To build a pathway in order to enable more dynamic innovation capabilities one needs to go through Nine Stages.

These nine stages are, in my opinion, needed for developing an understanding of your innovation capabilities, so as to make them more dynamic and, as a result, to be at the top of your innovation game.

This “step process,” I believe, gets you to the point of understanding what innovation capabilities are a better ‘fit’ for the purpose, to deliver on your innovation needs on a consistent, repeatable, and evolving basis.

Building innovation capabilities take time; they are complex, highly structured, and multi-dimensional. Any structured approach to tackling innovation takes time and considerable commitment. Any learning involves sensing, seizing, and then transforming.

We are searching for what makes up the present system and what needs to be part of the future to create a ‘best’ innovation capability environment that is sustainable in the longer-term. Those that can be continually ‘orchestrated’ and constantly adapted to meet the strategic need.

We are striving towards a true ‘innovation coherency premium’ in design, knowing what makes up your core dynamic components. The outcomes are to know where to invest, what to dampen down and what aspects can evolve naturally and be ‘taken along’ – as you focus upon the ones that are more dynamic and relevant to your innovation needs.

Each stage needs questioning and then answering to create specific phases of the journey. Ask yourself the following questions by creating a checklist to start building your own dynamic innovation capability and to understand your innovation fitness and landscape. 

1.Getting Started – understanding the needs & imperatives of innovation fitness

• Why we must travel this critical path for Innovation.
• The meaning of dynamic capabilities and innovation fitness landscapes
• Merging the theory with practical reality to produce new outcomes and positive results.
• Focusing on resources and performance – why is this important.
• The problem is knowing what we have and what we really need and seeing the differences

2.The Fuel of Innovation Performance – the dynamics of innovation

• A sharper, clearer focus on innovation resources to meet the strategic need.
• What is known about resources to sustain, enhance performance?
• Knowing and aligning your strategic criteria – for sound innovation approaches
• Getting innovation within the right context of your business
• Moving your resources in the right direction takes courage and decisive leadership.

3.Getting Even More Specific – quantification and qualification

• Recognising the building of scale, change rates, and dynamics that happen over time and why we need to constantly build our innovation capabilities.
• Developing the resources to meet the need – structured, focused, clarified by bringing out the necessary discussion.
• An illustrative scenario for a directional innovation fitness landscape map
• Recognising that resources can stretch beyond the firm and then bringing these in successfully, in gradual steps. Managing within a more open environment.
• Achieving mutual dependencies to support; recognising the hindering ones
• Being aware of the impact of different scenarios in the management of innovation allows for designing a flexible response capability.

4.Building the Innovation Fitness Machine – reinforcing feedback, identifying needs

• Recognising the current status, spotting emerging patterns, seeing spaces and gaps, and identifying solutions.
• Beginning the ‘adaptive walk’ to get to higher fitness points needed to compete.
• Clarifying the complementary resources, looking to embed new routines quickly, and set up follow through approaches.
• Introducing natural tensions into the system to trigger ‘step change.’
• Resource dependence climate, culture, diversity, intensity, and uniqueness
• Reinforcing feedback – watching for dangers, managing the machine capacity, removing the brakes selectively
• Shifting your resources need not deplete or force other people to compete for them – working through the tensions within teams and silos.
• Matching resource dynamics with the innovation value chain & life cycle stages helps maintain momentum.
• Simulation modelling the ‘what ifs’ and ‘why.’

5.The Strategic Architecture – designing the system to perform as needed

• The step process for designing and executing the architecture design
• Diagnosing performance challenges and roadblocks – resolving, moving on
• Lining up the solutions is not a linear process and needs careful management
• Addressing the effects of intangibles in the Strategic Architecture.

6.The Hard Face of Soft(er) Factors – the hidden power of intangible resources

• Clarifying the impact of the intangibles and recognising that time, climate, and conditions are significant contributors to innovation activities.
• The different rivalry types: internal and external, inter-department, inter projects, and working through resolutions to these.
• Reflecting feelings and expectations, addressing all the different needs
• Measuring the tougher parts of intellectual capital
• The real value of your intangible resources
• Recognising the value of hidden innovation and spotting its occurrence

7.Entering into Competitive Battle – the dynamics of rivalry, the uniqueness of you

• Recognising, developing, capturing, transforming, avoiding, and outmanoeuvring
• Your point of choosing what, where, how, and when to compete.
• Building capabilities that are unique to you and hard to replicate
• Building sustainability into the innovation equation as ongoing
• Extending the turf, exploiting the situation, pushing beyond, seeking partners.

