Now the report in its fifth edition, it is now spanning 23 countries where the opinions of senior innovation executives or the equivalent are sought out, covering 2,748 executives, with 1,915 being in the C-Suite.

This year the barometer decided to explore the perceptions of the (informed) public for their thoughts on innovation’s growing impact and in particular, the future of work and they interviewed 1,346 to gain some useful insights and pointers that separate business and the citizen in their understandings.

The report covers a significant amount of areas across innovation. Here I wanted to pull out just a couple that initially caught my eye. I might add to this in further posts.

The top line according to GE has six supporting key findings, many supporting their strategy, which sometimes leaves me uncomfortable but partly expected. Are they just looking for their own validation but are they drawing out the downsides and implications that might bring and challenge their model. Hopefully yes, they do have a head-start over many in the way they have been undertaking transformation in my opinion.

The top supported findings were:

• Creativity and problem-solving will be key for future work forces
• Minds and machines are working together (expected perhaps from GE)
• The ROI on Collaboration is constantly improving
• The Emerging markets are more fearless in embracing innovation
• The (constant) call for greater Government support to break down barriers
• The energy sector is ripe for disruption (again GE specific)

The four main themes that did emerge from the key findings from this report see’s pressure is rising but optimism as still prevailing. These needs considering as they do cover some of the critical forces that will push or limit the 4th Industrial Revolution many are talking about and discussed further below. These are:

• A welcome revolution. Both business executives and informed citizens are optimistic about the digital transformation of the world. In emerging markets they actually feel “empowered” by this as a radical transformation point. More on that later
• The Embracing of New Models and Technologies. The continued adapting of investments, partnerships and collaboration opportunities will inform decision-making far more.
• Disruptive Innovation: the solution and the challenge. The recognition that business needs to innovate radically most are mindful of the risk, yet fear being left behind and obsolete.
• Everybody’s starting up. The balance between safer, pursuing incremental innovation and protecting the core business is growing. Inertia and risk-aversion are growing. Yet meanwhile the “start-up” ethos is growing creating different innovation cultures within companies of all sizes.

Getting past the GE shaping in the opening part of the report when you dig a little deeper there are plenty of ‘nuggets of pure gold. I want to pick out a few only here. There seems a lot of denial, delusion and inertia under the surface.

Firstly setting this into context: The 4th Industrial Revolution is challenging us all

This report is timed for the Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum 2016, starting this week. Within the themes this year is the 4th Industrial Revolution is one of the main focal points, I felt we ought to bring this into this review of mine.

Dr. Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the WEF wrote about this 4th revolution recently. He points out we stand on the brink of a technological revolution altering the fundamental ways we live, work and relate to one another. This is rapidly underway for each of us. It has scale, scope and complexity that is unlike what has come before. It is characterized, in his opinion, by a fusion of technologies that are blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.

Its power will lie in velocity, scope and impact it will bring, more breakthroughs, exponential rather than linear in pace and will disrupt almost every industry in every country, it will eventually, sooner than later transform entire systems of production, management and governance.

The real fear is on the impact on business

The impact on business will be huge. In Dr.Schwab’s constant conversations with global CEO’s  is that the acceleration of innovation and the velocity of disruption are for most hard to comprehend, or even anticipate. The drivers of this revolution will deliver constant surprise, even for the best connected and most well informed.

Entirely new ways of serving needs, massively changing value chains disrupted constantly will require highly agile responses as the growing access to global digital platforms will oust well-established incumbents with improving on quality, speed, price and availability to serve emerging needs that are highly valued by the end user.

The main effects of this 4th revolution will be on seeing different customer expectations, changing rapidly product and service enhancements, the need for constantly adapting and collaborating in different ecosystems of partners and constantly changing organizational forms.

Nearly all we know in business will require some significant level of rethinking. It is against this scene the GE Global Innovation Barometer helps to unpick much of the complexity. The GE Innovation Barometer report is extensive it what it is providing. It has many avenues to explore

Early ‘stand-outs’ for me from this Barometer report at first glance

The aspects I pick out initially here are around Digital Darwinism, and The Start-Up Ethos, Internal Inertia and Ineffective Business Models

Digital Darwinism or is it simply full-swing Darwinism?

The consensus of both the business executive and the informed public is that more and more businesses face extinction, rapidly becoming obsolete, as technology is evolving far faster than many can adapt too. The feeling is that only a few are performing as quick adapters and implementing emerging technologies, many are simply lagging. One that I tend to believe does explore and exploit is GE, although its leaderships foresight and speed with the need to adapt is struggling to equally bring its organization up to speed, possibly it is not working “all the pumps” on this one. It needs too.

The gold standard is “being disruptive” but it is such a challenging goal. According to the report, even though 90% of innovating companies are claiming they not just launching new products and services but are creating a new market that did not exist previously.

Now I must admit I just find this totally at odds with what I see or read on a constant basis. I really would want to dispute this or those making this claim have very low threshold of what they define as ‘new’ and being created. Is this more delusional, believing incremental innovation is determining “new” in the broadest sense, to simply justify this claim? So where is all the real growth in the worlds business organizations then if this claim is valid? A question going beyond “not only launch” but ones that are proving real impact on the top and the bottom line (defined criteria needed) would define innovation a little better.

Time and time again I read reports on the lack of innovation, of dedicated resources, even the leadership has such limited time to put behind innovation. I really question this result.

Also 47% are claiming the development of entirely new products or services has contributed to the performance, yet 60% state it is difficult to come up with radical and disruptive ideas is still a key challenge. Definitions of ‘new’ certainly need clarifying. This slide shown can be highly misleading on real innovation progress.

Turning to the Digital Darwinism, it is not just digital in my mind, it is in understanding what is really in need of radically changing and adapting that companies need to do, in  innovating to meet this revolution that is clearly underway.

On the other side of this positive view of innovating reported, we then get the result that the majority of business executives continue to favor a “safer” approach to innovation. They want to maximize existing revenue (58% of those interviewed), protect the core (64%) with only 34% recognizing the development of new business models has contributed to the performance within their company. That is more in line with what I ‘see’ in the market.

