Being fairly curious you search for the fit and its meaning to both parties as Innosight has been continually shaping their offering to focus more on the strategic positioning of innovation over the past few years as the market has been undergoing a significant change in client demands and innovation solutions. I wanted to work through all of what this might mean and some more.

The transaction overview is ” Huron will purchase Innosight Holdings, LLC for $100 million upon closing, consisting of $90 million in cash and $10 million in Huron common stock, plus contingent consideration of up to $35 million if specific financial performance targets are met over a four-year period”

This time last year we saw another acquiring of a pure innovation firm

This time last year we saw the takeover of Fahrenheit 212 by Cap Gemini and I wrote about it here under “In the blink of an eye, it gets something bigger.” I had suggested at the time that “David meets and marries a Goliath” and worried over the deal for Fahrenheit’s future.

Recently I went back and took an updated look and from all accounts the relationship is thriving (on the surface) and the Fahrenheit team seems to be well on track to achieve their stated aim of being a global innovation strategy and design firm  where their stated objectives are “we challenge the belief that innovation is inherently unreliable and have spent the last decade designing the method, building the model, and assembling the minds to make innovation a predictable driver of growth for our clients’ businesses“.

Part of their magic sauce lies in the Applied Innovation Exchange that had been designed and launched by Cap Gemini some weeks before Fahrenheit 212 was acquired. Still taking a fresh look at the underlying changes of that marriage is for another post, let’s return to Innosight’s move of being acquired by Huron.

Back to Innosight.

I consistently look at different innovation consulting firms and the directions they are taking as it makes sense to gauge the directions that client demand is taking. Innosight is one of those first port of calls for me. They have been undertaking some internal moves in recent years, to reflect the changes and challenges around a ‘pure’ focus on innovation and where it fits within the larger organization,  by attempting to move further up into the strategic design and alignment in building greater C-Level engagements, searching for larger project sized contracts.

Innosight has been continually shaping their offering to focus more on the strategic positioning of innovation. They break down their offering into three core parts- 1. Create Growth Strategies that “Strengthen and extend today’s business – while harnessing the disruptive innovations of tomorrow”, 2. Develop Innovation Capabilities of “the talent, culture, and systems to make innovation repeatable and reliable” and 3 Build New Business to “discover opportunities, design new business models, and launch high-impact new ventures.

Understanding the rationale. Working through it.

Innosight is a partnership so it was not so easy to gain the type of understanding you require, relating the aspirations, reality with hard numbers. Well as Huron is on the  NASDAQ (HURN) it becomes a little easier in what they need to declare for this acquisition.

I was a little surprised that Innosight had a turnover of $43 million in 2016, I was expecting more from a team of 90 people. Also how the breakdown of revenue by industry specific their business profile was not as I would have expected. Although these clearly change by the demand of the clients and the recognition that the consultant can deliver the work, compared to others, in a very tough competing environment.

According to the first webcast on this acquisition (17/2), Innosight has 31% of their revenue in Life Sciences and 15% in Healthcare in 2016, so on the surface, they have a 46% ‘fit’ to Huron. The big difference coming in the fact that Huron is servicing around 500 health organizations mostly individual hospitals and academic medical centers, with 400 universities and institutions. Innosight has focused far more on Corporations, one notable one being Aetna. Huron has around 2,000 employees and having present revenues (excluding Innosight) of $726m in 2016. Is it such a fit?

What did surprise me on how the Consumer Products part of Innosight’s business had fallen away from what I can see and that might reflect the growing gap still to be found at ‘appealing’ to the C-Level on strategic innovation and the ongoing need for operational delivery of innovation capabilities and competencies.

These insights show Innosight has been adapting and responding to changing innovation needs and market opportunities as they felt they could work the horizontal, across industry, for many of the innovation capabilities and designs, although it is certainly becoming more complex at strategic design level. Yet this across-industry has been going against the ‘competitive’ grain when you are facing large vertical and horizontal consulting practices that claim they offer both a real depth of industry and innovation-specific knowledge. Often I do question these claims, in what I see, with notable exceptions.

I think it is this positioning as a strategic consulting company, competing in an extremely tough environment with the big strategic consulting companies of McKinsey, BCG, Deloitte, Strategy& and a whole host of full consulting and service solutions where EY, KPMG, and others all compete for a slice of the innovation pie is a very tough one for Innosight to gain the momentum they would have liked.

Equally, at the operational and integration end, we see Cap Gemini, Accenture, TCS and many others offering digital and transformation services. No, a very tough market to compete in and I think for Innosight this must have been a constant ongoing struggle.

