures as learning opportunities.
6. Break down the unknown into manageable parts of discovery, learning and translating, and experiment with new technologies in a controlled environment.
7. Gradually implement changes, test their impact, experiment, explore, and extract understanding.
8. Invest continually in training and education to stay ahead of the learning curve.
9. Try to identify and understand the source of fear and embrace uncertainty as a natural path of growth, personally and across the organization. Talk about this; empathy is all around us.

To counter fear and exposure, address so many of those unknown unknowns as many of them are actually known to others. You simply have not had the time or need to invest the time for understanding but others can be as supportive personally or in organizational settings that can translate their expertise into your understanding. A change manager or transformation advocate primary aim is to reduce fear but first, you have to recognize it.

For example, the early recognition that moving to any new business model, making changes, or significant process approaches means navigating uncertainty and managing risk. Change is all around us; the ground we once trusted is shifting under us, so we need to become far more aware and, in so doing, reduce those fears of the unknown. So who can help provide fresh thinking and different alternatives or prompt you to explore that area of (sudden) need or recognition as you address the unknowns?

Others can and will help- just ask. They can accelerate your learning, reduce your fears and bring the unknown in your present thinking into all the new opportunities in the new knowns that can be discovered.

The post Fears of those unknowns first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

This morning I decided to have an exchange on ChatGPT on the future of Innovation Management Software, I asked a number of questions in a short series and can well-relate to the answers provided incredibly quickly.

What do you think?

Do they make sense and are the suggestions a competitive threat or a trend towards a future that needs fully embracing before others do?

chat.openai.com/chat

Where will Innovation Management Software go?

Innovation management software is expected to continue to evolve and improve in the coming years. Some trends that are likely to continue include:

1. Greater focus on user experience and ease of use.
2. Increased integration with other business tools, such as project management and collaboration software.
3. More emphasis on data analytics and reporting to help companies better understand and track their innovation efforts.
4. Greater use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to automate tasks and provide more intelligent recommendations.
5. More use of gamification techniques to encourage participation and engagement among employees.
6. More use of mobile and cloud-based platforms to make it easier for employees to access and use the software from anywhere.

Overall the software will help companies to manage and improve their innovation process and to get insights from the data generated by it.

From <https://chat.openai.com/chat>

What holds Innovation software back for companies to adopt more?

There are a few factors that may hold companies back from adopting innovation management software. One factor is cost – some companies may not be able to afford the software or the resources required to implement it effectively. Another factor is lack of understanding or awareness of the software and its capabilities. Some companies may not be familiar with the software or how it can benefit their organization. Additionally, there is a fear of change and resistance to new technology in some organizations. Some companies may not be willing to invest in new technology if it means changing the way they currently do things. Lastly, the company’s culture and its alignment with an innovation mindset can also play a role in the adoption of the software.

From <https://chat.openai.com/chat>

Does the current Business Model for offering or selling Innovation Management software cause a barrier to adoption?

The business model for offering or selling innovation management software could potentially be a barrier to adoption for some companies. Some companies may prefer a subscription-based model, where they pay a monthly or annual fee for access to the software, while others may prefer a one-time purchase model. Additionally, some companies may prefer to purchase software that can be easily customized to meet their specific needs, while others may prefer a more off-the-shelf solution. Some companies may also be hesitant to adopt software that requires a long-term commitment, as it may be difficult to predict the ROI of such a solution. Additionally, there are some companies that prefer open-source software which is usually free of charge or have a lower cost compared to proprietary software. This could also be a barrier for proprietary software vendors in terms of adoption.

From <https://chat.openai.com/chat>

What would enable Innovation Software to be adopted at a faster rate?

There are several factors that could enable innovation management software to be adopted at a faster rate:

1. Cost reduction: Making the software more affordable, especially for small and medium-sized businesses, could encourage more companies to adopt it.
2. Education and awareness: Providing education and resources to help companies understand the benefits of the software and how to use it effectively could increase adoption.
3. Flexibility: Offering flexible pricing models, such as subscription-based or pay-as-you-go models, could make it easier for companies to adopt the software.
4. Tailored solutions: Providing customization options and the ability to adapt the software to specific needs of the company could increase adoption.
5. Integration with other tools: Making the software easily integrate with other tools and systems that companies are already using, such as CRM, ERP, and project management software, could make it more appealing to adopters.
6. Proof of value: Showcasing the results and benefits that other companies have achieved by using the software could encourage more companies to adopt it.
7. Industry specific solutions: Offering solutions that are tailored for specific industries, such as healthcare or manufacturing, could increase adoption.
8. Simplicity and ease of use: Making the software easy to use and navigate could increase adoption by reducing the learning curve.
9. Strong customer support: Offering excellent customer support and training could help companies feel more comfortable adopting the software.
10. Making the software available as open-source, this could encourage more developers and companies to adopt it, and the cost will be reduced.