The report also points out most businesses innovate incrementally as a way to mitigate risks, even while speed to market is increasingly a differentiator.  63% use incremental to improve existing products and solutions, while 46% try to get to market as quickly as possible to keep an edge over (existing) competitors (for me viewing in the back mirror) and not scanning for the upstarts or disruptive forces coming from different places .

When you look at the country breakdown, this protecting the core is dominant for most countries and a real lack of looking for long term payoff for innovation dominates company thinking. Most executives within most countries have difficulty coming up with radical and disruptive ideas with a growing challenge the highest concern in the USA, South Korea, France, Canada, Japan, Sweden, with the one sizable exception being China.

A growing perception difference on Innovating

The informed public think internal inertia and lack of leadership prevents business from innovating efficiently, while the exec blames ineffective business models (the poor worker blames his tools perhaps). The report specifically asked each, the business exec and the informed public to clarify the challenges preventing businesses ability to innovate efficiently. To level inertia and lack of leadership is a damning reflection of what the public think holds innovation back. I would not disagree.

Darwinism is certainly tapping on every organization’s door in the need for evolution. There are new ideas, concepts, combinations and much more all emerging. If organizations hold onto the totally mistaken belief that incremental will allow them to survive then we are seeing many heading for extinction.

In the past business has found ways where they thrived through stable markets and interlocking in ways we have known to keep thriving. In recent years we are losing many of our known beacons of business , whole rafts of previously well-established business sectors or industries, or ones are being forced to merge as they failed to evolve.

We will continue to lose many of our present organization as they are approaching the edge of a sheer cliff from keeping in denial.

Is this any different from our endangered wildlife species we are in the early stages of a mass extinction event if our businesses fail to become more radical, prepared to disrupt and challenge in a fashion unknown before. Of course the future is unknown but there are things we do know and we need to adapt and work with what we are being provided in this revolutionary period.

The fear of being obsolete is worrying that it is becoming faster than many can adapt to, it seems. This is something each business leader has to face up to and radically change within themselves and their organizations. It is the challenge of today.

I would say, others may not agree but I feel GE are attempting to head of these warnings in their way and taking to heart much within the Barometers past and present.

The “Start-Up” ethos and the chase for the talent has growing implications

• How are different parts of the world trying to catch up, leapfrog over others and become more radical to make this valuable to them?
• How is the larger company equally attempting to stay incremental for their core to protect it but also in using this “start-up” ethos increasingly?

The challenge is how to create an innovation culture within companies of all sizes that allow this- often referred to as the “dual” approach of simultaneously exploiting and exploring.

The report observes with digital transformation there is the rise of the nomad employee. These individuals do not seek full-time employment but favor freelancing or contracting modes. 71% of Business Executives confirm this trend and 84% of the informed public (the very people searching for this). This has implications on building a loyal cadre of employees or holding them within the one environment without significant adjustments to changing the working environment.

It is from the questions to the informed public they see the top elements to create a more productive work environment as 89% flexible working hours with a level of freedom to choose these working hours, 80% want participative management principles with a growing say and 79% want remote working on a regular basis. Other productive environments consist of flexible holidays (75%), more open (flexible) offices (71%), Minimal hierarchy (69%), Satellite offices (62%), participative salaries (60%) and hot desking facilities (50%)

The interesting ‘tension’ within companies is they are looking for creative problem solvers but this entrepreneur spirit is not fully embraced. The “start-up ethos” is not being fully exploited as it potentially might challenge the core and unleash ‘uncontrolled’ disruption within the organization that prides itself at being, foremost efficient and effective. These often run counter to entrepreneurship, and innovation.

The main attributes are still aligned to the business as usual not the need to think new Business Models, become more radical, look to be disruptive, although the Business Executive thinks perhaps they are embracing this “ethos”, the effort supporting these initiatives are “just but a toe in the water” testing the concept today.

Again I feel some level of denial, of not wanting to really embrace or face up to the real race for talent. Often we mistakenly ask the question to the company “what do you look for in candidates” but it is the candidate today that is asking “do I fancy working for them” and how does it fit in my personal journey, in my terms and wishes to achieve.

We come back to the embracing of the 4th Industrial Revolution

It was surprising within the Barometer report that most Business Execs and informed public are optimistic in embracing the 4th Industrial Revolution. That was surprising.

Embracing any future is full of uncertainty. According to this report there is surprising optimism, even some feeling of empowerment and the developing countries are leading this charge. Indonesia, Nigeria, Israel, Turkey, Algeria, China, Mexico, India, Poland, Malaysia, Brazil, Russia and South Africa feel certain positivity.

Those stuck in uncertainty are the ones who lose the most, these being Australia, Canada, USA, Sweden, France, South Korea, Germany and Japan.

It is within this group of ‘reluctant’ countries we find the most tension. The fear and needs in protecting the core, the difficulty of implementing (or wanting too) new business models, the worries of becoming obsolete, of being disrupted alongside the pressures of failing to attract and hold the talent as they are fighting in some respects and not fully embracing the “start up ethos.”

There is a lot to lose but equally to win. By not accepting that within any revolution, you can’t simply defend, you have to know where and how to attack, adapt and experiment, learning to evolve and embrace the changes at a really agile speed. Playing safe is not a winning option.

Safety first is a long-term losing strategy in my opinion

This ‘safer’ approach really needs changing. The absolute need is to embrace a more radical, disruptive stance of advancement. The urgency is where the leadership should be really  taking the important time of working all the revolutionary forces, exploring them, making them work to understand their changing environment, then disruption will be a force that catches them completely out. The CEO should devolve the day-to-day to the COO and get back to much deeper strategic thinking.

The challenging that needs to go on today is that most of the existing, prevailing assumptions are needing revising, even uprooting, forcing of the operating teams to relentless adapt, and become continuously good at innovating through new business models, products and services. Leaders need to be a whole lot bolder in setting a disruptive, technology driven agenda that radically alters the present offering. GE is certainly attempting this in my opinion.