8.Building and Testing Capabilities to Perform

• Measuring capabilities through different fitness levels and scale
• Learning to build capabilities as ‘ongoing’ and evolving for changing needs
• Re-Structuring the process for dealing with the dynamics of change
• Knowing the points of impact on performance to enable recognition and reality
• Managing innovation performance progressively across the spectrum of business need through testing and extending capability learning.
• Building from personal to the team, to organisational learning, in measured steps
• Recognising the role of leadership, achieving strategic alignment, and working on broadening out innovation competence at different organisational levels.

9.Keeping the Innovation Fitness Wheels Turning, keeping your eyes on the road

• Resolution of conflicting goals, control, and structure
• Dissecting conflicting positions, resolving the impasse
• Knowing the limits of human engagement
• Goals, controls, and measurements can dominate and strangle
• Keeping the measurements simple and clear
• Managing innovation as a critical strategic resource
• Merging the results into a greater alignment to strategy and approaches

The end result is looking to generate your innovation fitness landscape. If you need any coaching help, advice, or mentoring through this process, just get in touch with me here. 

The post A pathway towards building your dynamic innovation capabilities first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

I’d suggest this might be a great starting point. Considering the intractable in anything is hard. To recognize these firstly is terrific, as they are tough to manage but phenomenal if you can surface them.

Then having the capability of knowing how to set about tackling these, drawing in a growing consensus that these are the real blocks to the team becoming truly innovative.

If you could ask a series of question that might help unlock innovation blockages it would make such a difference to our innovation performance and engagement. I think this might need a good external facilitator as my recommendation, one who has deep innovation knowledge and expertise, able to manage the ‘dynamics’ within the room.

These are shaped as discussions to raise, explore and extract views and then to be pulled together into a collective position, that gives strength and identification to resolving issues surrounding innovation. Surfacing differences, finding common ground and developing a ‘collective’ way forward makes a significant contribution to building a common language and a common sense of identity. It underpins innovation engagement. It gives confidence to any innovation undertaking.

• Addressing the issue of unfamiliar responsibilities – new and different ways of working, of understanding, of allowing innovation to take hold and flourish is often demanding on those to find those new ways of responding, to leading, to encouraging others. It becomes even harder when innovation is often added to increase a person’s responsibilities. This different way of thinking needs surfacing. Many holding leadership positions in our organizations are uncomfortable with innovation, it is too intangible,  it often seems to ‘sit’ outside the normal processes and structures. It is full of risk and uncertainty. It is raising the unfamiliar, yet it should become a great place to start this dialogue to bring innovation inside, in all that we do. Innovation needs to become a real consistent in all our thinking as it can advance our thinking beyond the “norm”

• Innovation demands new directions – making significant changes to the way the organization is run is very challenging, potentially disrupting and needs thinking through at the top-level well. To ‘hone’ an organization into a lean efficient and effective ‘machine’ is one thing, to allow diversity and conflicting signals to pervade and challenge this is extremely uncomfortable territory, so ring fencing often seems to this keep it at bay! Is this the right solution, are we facing different times to manage our organizations in 20th-century practices? If we are needing to become the 21st century in our thinking and practices how do we open up the dialogue Where does agility, flexibility, adaptive and exploratory come into our thinking, into our systems, into our culture?

• Inherited problems always surface – addressing countless and inherent problems is messy and requires dedicated resolution. Changing the culture to become more innovative can be a massive step in structure, organization, and policies. How do we manage such a revolution, what is needed, what is a culture and environment for innovation anyway? How do we manage our legacy, what should stay, what can go? How do we set about this?

• Problems within the organization’s makeup – inadequate experience and resistance to change, often surface when a person is not equipped to deal with it. Installing innovation capacity, capabilities and competencies needs figuring out. How long does this take, where can we turn too? How do we relate change to its positive contribution to the future and can innovation lead that change?

• High stakes of innovation – demanding ‘breakthrough innovation’ makes everyone feel increasingly vulnerable, increasingly visible and it is for leadership to take ownership and real responsibility to manage this demand and shape the risk and set of fears against the gain and return. They need to be ready to ‘positively react and encourage’ both in supporting winning solutions and extracting positive learning from failures. Can you run breakthroughs alongside incremental innovation activities, what is really different in how can we manage these?

• Scope and scale of innovation – Managing in scale and scope is demanding and requires well thought through systems and processes. To scope, innovation needs robust business case approaches, its flexibility in its management and then to scale this up requires well-established approaches and clear commitments to its engagement and execution. Are we really good at seizing ‘breaking’ opportunities and quickly scaling these up? Can we learn new approaches to this? How do we approach the issues of scale, scope, and speed for innovation?

• External pressures multiply – everyone has an opinion outside the organization, let alone inside. Balancing these different interfaces and the pressures from these as you explore innovation needs managing well. Avoid that trait of just keeping piling on the raising of expectations and then failing to back this up, by demonstrating progress or ensuring you are not actively working on this alignment. What does it take for the ability to deliver on the promise? What can we learn by listening to those outside, what can we take inside and apply, have we our core beliefs to check these opinions against to stay firm upon or adapt by these new insights?