From <https://chat.openai.com/chat>

How would a change in offering Innovation Management software look in ina new Business model change?

A change in the business model for offering innovation management software could take several forms, depending on the goals and objectives of the software vendor.

1. Subscription-based model: Instead of a one-time purchase, software vendors could offer a subscription-based model, where customers pay a monthly or annual fee for access to the software. This would provide a predictable revenue stream for the vendor and could also make the software more accessible for small and medium-sized businesses.
2. Pay-as-you-go model: Another option would be to offer a pay-as-you-go model, where customers only pay for the features and functionality they use. This could be particularly appealing to companies that have fluctuating needs and want to avoid committing to a long-term contract.
3. Freemium model: This model offer a basic version of the software for free but charge for advanced features. This way companies could try the software before committing to a purchase.
4. Open-source model: Instead of charging for the software, vendors could make the software available as open-source, and charge for consulting, customization, support, and maintenance.
5. Partnership model: Some vendors may choose to partner with other companies to provide bundled services, such as consulting and training, alongside the software.
6. Outsource model: Some vendors may choose to offer a fully outsourced innovation management service, where they manage the entire innovation process on behalf of the client.
7. Enterprise model: Some vendors may choose to target larger companies with specialized and more advanced features, and offer a higher pricing structure with added benefits such as dedicated account management, and more extensive support.

It’s worth noting that the most effective business model may vary depending on the target market and the software’s unique value proposition.

From <https://chat.openai.com/chat>

What can replace Innovation Management software in the future?

It’s difficult to predict exactly what will replace innovation management software in the future, as technology and the business landscape are constantly changing. However, there are a few potential developments that could potentially replace or complement innovation management software in the future:

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI): AI and machine learning technology could potentially automate many of the processes currently handled by innovation management software, such as idea generation, analysis, and prioritization.
2. Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR/AR): VR and AR technology could be used to create virtual environments for idea generation and collaboration, potentially replacing or complementing current software solutions.
3. Blockchain: Blockchain technology could be used to create decentralized systems for idea generation, voting, and funding, potentially eliminating the need for centralized software solutions.
4. Crowdsourcing platforms: Companies could increasingly rely on crowdsourcing platforms to gather ideas from a wide range of external sources, potentially replacing or complementing current software solutions.
5. Process automation: Automation of innovation process like idea management, ideation, prioritization and evaluation could become more common with the help of low-code or no-code platforms.
6. Integration with other systems: Companies could increasingly integrate innovation management software with other systems, such as CRM and ERP systems, to create a more seamless and efficient workflow.

It’s important to note that these potential developments may not replace innovation management software entirely, but rather complement it and enhance its capabilities.

From <https://chat.openai.com/chat>

Is Innovation Management software well-integrated along the whole innovation discovery to commercialization process?

Innovation management software can be integrated along the whole innovation discovery to commercialization process, but the level of integration can vary depending on the software. Some software solutions may focus on specific stages of the process, such as idea generation or prioritization, while others may provide a more comprehensive approach that covers the entire process.

For example, some software solutions may include features such as:

• Idea generation and submission: Allows employees to submit ideas and collaborate with others.
• Idea prioritization and evaluation: Allows managers to evaluate and prioritize ideas based on various criteria.
• Project management: Allows teams to track the progress of projects and collaborate with others.
• Financial management: Allows teams to track costs and revenues associated with projects.
• IP management: Allows teams to track and manage intellectual property associated with projects.
• Commercialization: Allows teams to track and manage the commercialization of projects.

However, not all software solutions will include all these features, and some software may be more suitable for certain stages of the process than others. Additionally, innovation management software often can be integrated with other software solutions such as project management, ERP, CRM to create a more seamless and efficient workflow.

It is important for a company to evaluate the software solutions available in the market, to select the one that best fits their specific needs and processes.