We need to guide the evolution and find ways that are mostly yet to come so we have to be highly adaptive.  We need to break out of linear thinking, stop being absorbed by multiple crises and think strategically and longer-tern about all that is disrupting us and how innovation must shape the future.

The GE Innovation Barometer can only signpost, it is for us to extract the value it provides to help in any change journey. Find a copy and understand its implications on you personally, and more importantly its implications on your business.

Here is a link into the GE Innovation Barometer Report 2016.

The post GE and its Global Innovation Barometer 2016 first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Dubbed “Innovation Breakthroughs – Igniting Europe’s Growth” They were celebrating 10 years of the opening of the centre and as you arrived, you saw the cranes at work to double the facility as well as further deepen their commitments within the surrounding community even further.

One such community success story has been the co-location they have with the Technical University of Munich (TUM), where both have evolved to share a real philosophy of creating new knowledge and making it available for the industrial innovation process through this partnership.

They combine in a number of “sweet spots” or research domains, that move the academic creative contributions of science into the industrial researchers alongside, working to advance products, bringing these concepts to commercial fruition.

The event also combine with the announcement of Euro €18.5 Million in New Research Program Funding announced as GE Marks the 10th Anniversary of its Global Research Centre in Europe with its university partners. A further community commitment.

Alongside side this announcement, a White Paper was issued on “The State of European Innovation”, drawing down from the GE Innovation Barometer  and other resources.

I have always liked to read with interest this set of Barometer insights,  and have enjoyed commenting upon (here for example) the results that are published each year. The GE Innovation Barometer I think really does offer valuable insights into innovation thinking by over 3,000 leaders in larger business organizations. It offers good insights into the inner thinking about innovation that has practical implications.

A quick tour of the R&D facilities reveals much about a company

While I was there, I was lucky enough to take a “quick” tour of the GE facility after my small contribution to a fascinating set of debates earlier in the day. I can honestly state the passion, commitment and sense of pride in all the researchers I meet were impressive. It goes way, way beyond putting on a positive spin to the visitor, it is a deep desire and I think a real motivation to push advancement.

Before I went to Munich I really got caught up in GE and its evolving story.
From the outside looking into GE I had felt it was evolving but I was not able to get ‘under the hood’ and see the ‘powerful forces’ that seem to be at work. This event helped trigger that growing awareness and brought it significantly to life for me.

GE often use an awful lot of ‘convening words’ that make you curious to connect to their technologies, and their industry areas and explain how and where these are evolving. I think this thinking has been ‘cranking up’ significantly in the past couple of years, and for good reasons. GE has a good evolving story to tell.

Included in their portfolio are some of the essential aspects of our lives, they connect us, connect enterprises and advance many things and reshape the future. When you hear about “mapped minds”, “brilliant factories”, “extreme machines”, “energy everywhere”, “super materials” and finally their take of the “industrial internet” it confronts you. That was how I felt when I walked through the doors into their lobby area.

For me it was going to be a promising day.
Irrespective of how or where I could contribute, I knew I was going to learn a lot from the event. As it turned out the panel I was invited upon became fairly lively.

I had the pleasure of being on a panel that included Mark Little, the Senior Vice President and Chief Technical Office for GE, Jean Botti, the Chief Technical and Innovation Officer for the Airbus Group and Christian Cahn von Seelen, the Head of Corporate Strategy, China and India Business at Skoda Auto.

The audience ranged from politicians, and senior representatives across industry, research institutions and health and the Q & A I felt could have gone on and on, debating Europe’s innovative future. We simply touched the ‘tip of the iceberg as there are equally dangers lurking not just under the surface as complex problems to tackle.

Yet equally, such a positive mass of deep knowledge, real tangible successes and high absorption of learning across Europe, all needs to be picked apart, mapped out and reconnected in new ways, does provide a promising future in innovative ways to get Europe moving again, in growth, jobs and unified commitments. I only wish it was less left in Politicians and Bureaucratic hands and our institutions and business leaders were more deeply involved in shaping the process, not just lobbying for their specific part.

Plenty of pride, some angst.

Sitting in Germany you can always ‘feel’ that real pride, a clear determination and belief in the achievements made and plenty yet to come-

Equally, you know what will be delivered in much of the approaches can be summarized as making connected sense. Sometimes the rest of Europe does seem to want to ‘pull’ in other ways and that is hard to understand from a German’s perspective. This is part of ‘our’ creative tensions in Europe to be bridged.

It is part of the challenges we face in Europe, connecting all the diversity and opinions of 28 countries to get growth and a real momentum within the European economy going again. Debating the required innovation fits across Europe is complex and challenging.

What I liked in my visit was a reminder that if you combine much that is good from one culture and fuse it in thoughtful ways that capitalise on the diversity of the other or across many, you can really see tangible results. Collaborating on big challenges would be one ‘unifier’.

I think the combination of the fusion of the mindsets of an American company that believes it is a scale-based entrepreneur organization, managing complicated technologies and ‘big things’ and a collection of bright researching minds, all drawn from not just across Europe but many parts of the world, sitting next to a university (TUM) that are plugging into the German way of doing things is a good example of this collaborating across big challenges.

Of course, managing complex situations across cultures can be frustrating but this host of ‘connected points’ strikes me to be a winning formula. Of course in GE’s case, you throw in the connected nine Global Research centres you certainly ‘sense’ this motion towards an accelerating future within GE. 2,000 scientists and engineers and 50,000 technologists. It can make you pause for breath, it’s simply impressive, and ‘living proof’ of connecting minds, knowledge, and cultures with machines on how it can generate results that are advancing what we know today in significant ways.

Then we have the wave of connecting minds and machines.

Mark Little the Chief Technology Officer for GE was heading out of the door early afternoon to catch the flight to get him back to GE’s next event, of connecting minds and machines being held the next day. Now this promises a different, potentially radical new future in industry and GE are placing a lot of resource and commitments into it.