Rooting for the specialist.

I will instinctively root for the focused business that has innovation at its core and Innosight has been one of these. Their focus on strengthening and relating growth needs coming from innovation and its necessary alignment was a good but perhaps too niche a position to constrain their growth against such global competition.

The disruptive message they offered, although a powerful one, needs a highly receptive audience and most organizations leave their changes until they are often in the middle of a crisis and then they tend to panic and call in the ‘big guns’ of the consulting world.

Finally, in this section, Innosight’s growth route through innovation was a good position. They focused increasingly on alignment and taking a ‘future back’ approach to eventual strategic design, to determine new innovation business models was a good targetted focus and has been, I suspect, the reason for their compounding 20% yearly growth. Yet I can imagine they were not achieving that critical mass and scale I suspect they wanted, to stay independent and became open to an offer. For some to perhaps ‘cash out’ while others stay for varying reasons.

In the announcement of this acquisition Huron made the following overview:

“When combined, Huron and Innosight will use their strategic, operational and technology capabilities to help clients across multiple industries develop pioneering solutions to address disruption and achieve sustained growth.

“No industry is immune to disruption. Faced with increased competition, often from unconventional sources, organizations are forced to rethink their historical strategies to stay ahead of market forces and changing customer preferences,” said James H. Roth, chief executive officer and president of Huron. “Together, we will provide a full spectrum of services – from strategy to execution – that will help organizations think, plan and act differently to confront disruption and accelerate growth.”

Built by leading strategic thinkers and co-founded by renowned strategy consultant Mark Johnson and Harvard Business School professor and author Clayton Christensen, the world’s foremost authority on disruptive innovation, Innosight is a trusted partner to Fortune 500 companies and other leaders looking to strengthen today’s business while creating tomorrow’s growth engines. The firm’s innovation and transformational strategies have proven successful in industries undergoing disruptive change such as aerospace, automotive, energy, financial services, healthcare, insurance, life sciences and retail.

“Companies are under mounting pressure to satisfy a range of competing interests,” said Scott Anthony, managing partner at Innosight, who will become a Huron managing director. “But shifting stakeholder expectations, combined with disruptive change, create significant opportunities for today’s leaders. Huron and Innosight’s combination of capabilities in strategy, operations, technology, and analytics will enable us to offer transformative change to address these opportunities.”

Formed in 2000, Innosight recognized that traditional approaches to strategy and growth were not enough to help companies accelerate transformational change. This became the basis for its “future back” approach to strategy. Organizations that apply Innosight’s approach build leadership alignment on a vision for the future and create portfolios of new innovations and growth businesses that address changing customer needs and outpace their competitors.

Applying the same methodology alongside Huron’s deep industry expertise in healthcare, education and life sciences, the combined firms will help leaders in these critical industries successfully navigate changing market dynamics, regulations and consumer expectations to grow for the long-term”

“No industry is immune to disruption” Here lies the rub.

I think this disruption thought underscores the joint rationale for this acquisition. Heron is facing some massive forces of disruption in their primary business of Health as well as Education. With a Republican party looking really hard on how it will unwind or redirect the Affordable Care Act (ACA) The comprehensive health care reform law enacted in March 2010 (sometimes known as ACA, PPACA, or “Obamacare”) has given much of the past growth to Huron. Today they are seeing declines in this sector while this uncertainty continues. Clients are downsizing in projects while the political and macro conditions are sorted out.

The same is about to possibly ‘hit’ in Huron’s Higher Educational offerings as the new Administration has signaled large questions of necessary change in the general direction of Education- Presently with all the uncertainties of the new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos and the directions she takes in what some are assuming is a radical agenda of change, leaves the higher educational institutions in a potential ‘state of flux’.

As this potential set of policy disruptions will need time to get the level of clarification and granularity clients required, it exposes Huron and 70% plus of its business to many uncertainties.

Arguably, it will be well positioned when these policy decisions become clarified but that is potentially arriving over the next two to even four years between being decided and enacted, into policy and clarity for the individual institutions to react too.

This present operating environment for Huron does make for real uncertainty, especially in larger transformational consulting projects but it needs to manage the interim in different ways. So positioning for disruptive change and managing strategic and operation transitions become essential to help manage this period of great industry uncertainty.

Transformational guidance becomes the key mutual focus.