From <https://chat.openai.com/chat>

What would it take to fully integrate Innovation Management software from discovery to commercialization? What is missing today that could really change that adoption rate?

To fully integrate innovation management software from discovery to commercialization, a few key elements would be necessary:

1. A comprehensive feature set: The software should include a wide range of features that cover the entire innovation process, from idea generation and submission to commercialization. This would include features such as idea prioritization and evaluation, project management, financial management, IP management, and commercialization management.
2. Strong integration capabilities: The software should be able to integrate with other key systems such as ERP, CRM, and project management software to create a seamless workflow. This would allow teams to easily track the progress of projects and collaborate with others, regardless of the system they are using.
3. Advanced analytics: The software should include advanced analytics and reporting capabilities that allow teams to track the performance of their innovation efforts and make data-driven decisions.
4. Usability and ease of use: The software should be user-friendly and easy to navigate, to help ensure that employees are motivated to use it and that the adoption rate increases.
5. Scalability: The software should be able to handle a large number of ideas, projects, and users, and be able to scale as the company grows.
6. Flexibility: The software should be flexible enough to adapt to the specific needs and processes of the company.
7. Process Automation: Automation of certain tasks such as idea generation, validation, and prioritization can make the software more effective and efficient.
8. Mobile access: The software should be accessible on mobile devices, so that employees can use the software from anywhere, at any time.
9. Cloud-based: The software should be available as a cloud-based solution, so that it can be accessed from anywhere with an internet connection.
10. Cost-effective: The cost of the software should be reasonable and in line with the company’s budget.

All these elements together would help ensure that innovation management software is fully integrated from discovery to commercialization, and make it more appealing for companies to adopt it.

I find this series of replies useful and further validation for speeding up real change in innovation management software.

**The links shown will only lead you into a new chat, if you are logged in, I have shown them here as the point a new question was asked.

The post Where will Innovation Management Software go? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

I started posting my thoughts on innovation in August 2010. I have written on this site alone, www.paul4innovating.com, by just coming up to a milestone of 700 posts focusing on innovation thoughts and opinions, so I just wanted to pause and think about all the different places I have tried to get the innovation message(s) out.

I always find the post-New Year to be a reflective part of the year of reviewing, deciding, and then setting new goals. This is a post about the sources of my knowledge that feeds my innovation passion.

Let me start. I often wonder whether the posts and articles I’ve written have been hitting the right buttons, helping solve the needs of those involved in innovation; I hope so. I have pushed out and explored various aspects, learning myself as I go. I have followed a number of great innovation thinkers and read different books on the areas of innovation.

It amazes me. How much is talked about, advice offered and sometimes that deep down nagging feeling, innovation understanding does not really change; it is the people managing it as they often seem to be simply passing through this innovation period onto other things or vanishing in pursuit of different career interests.

During this time, I have adopted and sometimes improved many innovative tools and methodologies or simply explored all the different ways to look at and investigate innovation. Reading and even contributing to different innovation books that have come out has added experience and contribution, but I do so often wonder that innovation seems not to have changed as much as I would have expected.

Innovation application and practice seem to have stayed stuck, largely due to how it is organized. The software has been increasingly proven and improved, mostly at the front end of the innovation process,but the whole innovation process or system stays in pockets of disconnected knowledge and fails to fully leverage the collaborative potential, insights or experiences of all involved if the innovation discovers to commercialization was open and supported by a clear ecosystem approach and strong, dedicated platform and technology-enabled environment.

Even with all the countless advice, ideas and concepts written by many, innovators still stay marooned on individual islands, lacking insights, alternative opinions and broader diversity in thinking. I wonder if innovation management has made the level of progress or remains still a little steeped in mystery and the big “big ah-huh” moment, often so vital to breakthrough innovation.

How can you just trigger multiple “ah-huh” moments? Having those insights are the wonderful moments of magic, and they still hold such power over our innovative thinking, sometimes unfairly judging our innovation process as “ad hoc”, but we must not deny us all to find ways to open up to a different way of innovation management through open, collaborative innovation engagement.

For me, it is necessary to grasp what Ecosystem thinking, and Platform design can do through all the connected technology and human collaboration this approach can provide. This is my primary focal point today.

I have doubled down on innovation more to prompt others.