GE is taking a real lead here. In the last three years, they have been ramping up their thinking, dubbed “the industrial internet” and moving into the power of connected industrial assets (the machines) through embedding sensor technology everywhere on the machine, bringing back its data from often hostile environments and through the analytics applied can turn this into ‘intelligent information.’

This offers the potential of real-time decision making, delivering required and necessary insights at the right time, to the operators and business decision-makers so as to manage that dreaded aspect all industries fear of “downtime” better. It also allows for managing more efficiently and effectively the assets.

Already I gather GE has put over £1 billion into this potential game-changing move to transform industry. CEO and Chairman Jeff Immelt’s opening to this event with his headline view: “if you went to bed last night as an Industrial company, you are going to wake up in the morning as a software and analytical company” where the separation between data and industry has vanished. Does this change the business model, I think so.

Of course, Jeff Immelt is saying this, he runs a “big bets company” and they are setting about transforming the industry for competitive advantage. Yet again though, it is the way they seem to be setting about it that makes you feel it is happening and shifting the dynamics of big asset business, in significant ways.

Platforms, Partnerships and the Ecosystem

I strongly believe the future of collaboration is going to be based around platforms and ecosystems, where you bring together the minds and the business interest, gathered around specific but complex issues to solve. GE are working on delivering this.

Through their platform of Predix, GE are providing “industrial-strength software and analytics” and spoke of having 40 apps ready for customer use today at this event. They are also throwing open the platform for others to use, build and develop their apps. GE will offer the backbone, architecture, resilience, and security for others to come onto this platform with growing confidence and work towards ‘apps’ that are even more tailor-specific to their needs beyond ‘just’ sensors.

The partners already working with delivering from this platform are Cisco, Intel and Accenture and GE’s investment in Pivotal will mean the amount of time GE executives will be spending in San Francisco building the resources behind this is a space worth following.

I gather they have 800 data scientists and GE is on a further massive recruit to ramp this up, well over doubling this in the region, to attract and blend the best in talent, software and analytics. I also gathered they have been but recruiting the ‘forty something’ person as well for their business experience, as they sit down and work through issue upon issue with their customers.

It is clearly evolving at some speed, GE are delivering the Medici Effect of breakthrough insights at the intersections of ideas, concepts and cultures. as our world becomes more intersectional when we merge one field into a new, unfamiliar territory for these radical changes in how we will manage in the future.

The combinations of smart machines, enabling technologies, big data modelling and analytics and determining the customer outcomes in increasing collaborations, will radically alter the Business Model of GE in future years, in ways that we yet can’t imagine.

As I left the R&D centre in Munich

As I look up at the crane as I left and saw the shell of the additional building going up in Munich, I can imagine that science, research and technology will fuse in ways that we are only beginning to grasp. I wonder what type of mix of skills that group of future employees will have, far more a blend, perhaps a more broad set, rather than one that is deep only.

We will be seeing software services, a changing portfolio strategy and GE’s scientists, researchers and engineers all managing not just in their deep domains of knowledge but broadening out into far greater engagements alongside customers. It alters and unleashes.

Combining in future ways with the chosen universities, institutions and partners, increasing working through and on these platforms. where collaboration and co-creation will move way beyond today’s open innovation concepts, focusing on bringing ‘synergies’ that deliver those vital winning outcomes.

The future era of innovation suddenly looks even brighter.

So those Asset-intensive industries that are looking to reduce costs, improve efficiencies and search to unlock new sources of customer value, are moving into a ‘connected realisation’ that will bring the industrial internet into increasing focus. It will sit alongside the social side, where the internet of things (IoT) has been making most of the running to date, encroaching far more of our business and personal lives.

The promise of deep, lasting connections and relationships all seem to be offering innovation in a new era of prosperity, were connected enterprise and the connected world come together with very different business models, built on this ‘promise’ of platforms and ecosystems, delivering in very tangible ways through a collaborative common cause.

A place where “Everything connects,” a book written recently by Faisel Hoque, is suggesting where people, insights, capital, infrastructure and ecosystems combine. One where the age of creativity, innovation and sustainability come together as the needed skills required to be continually adaptive.

I’m all for that era. We are at perhaps an inflexion point on the way we are thinking, managing, and collaborating in a connected universe for new growth possibilities. I’d like to believe so and from what I can see, GE is well on their way to working this out in its own, highly focused way.

The post Connected Enterprise, Connected World with GE first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

The Barometer has explored the actions or constraints that senior business executives are worrying over in their pursuit of innovation.

The fieldwork was undertaken in April and May, 2014 and covered 3,200 phone interviews to people directly involved in the innovation strategy or process. It covered 26 countries and was conducted by Edelman Berland on GE’s behalf.

The supporting website provides the GE view of how this report reflects and provides an overview, an interactive, resources and key point headings sections to explore.

I  personally think GE have actually been a little too low-key on this report and frankly far too conservative on the potential takeaways in reading their ‘take’ in the overview.

It has significant implications for our organizations to grapple with but each is certainly not alone, it is a collective need to move innovation forward or you place much at risk if you don’t find solutions to the issues raised in this report.

This year the Barometer broke out of its past and steamed ahead.

The GE Barometer report for 2014 does seem to have broadened out its assessment on innovation, in my opinion, into a more comprehensive one around three aspects: 1) What are today’s drivers and barriers, 2) what are the trends, practices, myths and realities and 3) the country and public policy issues to tackle for supporting innovation.

There are two reports, one is a summary that can stand alone to quickly grasp the issues but does not really do the real justice that the full report provides in 68-odd slides. I’d recommend you explore both.

So what do I  have as my takeaways from this GE Barometer 2014?

I have summarized thirteen points that make some more than helpful insight into what is holding innovation back. In some ways by not cracking some of these it will kill off some businesses and this increased anxiety and fear I sense runs through many presently engaged in innovation, it is these that ‘reveals’ these tension points within this report. Take a read and see if you agree?

These are my thoughts summarized in these thirteen points gathered from the report:

1. Inequality, caused increasingly by technological innovation, will have a growing impact and fears on the ability to innovate, if innovation within countries or regions is not recognized as a real wealth creator or destroyer and its enablers are not effectively put into place and leveraged. The ability to resolve this or not, will have significant impacts on the lives and country positions within the global race for innovating competitiveness.