Innosight has been positioning itself increasingly as a growth strategy consulting firm focused on helping organizations design and create the future, instead of being disrupted by it. As a leading authority on disruptive innovation and strategic transformation, these identifications of new growth opportunities, making changes through new ventures and designing the capabilities to accelerate to significant industry and organizational change. will require a lot of guidance to support organizations as they contend with the change transforming their industries and businesses.

For Innosight does it make any changes with its direction? Open questions perhaps?

Innosight had a global footprint, it seems Huron withdrew from its international business expansion back in 2015. Although Innosight has 80% of its business in the US, will it continue to pursue growth outside?. It has an office in Singapore and one in Switzerland and when you are servicing Global fortune 500 equivalents you need this broader presence. Huron has really a 100% business in North America.

Do they compliment and focus only on the US market or will they stay global in ambition, if the C-Level remains as an essential focus, it stays both a necessity for one (Innosight) and an aspiration for the other (Huron). That will have its integrating challenges perhaps or will they combined have and global appeal in the focus sectors Huron currently serves as very US centric?

Equally, although Innosight has been growing its Healthcare and Life Sciences business the blending of very specific work on operational matters by Huron with Innosight’s C-Level future back work and the search for growth, new business models and launching new ventures needs some radical aligning to leverage well, it needs some dedicated work.

Innosight by spanning more the horizontal position, across industries needs some recalibrating possibly with Hurons’ more vertical depth and very deep operational engagement. Possibly not so easy but a challenge to extract and leverage the complementarities in many ways quickly, or it gets likely to becomes ‘bogged’ down in those past entrenched internal positions that are highly vertically focused.

Will this be a prelude to a new operating structure? Maybe it is the time.

Having this aspiration of Hurons in dealing at C-Level becomes a reality with the leadership team that resides in Innosight and the thought leadership that constantly emerges in the form of innovation thinking, books, and academic work.

Will Clayton Christensen, along with Mark Johnson and Scott Anthony give Huron the entry point into the C-Level and Government Corridors? I’m not sure it the core leadership team of Innosight is staying or cashing out?. That has yet to be fully and specifically clarified. How does that move across the 2,000 seemingly highly industry specific plus consultants, I think will be an equal challenge.

When you also look at the present advisory heavyweights of Academia, advising Innosight in the form of Vijay Govindarajan, Rita McGrath, Hal Gregersen, Jeff Dyer, Clark Gilbert as well as Clay Christensen, along with numerous others that work with Innosight to varying degrees, it should have greater ‘growth’ gravitas.

If the advisors to Innosight stay involved then the potential to gain leading academic insight, to help open corporate C-Level doors and clarify much, has a powerful ‘enabling effect’ that Huron will need to relate too. Hopefully, they, (Huron) are not losing this in the acquisition as it harnesses a really powerful brains trust in my opinion at the right point of organization entry.

I was a little surprised that Huron has 120 plus client-serving Managing Directors.

From what I understand is that Scott Anthony, the present MD of Innosight, will become one of these Managing Directors positioned in the Business Advisory service area. I wonder about this, for positioning around so much uncertainty and potential disruption if this is the right place?

Of course, I don’t have details of any of the Innosight teams new positioning but to transition from a partnership to a (highly) structured consulting firm as Huron seems to convey. The question becomes perhaps one of utilizing talent in the best way not ‘just’ fitting into given structures.

Maybe something more radical will emerge

I would argue with so much ahead in many corporate strategic redesigns, as well as coping with industry disruptions, both in the US and global markets, the scarce resource becomes those that can articulate and energize the set of strategic decisions needed, experienced in disruption and planning out new business models becomes the critical one to nurture and transfer.

That is not easy as it calls for a combination of change management skills and strategic grounding at C-Level ‘speak’. Then you gain the operational outcome ‘flowthrough’ from this and the challenge is harnessing those fairly rare resources both across vertical and horizontal challenges with the strategic dialogues delivered at the right level.

This managing of an internal design change can become the critical enabler and criteria to judge how this acquisition works in identifying, leveraging and harnessing the diverse resources across the ‘disrupting’ landscape ahead.

The existing structure at Huron is a classic consultants – seemingly siloed.

In Hurons recent risk assessment (Form 10-K) it stated on its employees ” the managing directors are the key drivers of the business. They work externally to serve clients as advisors and engagement team leaders, originate revenue by developing new and existing client relationships, and enhance our reputation. Internally they create our intellectual capital and develop our people. Our senior directors, directors and managers manage the day-to-day client relationships and oversee the delivery and quality of our work product.”