More specifically, in my investigative travels, I developed a number of my own tools, frameworks or methodologies, or in numerous collaborations, especially with Jeffrey Phillips, a great sparring partner, the dialogues and exchanges have produced some good framing tools (in my opinion). Jeffrey has been writing articles and posts since 2005 and can be a great source of inspiration at Innovate on Purpose.

Equally, if you go to my dedicated page where I keep many of my tools and methodologies for easy reference here in this posting site insights and thinking, you get a fair amount of knowledge, collections and insights pulled together on this one tag or page. You can “search” on keywords and see what comes up.

I have with pride been constantly quoted, referenced or acknowledged as an innovative thinker and shaper, appearing for ten out of the last twelve years in the top 40 innovation bloggers, run and collated by Braden Kelley, who focuses today on Human-Centred Change and Innovation with a lot of good, helpful tools on his website.

On the academic side, I have been referenced 94 times in different papers, especially at Academia.edu. I have written for numerous organizations tailoring innovation to their specifics, be that Energy, Digital, Industrial and Software related on different length contracts commissioned. I like to equally contribute to different innovation practice references such as Future Shapers, occasionally Digital Transformation People run by Tim Ellis and consistently for BusinessInnovationBrief. I constantly feature posts or articles on LinkedIn and Medium as well. For my Energy Transition work, focusing on where innovation fits, I contribute to Energy Central, which has around 200,000 global power industry professionals visiting the site.

I run different innovation-related posting sites for my own innovation thinking, as innovation remains my core. I need to break out different parts of it to better focus a reader’s mind (and my own!)

I decided to try and separate my innovative thinking into more focused activities such as Ecosystems, the Energy transition, the Future of Work, Digital Technology, and of course, Innovation, so I can offer choice, greater depth or find a more selective place to write or clarify aspects of my work.

This one of paul4innovating.com, my core site, then one focusing specifically on ecosystems and platforms at ecosystems4innovation.com, one for where innovation fits within the energy transition over at innovating4energy.com where we are undergoing a transition in all of our lives.

I have two business advisory offerings, agilityinnovation.com, my main business offering that looks to find value creation, growth and impact from the advisory, coaching and mentoring work and hocaconsulting.com, more for the future of work or in my specific focus of work-to-be-done.

Lastly, I wanted to have (simple) reference sites to delve into quickly; these are thinking4innovators, my advocating coaching and guiding site of Guide4innovating.wordpress.com and a final one that focuses on the dynamics of innovationfitnessdynamics.wordpress.com which clarifies where individual, groups or organizations are positioned on the innovation landscape for capabilities, capacities and competences.

I see myself as an innovation journeyman, learning and sharing.

I simply enjoy innovation in all its forms. I got ‘hooked’ twenty-plus years ago. I work as a transition advocate and advisor for innovation, and ecosystems, focusing today more on those massive transformations being undertaken across the energy system and industry 4.0, requiring radical changes, new designs and innovative solutions.

I relate content to context to give greater knowledge and build the transition narratives we are all undergoing. For this, I love the notion of walkabouts for learning and testing ourselves.

The value and insights come from researching much of the need for innovation; in society, businesses and institutions need to constantly look to develop novel innovation solutions and frameworks that add new value.

My primary role is advising, mentoring and coaching within these areas of innovation needs.

For me, innovation needs to enter the DNA of our organizations and our own individual makeup. What I do is deliberately set out to help grow and extend the body of knowledge on innovation.

I have taken this pathway or learning journey around innovation as it fascinates me.

Why have I written this?

Well, It is not just my journey but yours to share and gain from. The sharing of knowledge and insights provided for others to gain makes this dedicated focus worthwhile and keeps me ticking along in business advisory, coaching and mentoring around innovation when asked for advice or engaged in work on a client’s behalf.

Are you leveraging all the resources available and mentioned here? Take a look, explore, and then ask if something needs clarification or is missing from your perspective. I learn from the ask.

Contact me, and we can design your innovation journey tailored to your individual needs.

The post Helping discover your innovation pathway first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Over this weekend, I spent a fair amount of reading time working through the World Economic Forum Whitepapers I have collected to remind me of this incredible source of knowledge across many world issues and challenges, grasping the risks, potentials and value opportunities discussed in these papers.

These reports (Whitepapers) are a storehouse of knowledge, facts and suggested actions that need to be taken. The Whitepapers found here cover Climate issues, Green Deal views, Resilience, Circular Transformation, Global Value Chains, Electricity views, Securing the Energy Transition and plenty more.