2. It is interesting to see a fairly equal view on the challenges being presented by a technological shift is either a revolution (52% think so) or an evolution (42%) and it does seem a number of emerging countries are rising to the challenge. Whereas the established ones might be less caught up in this, seeing this as part and parcel of radical changes going on. I think there seems an underlying complacency in some, a determination in others to shift the dynamics of how their country is seen and invested in.

3. The effect of this multifaceted change going on where greater collaboration convergence of technologies, the place of Big Data and the Internet of Things (IoT) seems to be leaving many of our organizations ill-prepared to embrace these.

4. External collaboration is a confirmed reality, the world over and it seems most organizations have passed through the downsides and see open collaborations as “risks worth taking” to innovate successfully today.

5. Big Data seems to be dominating many people’s minds today. 94% accept the reality of Big Data as something here to stay but the fears; constraints and impact, are far from worked through. Naturally you would understand this as Big Data is very emerging in its redefined concept but you gain a really clear sense of significant resistance to focus on this and how organizations are (totally) lacking in their abilities to capitalize on this. Some are actually “dreading the challenges and impact” it will have.

6. The Internet of Things (IoT) is seen to likely have a positive impact on jobs but 44% of those surveyed surprisingly had not heard of the “Industrial Internet” notion when asked. As this is a ‘GE-speak’ view of the more popular IoT it might not be a surprise as I can’t believe these level would not have heard or thought about IoT surely? There are clear ‘lead and laggards’ in different industries, with many indicating they are “not quite prepared” or “not at all prepared” for what this means on their business. (OMG!)

7. There is a review of how the global game of innovation is being played out with the balance required to localise the needs. ‘Glocal’ still resounds for many but I think this catch phrase might be not reflecting the true inability to tap into specific market needs and from this, local innovation might be significantly constrained. Like to understand this more to see if I might be right here, I think so.

8. The focal point of GE’s press release was entitled “Disruption Ready” yet there seems a huge anxiety here. The difficulties of changing mind sets, behaviours and processes is potentially going to “kill the business” is suggested, unless the ability to quickly adapt and implement emerging technologies is not undertaken. I think this needs a greater all-encompassing reflection as disruption itself is getting a lot of ‘airing’ at the moment. In this report 72% state they will protect their core business profitability and believe (mistakenly in my opinion) successful innovation (62% of responders) will come from planned innovation. Perhaps but not in the present way we structure innovation.

9. There is a strong continued worry over (a lack of) internal agility was acknowledged but the citing of “internal inertia” is seen as a critical challenge that can equally “kill their business” rings some real alarm bells for me.

10. Speed-to-market is split right down the middle. 50% believe getting to market as quickly as possible is key, 50% argue “not to rush” and take the time to perfect their innovation (another mistake in my opinion)

11. 60% of all interviewed still deem it difficult to define an effective business model and yet another seen challenge that is “killing the ability to innovate”. The scaling of innovation is equally seen as a concern and part of this real underlying Business Model issue.

With all the progress on BM’s you would think organizations would be working this defining and experimenting with different BM’s well through? The understanding, concepts and frameworks are out there but the board room seems to be blind to embracing this. It will change that is for sure.

12. The area that seems more ‘ripe’ for engaging and collaborating is between public sector and private industry on working through the needs for innovation and laying in the right policies and frameworks. The growing recognition that SME’s are leading the recovery charge, the encouraging of more start-ups and attracting into the country the multinational is tough to get into the right balance.

The public sector ‘reaction and responses’ lag more than lead and taking too much time to bring into place the factors for promoting innovation but within this report are some great slides on issues that can frame some healthy discussions and allow all the sides within the country innovation debates to engage and work out the evolving frameworks. I liked this section to help in this.

13. Lastly I liked the self-evaluation of each respondents view of their own countries innovation improvement or not, around that countries innovation framework. The developed countries are in need of waking up and listening, it seems.

My summary of the report.

So a rich report with lots of issues that do, it seems, need to be unlocked, unblocked and further uncovered to allow innovation to deepen and take hold. There are so many warning signals that I feel cannot be left much longer to tackle.

When you see “fear, anxiety, dread, killing our business, inertia, not prepared, not heard of, and killing the ability to innovate” it might raise one or two alarm bells somewhere.

Perhaps the alarm bells should be going off within the boardrooms, they need to start paying closer attention here, clearly they are still reluctant to understand and embrace innovation, they are not getting the multiple messages as it has far too many ‘disruptive forces’ to deal with but avoiding addressing these is far, far worse.

I think GE and their Barometer 2014 has some really helpful clues in not only what is “holding innovation back” but more in pointing up to “what needs to change” to allow innovation to really move forward. Please take some time to read it.

I would finally like to congratulate GE for investing in this initiative, it helps serve their global business by knowing more of what is the present thinking across many of their customers and across broad industries and public bodies they work with and it is proving thought leadership.

It also allows us all to understand the issues surrounding innovation

I certainly do look forward to where they take their GE Barometer 2015 on innovation as they have raised numerous issues that can be further followed up just from this 2014 report alone.

The post So what is holding innovation back? A new GE report first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

This ‘dizziness’ for many is being caused by a growing unease with the continuing changing dynamics of today’s business landscape and uncertainty over the path forward. This is forcing leaders to think differently about how they will achieve growth.

The good news though is it does seems that many are beginning to embrace this complexity by exploring new and sometimes unexpected opportunities to innovate.
According to Beth Comstock, the senior vice president and chief marketing officer of GE, “leaders are betting big on more unconventional approaches to innovation to unlock growth”.

It seems GE are trying to stay ahead of the pack in unlocking innovation by exploring different markets, partnership structures and business models.

Big data is accelerating up the inside as we have seen both GE and P&G, placing increasing emphasis on this, as a potential source of innovation insight they feel is presently missing.
The most important point comes back to these tensions or vertigo being felt, that is showing through in this report, between the desire for globalization and protectionist temptations that organizations sometimes tend to favor.

