Finding practical capability identification requires a given approach:
Initially a more path dependency one is explored, searching for existing routines, capabilities and knowledge (more backward looking) for factors that seem to have affected the past success. This then allows us to explore:
- Identification and classification of existing capabilities
- Identification and classification of required future capabilities
- Then, prioritization of these capabilities in light of the core capability criteria and strategic goals.
- The Gap analysis (self assessment and external clarification/ comparison)
This is achieved in a mix of interviews to find the Strengths & Weaknesses and the nature of required future core capabilities felt necessary.
By using a template structuring according to different needs (technical, learning, business, organizational and human/value based capabilities etc.,) this is then classified, tested and presented back with ranking and recommendations.
Ranking could be 1) revolutionary (riskier but needed to make change) 2) differentiating (distinctive for seen advantage and core need) 3) critical enabling (necessary to be industry ‘fit’) and 4) supporting (essential to have). This has to be fully decided on how best to apply in the actual engagement.
The management classify existing conditions (more static) and desired future capabilities (more dynamic) in their needs. Then these are further prioritized by the dimensions of “sustainability” and “importance to strategic objectives” for identifying sustainable, core-capability-type of capabilities.
We are looking to model mutual dependencies, how the innovation ‘system’ behaves, and how it should do in the future. This focuses on its impact factors (weak and strong) and what should be considered in the ‘best’ innovation environment or emergent one on a suggested step discovery approach.