I would wonder how the dynamics and flow of a partnership differs in where it places its emphasis, time, management and energy. I feel it will require some adjustments for Innosight to relate into a much larger organization set up more vertically in focus and structured in the traditional lines of a larger consulting practice?

Finally Huron’s headquarters are located in Chicago with domestic and international (?) offices including those located in the following major metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Bangalore, Boston, Buffalo (N.Y.), Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Madison (Wis.), New York, Pensacola (Fla.), Portland (Ore.), Raleigh (N.C.), San Francisco, Toronto and Washington, D.C. Whereas Innosight is located in Boston (80%) of the team, Switzerland, and Singapore. The domestic US market perspective will clearly dominate, will it become all-dominating? Are we going to see a growing global footprint or a retreat into America?

I think the acquisition does come as a surprise.

I had not, in all honesty, heard of Huron but that is not so surprising because I am not so focused on Health Care, Hospitals and Medical Institutions, or the operational matters they have clearly built a strong business upon, specifically in the United States. So I initially wondered on the attraction between the two. Just simply why?

It boils down to a significant cash consideration for the partnership of Innosight to distribute, partly knowing being independent is a long hard slog. It is equally this growing recognition that “no industry is immune to disruption” including consulting, often working on perhaps outdated consulting models. It is also a crisis of revenue need for Huron, a publically quoted organization recognizing the deteriorating state of the US healthcare market.

There is this increasing realization that greater disruptive forces are coming into play, in the form of even more competitors, increased pressures on margins, a struggle to achieve the bigger projects in uncertain time and the debate on where to focus, vertically or horizontally.

A further choice of  managing all the forces of change domestically in the biggest consulting market of the USA at a significantly changing time politically, or taking out a global footprint further out becomes a real challenge to manage well and keep shareholders happy. Global footprints come at a far higher higher cost to utilization of assets, facing the growing, diverse and challenging consulting market where big seems to be getting bigger and more diverse, offering such scale and access to deep resource to call upon any time. Some tough decisions have to be made here beyond the aspirational.

In summary

Both Huron and Innosight trade on close client relationships once established, a focus on clear reputation, harnessing either industry experience or subject matter knowledge (disruption theory, innovation, business model change) to then deliver to the client’s explicit needs. in potentially more meaningful and focused ways as highly specialized.

Do they achieve a balanced portfolio of services with this deal? Perhaps no, they certainly fill or plug some essential gaps but the ability to really leverage this is the “real ability to straddle“, not just diverse client needs but the one that for me, makes or breaks this, the internal straddling required to integrate and leverage each of the parts into a cohesive whole. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The macro and micro forces are in play across all the consulting industry, it is not immune itself. So many questions are being raised on global uncertainties that will impact both the US & global focus for many. Many political and Government decisions will be forcing change but while this stays unclear, for many this is a growing time of uncertainty.  It is the ability to “focus out”, design and determine what are the real disruptive forces each client has to double down upon, will provide options and alternatives to thrive in this age of transformation.

As I said earlier that is a rare ability to harness the strategic patterns and design new innovation business models and this takes a specific skill set, which seems Huron are buying in this acquisition of Innosight. Time will tell on the acquisition success as the internal design of Huron to take advantage of these changing market forces does need further fleshing out. It needs a very different language of (client) design and articulation, I believe.

Hopefully, that clarity comes in the coming days in further investor and webcast calls.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

The post Possibly a Significant Shift in the Innovation Consulting World? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

I have a friend when he is presented with something that stops him and makes him really have to think he would say “intriguing”. This joining forces is one of those ‘intriguing” moments for me.

Capgemini have been leading much within the transformation process around technology with all things digital, they have been pioneering and offering some significant advice around transitions. It seems they are ‘pulling’ in the innovation promise with this acquisition to add to their solution offerings.

I wrote about their Applied Innovation Exchange announcement recently and how I felt it was thin, a more “a tenuous toe in the water” and I finished the post with “I hear you Capgemini on the intent…but “there is a real need to put some ‘red meat’ on the bone here,” and that is what they seem to be doing in a “blink of an eye,” with this Fahrenheit 212 acquisition, or at least allow the tissues to be grafted on and take hold, so it can challenge where and how innovation transforms the business process.

David meets and marries a Goliath.

On first look at this acquisition you see a 180,000 people consulting firm, operating in 40 countries with nearly EUR12 billion in revenue, adding a 60 to 70 people innovation and design consultancy, operating in the US and less so in the UK and you wonder, what simply happens with such a move? Will one simply dwarf and overwhelm the other, will the small influence the big, in the positive ways both have as the initial intent of this deal? I hope so.