It seems as our leaders are being pushed outside their comfort zones they are having this uneasiness with the pace of change and confusion over the best path forward.

I’d hazard a guess  on what they feel as ‘vertigo’ does go beyond the usual symptoms of light-headedness and dizziness and is possibly far more: that of a chronic lack of solutions beginning to creep into their  psyche as their worlds are spinning out of their control, to stay managing in the ways they have been. Perhaps welcome to our world Mr Leader.

As many of them will be gathering in Davos, Switzerland between 23^rd to 27^th January 2013 (http://tinyurl.com/afde4w5) I think the higher than usual altitude, will not help their brains or nervous systems as the whole economic system is still out of balance, so having “Innovation Vertigo” is part of a bigger malaise I would expect.

Still, here are the top line summary points of the report

The protectionist debate

There seems a growing undercurrent of wanting protectionism but making sure it works in their favour. This could be trying to get Governments to prioritize promotion of domestic innovation rather than imported but many others continue to feel markets need to be opened even more to promote the imported innovation and attract the (domestic) investment that goes with this, or should.

A growing number of leaders see growing challenges for innovation within local economies, believing that the increased competition and accelerated pace of technological advancement has a negative impact. So this is a growing set of policy paradoxes, leaders want clearer decisions through local governments to determine this and bring it under control.

The wish to go beyond just product innovation

There is also a growing recognition that incremental innovation is simply just not enough as organizations are suffering from this lack of growth momentum, causing much of the “vertigo”. Business model innovation is becoming more and more the solution with a growing view that a new business model may offer businesses a less risky and resource-intense path to reach customers over the current ‘traditional’ methods.

I read an awful lot into this but top of mind does come the word ‘naivety’ and a chose this word due to its definition: “being naive is often lacking developed powers of reasoning and criticism.”  They might look far more at the “within” and come down from their often lofty heights and recognize they are the ones that inhibit and constrain the existing structures to perform in so many ways, far too many to start to outline here.

I welcome new business models of course, I teach the methodologies associated with them, so they are needed but are these organizations equipped to design, construct and execute new business models?  Also what happens to all the resource-intense ones, do they continue, only to wither and die as new ones are pushed by their own leaders?

No, this might be fanciful but it needs a far more robust debate and thinking through.  Of course focusing on the right forces for growth mentioned to master innovation is the real need for innovating successfully, business needs to master customer and market insights, talent and technology development.

Grasping new business models alone does not change that inherent weakness seen today in existing organizations. Theory and desire might be one thing, reality and sunken investment might be another –  maybe more vertigo then?

Collaborations continue to feature

According to the report, it is the belief that collaboration between businesses is emerging as a means to surpass competitors, enabling faster access to new technologies and markets particularly in emerging markets.

Yet despite global acknowledgement of partnership’s power, concerns over revenue sharing, IP protection, trust and talent poaching pose barriers to action. Germany, China, Brazil and Sweden seem to have the most experience at partnerships.

It does seem collaborative innovation has plenty of global appeal as a key to business success, and momentum are accelerating in developing markets and seemingly slowing down in developed ones.

The reasons for collaborations are given as access to new technologies, access to new markets; improve existing product and service and speed up time to market.

The downsides are a lack of trust and policy protection underpins much of the anxiety over business collaboration and the continuing “old chestnut” of IP protection, which all fit with developing country lag issues on legislation protection.

Government as stewards of the innovation environment

This one also gets me intrigued – stewards – umm. We are in such a “fog” from lack of dynamic leadership at government level, partly due to the complexity and tangled knots we have got ourselves into but also the underwhelming mandate delivered at the ballot box leaves the politics of politics in stalemate.

I always get the sneaky feeling business leaders keep pushing government to lead and make policy and then scream and shout, another vertigo moment, if they don’t like the decisions that go with this.

Of course policy environments affecting innovation are caught up in this and the usual call to safeguard business interests adds to the tensions. Business worries over the lack of talent, of loss of knowledge, in IP issues and fear bureaucracy (besides their own) and over regulation (beside their own again) but often we can’t see our business leaders heading the charge to hang onto talent already in place, reduce the knowledge we all have by insisting on many brain-numbing daily activities, called specialisation and filling in information called for by the “system” etc.

Our business leaders want to see “a stronger entrepreneurial culture in the education system through stronger linkages between students and business savvy individuals” but sitting on their hands and wallets until this comes through any changed education system does not solve our immediate and next ten years of problems –  does it? I suspect more vertigo moments for them.

Lastly, guess what, talent is not in the right place

Leaders want to have access to the creativity and technical prowess within their workforce but the lack of preparedness and access to this ‘talent’ is holding them back in “unlocking innovation”. I find it hard here to not become a little cynical on this.

Matching jobs and people is hard, no doubt and lining up the right skills to meet the economic needs required today is correct but if all the millions of messages of caution in the past about investing in people, in nurturing what you have, holding onto what you have in experienced people, instead of simply letting them go, many on early retirement packages or just leaving out of continued frustration, I do have a hard time on their concerns. They made the bed……..

Perhaps another symptom of “Innovation Vertigo” is “Innovation knee-jerking”, turning it off and on for the short-term needs and abandoning the notion of continuous, sustained investment in the skills, along with developing the experience base through challenging environments and leading edge investments.

Well at least if new business models come into serious ‘play’ then the skills, experience base and challenging environments will all equally be in ‘play’ but not in the controlled ways they would want to see but at the edges of much discomfort for some white knuckle rides.

Thanks GE for providing this, it is certainly helpful to see inside leaders minds.

I enjoy the GE Global Innovation Barometers they often do raise the blood pressure and that of course is a certain tell, tell sign that I might be suffering “Innovation Vertigo” as well.

Can I go to Davos as well, please? I do live in the country but more at a solid ground(ed) level, I’d like to be a little light-headed above the clouds as perhaps all that attend are.