For me, the weekend focus was specifically on the Energy Transition, following on from their recent Davos event and the series of reports and whitepapers co-sponsored with different organizations built up over many years.

One whitepaper I took some time to find more time to re-read. It was from a white paper “Accelerating Sustainable Energy Innovation, released in May 2018 and prepared in collaboration with KPMG.

Why is this whitepaper a timely one for me to relook at? It looks at the Energy Innovation (eco)system

As stated in the opening to this paper, “Sustainable energy innovation is at the heart of solving many of the world’s toughest challenges and is the key to tapping the full potential of energy as a contributor to future growth and prosperity.”

We are in deep trouble in moving towards the Energy Transition targets laid out by the original Paris Agreement.

Energy innovation systems need a really much stronger and more effective push to deliver a broad range of technologies and solutions to the market faster than what is happening today.

The importance of accelerating innovation in sustainable energy – across the many ways energy is produced, delivered and consumed – is undervalued, slow to be adopted by many, and continually underinvested compared to the challenges at hand. We are not investing in a greater and more robust innovation system of capabilities, capacities and competencies from discovery to implementation.

We seemingly got blocked in experiments, pilots, or simply waiting for others to scale and prove the new solutions available commercially. The Energy Industry can be deemed as a laggard in adoption along the five stages of technology adoption. Having a robust, sustainable innovation system to install and then follow is essential. Innovation drives the changes in the Energy transition.

If we take the suggested Energy Innovation System outlined in this Whitepaper.

Here it is rightly suggested that it is people, the innovation process and the catalysts all combine to enable this system framework. I like this as it provides the (basic) stages with the process goes through and this, from many an energy perspective, is a long time, between 12 to 60 months sometimes due to the technology proving, from the bench, experiment to pilot and the appropriate adoption and scaling. It also brings in the technical readiness levels; this within itself is a process from a catalyst of an idea, experimentation, failure and re-evaluation—a continuous loop between discovery and delivery.

Within any mix of innovation, we not only have the inventors and researchers who explore, combine ideas and test new and existing technologies to come to new points of breakthrough innovation, but we also have the influencers of politicians, who set guidelines and policies, can provide public money while the ongoing search is for scientists and academics that offer the skills within the different stages of this pipeline from basic and applied research, development and then demonstration.

Then you have the mix of entrepreneurs, universities, research institutes and national labs looking to work hand-in-hand as this progresses. Investors, SMEs, institutions, Corporations, and Financial experts all get progressively drawn in to provide their expertise.

The suggestion in the whitepaper is, it is clearly the human element that makes the system work, applying and sharing lessons learnt and then getting to “ultimate” decision makers, those taking the commercial risks and then the ultimate customer in the marketplace.

I also liked their visual on the barriers to the energy innovation system

What is recommended within this whitepaper is the step changes to accelerate sustainable energy innovation by recognizing the barriers, and constraints but, more importantly, the whole Ecosystem of people involved in the process, each playing a catalytic role.

As the energy transition requires real step-changes, the collaborative effort, the need for an Energy Ecosystem approach to allow multiple stakeholders to become engaged, and the suggested adoption of these approaches make so much sense.

Suggested supporting mechanisms for accelerating innovation in Energy

These suggestions are far from exhaustive, but they make the critical point that investment in the structures from multiple collaborators, forming networks to co-create and coordinate and find agreement for resolving challenges and providing potential solutions to keep moving forward the innovations within the system:

1. Create institutions for energy innovation- stewarding investments
2. Establish an independent international fund to finance energy technology projects, blending public and private sources of capital to test ideas, incubate them and pilot them from seed investments to long-term capital stages to scale, share risks and openly champion projects.
3. Develop instruments for public-private co-investment to reduce uncertainty, time-lags, keeping eligibility in tandem with progressing the innovation through the pipeline
4. Co-define energy technology roadmaps through public-private collaboration can offer a more integrated approach to fast-track and monitor progress and quickly identify bottlenecks where diversity in supply chains, materials used, components to be sourced etc, can be identified earlier.
5. Mainstream public procurement of pre-commercial energy innovation to assist early-stage forward-looking technologies and allow for experiments from competitive providers.
6. Super-transparency of government RD&D spending as the energy transition is a globally shared concern, allowing a raising of awareness, research progress and funding opportunities.

The whitepaper outlines the context.