I was reading the press release of Capgemini, the usual corporate speak, released for shareholders and stakeholders, nicely reassuring, sufficient to appease and appraise the stakeholders. Then compared this with the wonderful open letter written by the Fahrenheit team. They tell much of the divide that somehow has to be bridged. Let me explain or illustrate in the words from these releases.

According to Capgemini’s press release “Fahrenheit 212 will contribute its specialized capabilities for innovation strategy and consumer-centric design to the broader offerings of Capgemini Consulting. The move opens growth opportunities for both companies through their combined capabilities”

Now lets see why Fahrenheit 212 was and hopefully still is a cut apart from the rest in innovation, through the open letter they wrote on their” boldest move yet”.

“Innovation moves forward….but in the same blink it’s something bigger”

The open letter just tells a real story of passion, intent, a mixture of hope and excitement. Of course, many ventures have been dashed on the rocks of despair but at this moment of time this is the sort of message I want to hear coming from the acquired and also explaining the potential course of the new journey ahead..

Let me pick out a few

“Innovation isn’t merely driving change. It is undergoing big changes of its own”

Fahrenheit paints the picture that I believe is absolutely right in its timing and assessment:

“ Not long ago, innovation was an under-the-radar business activity. Everyone applauded when serendipity served up an occasional breakthrough. But few businesses were relying on innovation to keep them relevant and growing.

That’s all changing. With breakneck speed, forces of disruption, shifts in consumer expectations, erosion of barriers to entry and a vibrant startup movement have propelled innovation from the background to a position as one of the most important activities for any growth-minded business to get right”

“The consequences are big. Innovation is simply too important to be random anymore”

Moving from the past to the future

In this they provide the background to the change being undertaken in innovation at the moment and then they go on to clarify the reason for the decision to be acquired and why they think it makes sense for both to make a move.

“But for the innovation discipline to be truly effective today, we must empower our creative impetus with new capabilities. Capabilities like robust software development, supply chain expertise, unique access to emerging technology and data analytics – things a few steps beyond what innovation firms are asked to do today – will soon become core requirements in the way innovation is conceived and driven to market”

“This all points to a bolder future and a new set of requirements for the business of innovation consulting. Where success isn’t measured in mere possibility, but in big strategies and breakthrough ideas made real”

Marriage of shared intent

“For Fahrenheit 212’s part, it represents a way to leapfrog our competitive set and bring an entirely unique combined force to market. Individually and in aggregate, our new capabilities will drive the realization of innovations as powerfully as we’ve ignited them at the front end.

Overnight we’ll gain access to new ability to turn big ideas into not just prototypes, but enterprise level solutions. We’ll also plug into Capgemini’s global network of Applied Innovation Exchanges – 30 workspaces around the world for exploring emerging-technology led transformation in areas like retail innovation, internet of things, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence.

For our partners at Capgemini, linking up with Fahrenheit 212 represents a step toward their vision of redefining the way the consulting industry thinks and works. Bringing their world-class consulting and implementation practices to future-state problem solving and design.

Together we share a belief that solving for the challenges our clients will face in the future is only possible through the kind of visionary forward thinking that opens opportunities that aren’t yet in sight”

The combination has real potential if it is given the freedom to evolve but will it?

The words of Todd Rovak, the Managing Partner and CEO of Fahrenheit 212 offered these insights that give us the ‘glimpse’ into the future:

• Fahrenheit 212 fused design and development skills with a traditional management consultancy so they could assist clients well beyond identifying strong markets. By bringing creative and analytical capabilities together, Rovak said Fahrenheit can help clients unlock new spaces by identifying what existing assets to leverage and helping them design a brand strategy for the new market.
• The deal will additionally allow Fahrenheit to plug into Capgemini’s Applied Innovation Exchanges, 30 workspaces around the world where companies can immerse themselves in emerging technologies in areas like retail innovation, the Internet of Things (IoT), virtual reality and artificial intelligence. The Exchanges are also intended to help firms address the business disruptions confronting their industries.
• Fahrenheit 212 said the deal will enable the company to marry its creative impulse with an entirely new set of capabilities around robust software development, supply chain expertise, unique access to emerging technology and data analytics. “The ability to shape the future is only half the question,” Todd Rovak, Fahrenheit 212’s managing partner and CEO suggests “Being able to deliver the future in also vital.”
• The ability to combine innovation strategy and transformational thinking with enterprise-level implementation on a global scale is now a client mandate. Capgemini’s deep technology capabilities, resources and client relationships will steepen its trajectory and acceleration that would have been at a slower pace for both separately.