The report is at http://www.ge.com/sites/default/files/Innovation_Overview.pdf
or with different views here: http://www.ideaslaboratory.com/projects/innovation-barometer-2013/

The post Leaders are feeling the effects of Innovation Vertigo says GE first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Just released on 18^th January is the GE Global Innovation Barometer with the results of its second annual review on innovation. Here is the source site to check out and explore your own needs: http://www.ge.com/innovationbarometer/

The aim of the release is to use this and have this available for the meeting in Davos as well as shape GE’s innovation agenda going forward. For the Davos meeting, let’s hope our leaders have the time and inclination to review its content.

No doubt GE will be there and if  Beth Comstock is going as the senior vice president and chief marketing officer of GE I’m sure she will be leading the “innovation does matter” charge.
Beth is emphasising a number of vital points that are arising from this survey. Let me provide a few, her rallying cry for business leaders is to understand where and how their innovation strategies are being challenged and to drive towards new solutions.

The report raises all the uncertainties found in today’s market place are challenging business’ ability to innovate. There is a growing restriction on accessing external funding or a conservative attitude and appetite for risk. Some would argue this ‘hording’ of cash, of not investing at this time does push us into more of a deeper hole so how can this be resolved.

Enter the political group to provide a more confident environment for investment so let’s trust some resolution of resolve and consensus emerges out of this meeting of minds.

The top line summary taken from this GE barometer taken in October/ November 2011

• • 9 of 10 executives report economic crisis negatively impacts their ability to innovate
• • View innovation as primary driver of economic growth, jobs, quality of life
• • Pro-innovation markets produce better economic results
• • New model for innovation in the 21st century validated
• • USA, Japan, Germany, China still perceived as most innovative

The continued belief, confirmed by the majority of business leaders interviewed is that innovation continues as the main driver of prosperity, competitiveness and job creation, and but also points out how challenging and uncertain the present economic and political environments we are in, may hinder companies’ ability to deliver meaningful innovation.

My one comment here on this– Leaders please ‘walk the talk’ on innovation.

A partnership paradox

I found more than interesting in the release by GE that a disconnect has surfaced between the importance of partnerships and the need to pursue them in the near term. There is a clear confirmation (86% of those surveyed) that partenerships are an important component of the new model of innovation but only 21% believe finding partners is an immediate priority to innovate more on a day-to-day basis

My comment here: That is a real disconnect between the present belief and momentum supposedly going on in open innovation and the possible activity taking place in the trenches and what the top knows about. That gap if it is there I think needs urgently addressing to get everyone on the same collaborative page.  Might actually “put the cat amongst the pigeons” for many.

Creating conditions for meaningful innovation
There is a reminder that one-size does not fit all. At the global level innovation continues to move towards an open, more collaborative model, innovation at the local level presents a complex landscape of challenges and opportunities that broad strokes can’t resolve. These constraints or nuances need to be dealt with at the market level as perceptions on innovations ‘place’ are radically different. This is where the barometer has some good insights for those applying global innovation across different market situations.

My comment here: Adopting a more flexible approach to innovation might have increasing value, especially in these more uncertain times where discontinuities will increase more than decrease.

Embracing the new innovation approach
The report reflects on the needed shift for innovation to thrive in the 21^st century. That is embracing a new paradigm, one that engenders this collaboration need between several partners, values the creative power of smaller organizations and individuals, and tailors solutions to meet local needs.

Business leaders around the world agree that great innovations in the 21st century will be about shared value — addressing both human needs and the bottom line – versus delivering profit alone.

• • More than ever, 88 percent of executives agreed that the way companies will innovate in the 21^st century is totally different than ever before.
• • 77 percent of executives acknowledged that individuals and small- to mid-sized enterprises have the ability to be as innovative as large companies.
• • 73 percent agreed that innovation will be driven by people’s creativity over scientific research.

My comment here: Again, I have to question this, not the notion or intent but the real understanding.  I would argue innovation still has not got the appropriate attention and critical understanding at leadership level for the vast majority. To believe they are taking us through a new paradigm is a tough one, I would suggest they are being dragged ‘kicking and screaming’ into the 21^st century, hanging on to tried and tested 20^th century practices.

My second comment here: The danger for executives in larger organizations does lie in the second point- individuals and small-to-mid-sized enterprises do have the ability to match and often exceed them in innovation. In individuals and small units or the smaller pockets of like minded communities does lie the potential of creativity and large organizations are struggling to get their heads around this dilemma.

Convergence and Divergence- narrow the gap.
So I hope the combined forces of Beth Comstock, GE and its global innovation barometer discussed in Davos provides a platform for strengthening innovation’s message at the leadership level.

I would certainly feel within GE it is shifting the focus in their own innovation challenges and as they absorb the outcomes of this barometer I look forward to seeing more innovation coming from them.

Come on GE lead the way and show that continued willingness to take risks and engage across and with society. It is better than the alternatives that many leaders are taking- to reduce innovation where they will eventually pay that price.

Get the innovation message across Beth please. The Global Economy needs innovation more than ever to move forward.

The post Shoring up the fragile innovation system, call GE first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

GE released their first-of-its-kind “Global Innovation Barometer” at the end of January 2011. It is focusing on identifying the changing landscape for innovation in the 21^st century. It suggests innovation will be a catalyst for improving multiple areas of citizens’ lives in the next ten years.

In many ways, it paints a very optimistic future for innovation. Innovation, the survey predicts, will create jobs, improve lives, address more human needs, find better ways to collaborate and learn, and simply create good in people’s lives with the promise of prosperity.

I wonder a little differently: “are we not placing too bigger a burden on innovations’ shoulders?”
This report (http://bit.ly/dPyT0j ) follows a previous one that came out in July 2010 that was a European survey, again sponsored by GE, (http://slidesha.re/ecqMfl ) on the current barriers and the current state of innovation policies within the EU, just prior to the release of the much-awaited EU Innovation Union document (http://bit.ly/bEDLNh)  outlining their strategy for achieving the 2020 goals.

The EU survey is not what I’m commenting upon here, although I might come back to it in a subsequent blog as it supports significant change to the EU’s approach to innovation.