The World Economic Forum’s System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Energy aimed to accelerate the development of the policies, private-sector actions and public-private collaboration required to achieve a sustainable, affordable, secure and inclusive energy future essential for economic and social development.

Partnering to Accelerate Sustainable Energy Innovation is a project initiated within this system initiative following the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2017 in Davos.

The project’s goal was to identify and promote actions that the global community can take to accelerate
the pace of innovation in sustainable energy and, in parallel, serve as a platform for collaboration
among stakeholders from business, government, civil society and selected innovation alliances who share a vision for a sustainable future.

From this platform rose the collaboration between the World Economic Forum and Mission Innovation, an alliance of 22 governments and the EU representing 80% of global clean energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D), who joined forces to accelerate sustainable energy innovation.

Ecosystems, platforms, technology, and people must combine for this catalytic effect.

For me, coming back to focus on this accelerating sustainable energy innovation makes real sense. I wonder if this Whitepaper progressed in its suggestions, partly in establishing its suggested approaches but in further developing and establishing the Innovation Framework presented above.

The Energy Transition is vital to our future on this planet, to have a habitable environment; not having innovation as a system core for this is a tragic mistake. Let’s rectify that, can we?

The post Accelerating Sustainable Energy Innovation first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Innovation often fails to align with strategic needs. It is a known, well-discussed fact. This is often not the fault of the innovator but the very people designing but not sharing the strategy or failing to recognize all the implications this might mean in shifting resources, investing money or simply under-appreciating the complexities that often lie with innovation to conceive, validate, contribute and deliver the contributions into that strategy.

Sadly many innovators are simply happily working away with no specific guidelines, apart from the general remit of “we need to be more innovative”, and this lack of coherence merging from the boardroom, failing to cascade down the organisation leaves this strategic part that innovation should plan as far to vague. They are not drawn into the need for change and its implications from an innovative perspective. Alignment should be a rigorous evaluation.

Building our capacity to innovate needs understanding and reflects the organization’s business activities. Innovators need to grasp the value creation aspects that will deliver the necessary capital-efficient and profitable growth and then ‘go in pursuit’ to achieve their contribution to these goals.

Even the basic questions often remain unclear: “How are we looking to grow revenue, save costs, reduce working capital or improve our fixed capital?” What is specifically being deployed or recognized needs to change and to get into the necessary detail becomes essential.

Managing our innovation activities thoughtfully and in alignment can help in all of these goals set in strategic direction or even mission purpose. Often the CFO is guilty as they want everything but are not prepared to reassess and reallocate the essential funds to unleash a new wave of innovation.

Shifting strategy always has significant implications, and the real need to understand whether it fits with what we have available generally makes deliberate questioning of the eventual role of innovation’s contribution and ability to deliver.

Then where equally does risk fit into the strategic equation for innovation?

Innovators often lack the clarity or governance guidelines to know if they can or can’t ‘push’ for groundbreaking innovation.

Risk is kept vague, often not as well articulated as it should be in guidelines or limitations deemed beyond the scope and areas to explore. Without real clarity, innovators, as with many other functions, often go beyond their imagination and explore the unknowns associated with any different innovation in the belief that this fits with the strategy. They are not deep into the strategic evaluations and are often ill-equipped when second-guessing.

Sometimes it even becomes ‘the art of avoidance’ by the person who wants innovation but not the associated risks, so the decision is “let’s not talk about it”.

Innovation is not the usual.

I recall a report some time back written by PA Consulting report called “Innovation as Unusual.” They were suggesting the innovation spend just in the UK alone is flushing some £65 billion down the drain each year, as nearly half the organizations waste good ideas, are far to risk-averse and fail to invest boldly around more ground-breaking ideas.

From my perspective, does the Strategy of Board guidelines clarify acceptable risk levels, or do they simply wait to see how the organization responds to a general idea?

So we are still seeing the majority of organizations struggling with innovation. In the process, they are losing out financially, forgoing huge opportunities in not achieve future competitive positions or foregoing the chances to alter their market position radically. It seems innovation remains incoherent within many organizations still.

PA Consulting suggested five innovation killers – fear, lack of focus, innovation engine failure, the wrong ROI and a natural reluctance to truly invest in building the right innovation capabilities. Pretty bad, I think? So we end up with costly failures.

So, where do we start in gaining Coherence?