“Together within this sharing of a belief that solving for the challenges our clients will face in the future is only possible through the kind of visionary forward thinking that opens opportunities that aren’t yet in sight”.

Future-state problem solving and design is needed around innovation through technology

Capgemini seems to have a vision of redefining the way consulting industry thinks and works. It is bringing in global scale, leading consulting practices and the continuous implementation practices that I feel Capgemini have been developing. The Applied Innovation Exchange, recently announced by Capgemini has a great contributor to deliver on its intent with this acquisition.

Together Capgemini with Fahrenheit 212, will bring additional value and innovation to the client base, current and future, so as to expand their innovation solutions into new industries that are undergoing digital disruption.

The intent is to start with some “visionary forward thinking that opens opportunities that aren’t yet in sight” and the combination clearly stated by Fahrenheit 212 again as:

“But for the innovation discipline to be truly effective today, we must empower our creative impetus with new capabilities. Capabilities like robust software development, supply chain expertise, unique access to emerging technology and data analytics – things a few steps beyond what innovation firms are asked to do today – will soon become core requirements in the way innovation is conceived and driven to market”

The future is often limited by the constraints imposed

Fahrenheit 212 will operate within the Capgemini North American operation, perhaps far too limiting in my opinion but as a freestanding brand and group, as it certainly does have such a unique culture, team and way of working but will it be allowed to continue? Or will it simply fuse and emerge differently from its past into something more scalable, full of the need for speed, broader innovation solutions fused with a heavier technology and digital backbone? Or simply fade away drained of its creative and responsive thinking?

This acquisition certainly needs handling with real care, sensitivity and attention otherwise it can go the way of others, in their need to offer innovation, it gets simply smothered, lost and the acquirers never learn its true design force and creative value as it does not fit the existing business model.

Time will tell, I wish all involved well, it is far more an internal challenge than an external one perhaps? I do hope the traditional models around innovation are broken and a new one emerges. Capgemini have real intent at least and that is good. Who else is waking up to this change going on in innovation I wonder?

The post In the blink of an eye, it gets something bigger first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Putting that aside the website, the current point of reference, leaves me puzzled, a little unclear on its ‘compelling’ proposition. I think I get it but it simply strikes me as a launch as ‘thin,’ on really spelling it out for me, or surely the very clients, in its value and potential. It actually seems a very minimum viable product.  I just had to go in search of a better understanding.

The concept of having any “applied innovation exchange” coming from Capgemini should be promising, as somewhere to go, as they are a leading technology consulting practice. It ‘seems’ to be offering a connecting platform, well-established ecosystem advantages but it seems so understated here.

Why? It seems so tenuous, a toe in the water. I would have expected a much bigger bang here. The website told me just enough but I think it should have delivered more.

My understanding came more from the press release

So to get a better understanding I actually had to reverted to the press release and that provided more than the website in providing some improved clarity, as there seems precious little else at present. It seems they are offering a place and a digital space where others can come and play, to accelerate their innovation activities.

According to this press release AIE is “an integrated system, offering a process to rapidly and securely gain competitive advantage in today’s fast-pace innovation market landscape, by compressing cycle time from discovery to deployment of innovation“. Now that would be good news for nearly any innovation team, as they all seem to be under growing pressure to add even more speed from idea to final concept, so they can get their innovation ideas out of the door. Yet my puzzlement shifted a little here on the optimism of this.

The solutions are coming from offer spaces and “exchanges” where organizations are able to immerse themselves in the understanding, experimentation and application of all aspects of emerging technologies, as well as addressing the business disruptions confronting them and their industries”. Again my pulse moves up a notch or two on this. Although these did seem to be bricks and mortar, more than cloud and remote based.

Also they will be offering a global curated ecosystem of innovation partners and a framework of tried and tested tools to help enterprises to exploit these market disruptions in a structured way. I assume ‘the curated by’ will be by Cap Gemini as it is their Exchange.

The physical spaces they are providing are presently in Munich, Paris, Lille, Toulouse, Utrecht, Mumbai, Melbourne and now San Fransisco, followed soon by London, that will house key sectoral and process domain expertise, to allow the applications of these “innovations” to their specific business connect need. Presently these are working on different solutions for the automotive sector, virtual reality glasses, agile products and services for energy, developing applications for the French Railway (SNCF for connected watches) and a number of other examples outlined in the press release.