The burdens of expectations placed on innovation seemingly are growing
Reading both reports commissioned by GE there is a heavyweight of expectations to come from innovation. The  global survey has many significant aspirations and to list but a few:

• The belief that innovation is (truly) global and the main lever for a more competitive national economy
• It is the nature and value of innovation that is changing
• Innovation will be centred more on prosperous and competitive activities
• Innovation will be the best way to create jobs in countries
• Innovation and competitiveness are inextricably linked through growth and jobs
• Innovation will increasingly integrate more social and human dimensions
• Innovation will address societal needs, green the world and improve lives (health, energy, education)

The new model is the power of “I” for impact.

Innovation will be totally different from how we have innovated in the past according to this report. Some of the key aspects given are:

• It will need to be more localized to service-specific markets
• It will focus on individuals and SMEs who will be more or equally innovative as the large organizations
• It will call for integrated solutions that bring value to society as a whole.
• It will require more impactful innovation, focused on human needs more than just profits
• It will require incorporating partnerships between several players to bring success

The perceived barriers to the Innovation Optimism Paradox.

The survey looked at country perceptions. In this survey, only 12 countries were surveyed and the optimism continuum shows real differences in the belief and trust placed in the country’s ability of innovation to transform their society and improve citizens’ lives. These clusters of optimists, traditionalists and pessimists are driven by the country’s relationship to innovation changes, sources and purpose.

I found this (attempted) comparison on this optimism continuum interesting and useful. Stuck in the traditionalists are five of the twelve countries. These were the USA, Israel, Australia, Sweden & Germany. These are all in among the present-day leading innovative countries. The others within the survey optimists were Saudi Arabia, UAE, Brazil and India and in the pessimists were China, South Korea and Japan.

There are many thoughts that possibly can open up with this sort of designation but let me stay within the confines of this report. Traditionalists by the survey’s definitions were mainly “driven by hard science, serve global markets’ products and services needs and not specifically to serve social needs. These want to protect what they have more than adhere to a new model, their needs are very specific and diverse”. This definition does sound very US & EU in its reality today.

My real concerns from this GE sponsored Global Innovation Barometer.

There is a lot of ‘open’ interpretation from this global survey. GE has taken the optimistic route, perhaps for self-justification, perhaps because it needs to manage its own changes towards managing innovation successfully. That has a potential great takeaway for the future direction for GE if they can grasp it, although it will be a bold step.

The comments made in the press release at the time by Beth Comstock, chief marketing officer and senior vice president, GE holds promise: “the results clearly demonstrate that globally our priorities are shifting from innovations that simply make money to innovations that also create good in people’s lives.” And “fosters creativity, and emphasizes solutions that meet local needs.

I feel GE are dipping their toe in these innovation waters more and more, it is getting nearer in time for them to make the real deep, all committing plunge if they believe in their own research.

I reacted in some different ways, certainly optimistic about where innovation fits within the future thinking on creating jobs, improving society and addressing human needs. It has the potential to do this but…

The pessimist side also kicked in. The survey was based on interviews with 1,000 senior business executives, conducted by telephone across 12 countries.

All respondents are directly involved in their company’s innovation processes and are VP and above with 30% of those surveyed C-suite. Is this truly representative of the world of reality surrounding innovation? Don’t this group have a vested interest to promote innovation in these ways?

The fear of groupthink needs to be resolved in future surveys.

These are people working within their own innovation bubbles, wanting to relate what they are doing with the bigger societal issues we need to face but is there a touch of “groupthink” here?

Wikipedia defines ‘groupthink’ as a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.

Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in thought that might normally be obtained, in this case by more open discussion and not (semi) structured questions asked over the telephone .

The survey should counterbalance those from ‘within’ with those that are still ‘without’ to clarify innovations’ impact.

You can get a ‘warm and fuzzy secure feeling’ also

I welcome the report, don’t get me wrong, it helps point us in new directions because of the changing need that innovation can help deliver but these will not on just innovations own. It has many positive pointers but it does not address the gaps, the report itself reveals.

Perhaps this will come from future surveys, I think they should be less on a barometer of the innovation climate but more on assessing the changes identified within this survey. It should point out more ways to shift this innovation barometer.

The survey brings out perceptions that need resolving. Some of these for example are:

The positive perceptions show the general public is not so convinced of the value innovation can bring to their day-to-day lives

In the balanced perceptions there are three lags that need improving: the (lack of) speed at which innovative products are adequately coming to market, trade regulations are still a limit (or constraint) to commercial success and thirdly, private investors are not supportive of companies that need funds to innovate.

The most negative perceptions are that government support is not as efficiently organized and coordinated, governments should allocate more share of their total budgets to support innovative companies and thirdly, that Public authorities do not support SMEs and large companies that want to innovate.

In all of these there is possibly nothing new but as they are focused on the ‘known’s’, the current drivers and present deterrents, and not the ‘unknowns’ or less articulated needs, for making societal innovation happen as GE wants to paint the picture of moving to a new innovation paradigm.

Lastly, within these concerns, I would have liked to see from this survey more on possible solutions to the future bigger innovation picture.  I come back to the Traditionalists, here lies a real roadblock.

This is where innovation is truly stuck. “They want to protect what they have more than adhere to a new model, their needs are specific and diverse” Here lies the big challenge to overcome.

Expectations come with changing parameters

I hope this ‘first-of-a-kind report” can really build on this initial work. It ‘hints’ at a new innovation landscape that we need to take forward. It indicates to GE and others who care to read this, that globally our priorities are shifting from innovations that simply make money to innovations that also create well in people’s lives and meet their local needs.

I welcome GE’s exploration and hope for its future innovation barometers it can set out more of the enablers to make this journey to the new landscape reality.

None of us needs a warm and fuzzy understanding only; we need clarity so we can all move towards this new innovation dawn, with some fresh light and power from more of GE’s help and investigations.

GE have the global innovation promise in their hands.

The post The power and promise within innovation: shifting up our gears first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.