Changes in Strategic direction or re-assessments of organizations’ goals always have significant implications. For me, a handy number of analytical or visualization tools applied to where and how the function and design of innovations fit help deepen the understanding and “bubble up” to the board the right questions they need to address in support of their decision for change.

Maybe we should all start visualizing first, all eventually arriving on the same page.

XPLANE, visualization thinkers who apply a design thinkers approach, produced brilliant visualizations of the organizations needs. They suggested visualizing the Cost of Confusion and the other as the Value of Clarity. Imagine having these as your starting point for establishing the innovation direction, resourcing and contribution directly in engagements with the board

Leveraging the power of the three-horizon methodology for innovation

I greatly favour the three-horizon methodology to work through to achieve this coherence in understanding. The three horizons offer an excellent framing technique to bring this ‘coherence’ that we need from our ‘here and know’ activities and future innovation efforts.

Dedicating time to knowing your innovation capability fitness

I have constantly been working away at what constitutes the dynamic capabilities for innovation that are needed for new innovation and those, shall we say, as more static and simply in place for the repetitive innovation renovation. It is identifying and seeing the difference and then knowing how to apply those that are dynamic and highly valuable to obtain against those that require a little dampening down. A significant resource calibrating can be taken by knowing the essential differences.

Take a look at www.innovationfitnessdynamics.wordpress.com. for some triggers

The question is, which are critical, which naturally occur when others begin to be put into place, which seems to have limited or no real effect on changing the dynamics of innovation?

The need to diverge and converge to reshape innovation activities

The alignment to the strategic direction (and importance) with any capabilities available needs to be understood. What present activities diverge away from the new strategic core and identify those that are converging?

The diverging ones need to have a real emphasis on improving performance or be “junked,” to question how they are managed for cash or releasing of precious investment capital to sell or be .disposed of eventually. Then those that are converging onto the new ‘known’ core of the business to grow and expand have potentially more capital and resource ready to be put to work on new concepts that fit.

So by recognizing these, and that is not easy in itself, you are beginning to know and identify the capabilities you need to have in place to fix today to make it as healthy as possible, alongside those new capabilities that will create a new winning set of growth and value propositions that give the ‘promise’ of what can come by applying different mindsets, resources and thinking.

Deciding that capabilities can be better leveraged requires separating exploitation and exploration.

Then we need to figure out the future core and start moving towards it. We should leverage the two dynamics of exploitation and exploration for our innovation and future growth.

Today we need to exploit and explore, and our capabilities need to be built fit for one of these two purposes.

Exploiting is today’s business need to leverage and improve on the existing business and simultaneously explore for tomorrow’s new business growth.

We certainly need bolder investments in knowledge and insights to begin inquiry that leads to the changes around the make-up of innovation capabilities and those shifts.

I certainly believe there is a real call for fresh and bolder investments in knowledge in infrastructure that focuses on activities that spur new approaches that lead to innovation. These are not just the traditional ones based on managing today’s core.

It is finding those innovations that provide the necessary new value. This new generation activity is occurring from recognizing how we can build, yes build for further exploitation (extending the life of valuable contributors that enable a better-financed transition) and exploration (new understanding) and manage each as separate risk evaluation exercises with different metrics of progress.

Identifying and finding new capabilities has potential hiring implications, the ability to fit with the existing, providing the tools and environment, and spelling out the future of where these capabilities fit.

We also need a deeper innovation grounding of internal workings and alignment.

What I feel we need is a deeper grounding in what is happening inside organizations within their innovation activities, how these align with the needs of strategy, and what is clearly missing. We start here as it gives us all this clarity and coherence, missing in much of our existing understanding.

Dialogue is essential

It is mastering this new ‘black box’ of actual innovation activities, exploring and exploiting the necessary innovation capabilities that are required to be ‘going on’ in organizations to achieve a closer coherence, one that can radically improve innovation performance.

We have a real opportunity today to find new ways to combine the four emerging forces of knowledge, technology, entrepreneurship and innovation, which will drive the growth models of tomorrow. It is these that are forming the new innovations ‘black box.’

I have plenty of ideas, frames and methods built up to help you make innovation fit and be more coherent in its contribution in times of strategic change.

I strongly advise not to carry on as usual, or innovation becomes the drag to strategic change and reinforcing the image that “our” innovation is a drain on capital, not the NEW source of growth, capital renewal and the key to changing strategic direction through supporting its delivery.

The post The needs of Innovation Coherence first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.