The promise presented in this release is also that they will provide the connecting up to other significant global technology players, most already in the Capgemini network, with the intent to build a global network of start-ups, academic institutions, research organizations, access to venture capital and private equity firms.

The promise is that this AIE ecosystem will be an operating framework constantly evolving taking a greater collaborative approach and allowing the balance between external and internal thinking to apply innovative solutions.

Returning to the web site of AIE

Here is the puzzle, I was really expecting something that underscored platforms, ecosystems, gave a greater clarification of partners, a greater story on all this physical space being offered; what was in it to play with, learn from and engagement with, but it remains “thin” and this from a leading technology consultant. The client stories help validate an (emerging) concept but does it really differ itself, in ways that make me stop and feel that this Applied Innovation Exchange is really different?

I’m not sure on what I see going back to the website, it looks like a story unfolding possibly, that might have been put together quickly or in this MVP way. It seems to have a very limited architecture or depth behind it as far as you can initially explore- for me it seems somewhat beyond a placeholder but it just does not seem to reflect a real “connected thinking” behind it, that you would expect from one of the global digital leading consulting firms.

It is speaking the language of need but I’m yet unsure of if it’s a game changer or “breaking traditional models” even though it is suggesting it is taking a multi-party collaborative approach.

Being far too cautious perhaps?

For me it is a wait and see, what about for others? I believe in platforms and written fairly extensively on these (here,and here), ecosystems (here) and (here), collaborative innovation (here) and (here), transcending different industry boundaries (here),  where consultants can contribute (here) and (here) . Equally presenting the arguments that there is this need is to shift to a new radical model (here) and are we getting real value out of the existing innovation consultants (here), which I certainly believe we are not. I felt Capgemini could have presented a more compelling and connecting story for this launch

Have Capgemini fallen into the trap that I’ve written about before (here) of “Consultants are far too cautious for their own good“ It is often harder to make internal change than providing the advice for others to make. As I assume this was all internally driven you enter the world of the typical client, lots of conflicting opinions, worries of risk, what to reveal and provide, as others are watching and can be fairly nimble if they spot something different. Maybe this is an assumption too far but it is not delivering a wow factor, yet for me.

Bridging the intent with the present deliver

So I hear you Capgemini on the intent, I would suggest the execution and launch might not be living up to this as yet. Still it is early days, or I am missing something a whole lot deeper that is failing to be conveyed in this website? .As I say, the press release gave a whole lot more than this site. Is that a good thing as it stands?

There is a real need to put some ‘red meat’ on the bone here or perhaps a seen ‘gap in the market’ might be lost to others as they can explain it better, Capgemini needs to recognize urgently this real need for a deeper understanding presently missing.

Equally internally, in consultants you have strong and diverse opinions and I would fear these potential internal antibodies kick-in and go back to the traditional practice unless they see their own compelling value, treating this as just another part of the technology service offering, an add-on, or perhaps it simply was just that, an extension to existing services?

The post Is this really breaking the traditional model on Innovation? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Internal leadership of innovation suffers from exactly the same critical problem that the people working on innovation suffer from, of a lack of time and opportunity to study alternatives, as all are caught up in ‘driving’ their innovation through their internal system.

This “alternative voice” is often missing and this can so easily come through external advocacy. This is unlikely to come from the innovation consultant brought in to undertake ongoing work as that is very different, this is more critical, more specialized, even strategical supporting role, involving peer-to-peer engagement.

This peer-to-peer helps  explore those critical issues relevant to you and where your organization is. Its aim is to offer a different perspective, so as to alter opinions or build new insights, that often cannot be evaluated without considerable deflection from the daily managing innovation that is taking place in often complex and challenging situations.

Yet alternatives need to be considered so knowledge can evolve.
Finding a depth of knowledge offered by others can save serious time in considering appropriate alternatives or simply further strengthen your existing innovation understanding.  It is an option that needs real consideration.

This can come from a more ‘traditional’ coaching approach that is seeking behaviorial difference but I think this needs to be extended and deepened further into managing intevention points selectively.

Let me offer a suggested framework that supports this use of engaging with external innovation expertise in peer-to-peer interventions for advancing innovation alternatives.

The First Loop

1. Reflection: often within your own organization you might lack a sounding board to your innovation thinking. Sometimes, actually far too often, advice that is ‘freely’ given may have its own personal agenda, so it is useful to find someone who can demonstrate that they do understand your perspective and are capable and able, to discuss this thinking out loud in a more open, unconstrained way. This resource can really offer a valuable contribution to enhancing your views, challenging ‘set’ positions and strengthen a broader perspective.

2. Observation: this seeking out opinion can often throw into a much sharp focus what you are capable of doing well and what you are missing. Often this is sometimes better to come from an external view point, which can provide feedback from a set of critical questioning. The aim is to aid you in revealing some crucial gaps and can provide a timely, relevant perspective to avoid potential pitfalls and add value through this independent observation assessment.

3. Identification: it can also be highly valuable in engaging someone in exploring the intermediate steps of all the available options. This provides a valuable objectivity at a critical stage within developing innovation capability. That advice then can help you work through these evaluations and stimulate potential alternatives, often hidden from immediate view or not considered fully enough.

4. Clarification: The values of having some form of external benchmarking and growing awareness of best practice across different industries really can help significantly change your thinking. Within these parts of any discussion this can provide you with a broader understanding of the critical gaps, competitive forces and the alternatives that are valuable to be aware of, across industry and where there is possible adoption within your own circumstances.

The value of knowing also ‘emergent best practice’ is also highly useful, often not gained by internal perspective alone. These can come from across industry, or further afield in different geographic application, to stimulate your thinking to fascinating alternatives, fresh insights and new practices and paths to follow, that can contribute to a stronger and often unique competitive position.

Each of these four activities in peer-to-peer discussions can significantly advance your knowledge and belief in managing innovation far more robustly than normally otherwise. They trigger and stimulate and can be enormously useful to the leadership of innovation within organizations and on a personal understanding level.

The Second Loop
We can move beyond the four approaches of reflection, observation, identification and clarification into the next learning loop of applying a more action orientated framework to extend out those peer-to-peer discussions. These are:

5. Problem‐solving application: often within your teams there is a rich knowledge but sometimes it has become too internally focused and lacks that ability to see the broader external perspective and alternatives that we feel an independent voice can bring into the equation. Also external help can offer expertise, resetting the momentum within project or the management of innovation that provides a deeper expertise and contribution that is not immediately available within the organization.

6. Educating through mentoring: often general training fails to transfer that essential and appropriate knowledge back into the organization as it lacks expertise in a given area. This lack of embedding through the application of immediate practice can lead to a absence of personal identification and lose of time. There is a real value in looking for external mentoring for correlation to we look what training should provide by working to achieve specific outcomes on the job, therefore firmly fixing the theory with the practical.

7. Solution Advocacy: the key to successfully external advice is not just in the recommendations and guidelines but the critical part is the issue of transferability into the real world and working through the implications this brings. Encouraging external involvement at this stage, not to do your own teams jobs but to champion and advocate, does greatly aid and increase the value and satisfaction from the engagement, from all perspectives.

It provides the increasing ‘knowledge return’ on any investment in your innovation activity by deploying external resources to ‘critical moments’ or activities that need supporting at those vital times, to give it additional momentum.

8. Implementation & Application: supporting the innovation solutions is often the toughest part that needs that extra energy and understanding. Execution is often extremely hard to undertake and often lightly regarded as a normal part of everyday occurrence. This is far from the case. It needs dedicated resources and increased specialisation.  It is often forgotten that it is only at this stage you begin to have a return on your investment, entering the market place and nothing is realised from all those internal efforts until this part is executed. Execution is critical to strategy so as to make it successful and realizable.

Applying additional resource and expertise can offer real value. Executing the go-to-market strategy well can add considerable gravitas to your value and to your organizations perceived value.  Previous ‘invested time’ in peer-to-peer engagements cannot be more actively demonstrated at this point. Applying knowledge gained in having the external provider assisting and making interventions at those most opportune execution moments can be highly supportive by raising critical issues, that it is sometimes hard for internal parties to make, without some personal concerns on the implications for often themselves.

A cautionary warning: you are paying to listen and learn- do!

In all of these interventions I’d only ask that you resist ‘shooting the external messenger’ until you have heard the important message he or she is delivering, it might really make the difference between innovation success and failure.

It would be a real pity if you lose a wonderful ongoing external resource that’s value is seeking out and extending their innovation knowledge so you can benefit.

They can be positioned as an  advocating source to the many ‘alternatives’ that are certainly available, that you,due to your role just have limited time to explore. I’d recommend you leverage this resource, nudge, nudge.

This specialised innovation knowledge provider can suppliment and nourish your innovation appetite to build on what you already know.

It augments what you often don’t have time to evaluate yourself.

The post Critical intervention points of innovation peer-to-peer engagement first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.