• Influencing without full authority – key activities within innovation usually demand that you become reliant on others. You need to spend (seemingly) inordinate time explaining and gaining others to make their ‘buy-in’ and find ways for them to find their own identification with concepts. So by ‘growing identification’, you are able to move emerging innovation concepts along the pipeline. You also so often need to find often imaginative ways of attracting across the resources needed. This is especially hard for senior managers to adapt too, the need to attract across, instead of simply expect, demand and just take, today people want to be attracted and expect to learn from the experience and exposure. How can we learn new ways or different ways where collaboration becomes the norm and we can learn to borrow and exchange resources across functions more freely and then let them go to move on to the next challenge where their talent is most needed? To let go and watch talent soar.

• Work more with a listening and feedback culture – this can be totally different from the way business has been conducted up to today, through a more hierarchical structure. Flattening organizations to allow greater two-way flow sucks up time; it simply undoes or unpicks ‘command and control’ over time. It takes time to establish and gain confidence and momentum. You need to allow more for debate, it shifts and alters the hierarchy and structures and that is a big step into an unknown, yet it is necessary for organizational change, to allow innovation to truly flourish on a more sustainable basis. What needs to be put in place to listen and respond to our organizations and customers’ needs? How can the relationships within the organization re-calibrate and mutually respect each other’s position?

• The need to develop work group diversity – innovation asks for more diversity in opinion, it draws out more in thinking, in discipline, in alternative approaches and solution. This often leaves senior executives feeling they are less in control, reliant on other and that can feel scary and surface their own insecurities, buried increasingly as they moved up the organization and took on responsibility and accountability. It challenges often their very notion of management as they have known and experienced it. Innovation in its management does certainly challenge many past notions of managing, such as for productivity, yield and simply, extraction. How can we encourage a greater diversity of thought, of working, of judging performance that would help our organization’s absorption of different knowledge and approaches occurring all around us? How can we exploit and explore and know when to apply the differences in our thinking

To summarize

Each of these ten innovation challenges needs to be surfaced at the right time, usually as early as you can to provide a person handling innovation to gain the best and strongest foothold of their understanding.

Each one of these ‘intractable’ points can individually block innovation from advancing – we must find ways to bring them out, to surface opinions and find common solutions to resolving them. We need to build these into a common understanding to move innovation forward.

To send out a compelling message into our organizations we are wanting to tackle these intractable barriers, so as to give innovation its rightful place within all our thinking and activities. That we want to ’embrace’ it, as it far too important for our growth and future sustainability makes everyone want to become more innovative as they can see change taking place, as the organization begins to break down the barriers.

The post Surfacing the real barriers to innovation. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

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.

Is this tapping into the increasing desire to be part of creating something new, to grab back the engagement needed, that sense of identity and a growing sense of ownership?

Large organisations sense they are missing out on radically different business opportunities and cast their envious eyes towards the young start-ups, not just coming up with original ideas to solve existing problems and pent-up needs, but seeing the work as potentially disruptive to those managing in the existing space.

This start-up and entrepreneurial spirit are making many senior executives nervous and they want to find ways to harness this within their own organisations, and thus the intrapreneurial movement has been born and is growing fast.

It is tapping into an internal need for everyone involved, to innovate in different and more radical ways. Partly we are seeing a restless younger workforce who want to break out of restricting and confining jobs. They want to find more meaningful ways to contribute, to engage, to find ways where they can be impactful, not just in their careers but in making something happen, that is different and better than the existing.

Driving impact, delivering to scale

Intrapreneurs within large organisations can tap into the amazing ability to drive impact and deliver scale. Starting up a business from scratch is really tough but the high level of failures run at nearly 90% and to emerge from spending 24 x 7 for two or three years may have enormous experience and learning, but it can totally fail in delivering this urge for impact and contribution.

Being part of a larger organisation operating in this intrapreneurial role takes away some of the heavy issues faced by start-ups but replaces these with an equally onerous set of tasks.

Equally beside this younger generational need, those a little older turn to their legacy and sometimes decades of work within their organisation to want to attempt to change part of the culture and deliver some of the ideas that have been ‘frustrating them’ over time.

For the organisation, it is recognising that it has the chance to unleash the talent that lies within. If they can create an environment for some to have a higher level of autonomy, of being creative and getting this clearer sense of meaning, it can help invigorate and renew much that large organizations grapple with daily – the stifling of initiatives, seemingly slow-moving cultures and not seizing on all the opportunities that the market and customers are looking for.

The challenge is in the structure and format and character of those Intrapreneurs

There is no single way to do intrapreneurship. It needs a significant amount of attention, commitment and determination. Each design perhaps is unique to fit individual circumstances.

From the organisations point of view, they need to set up a clear, distinct, more than likely separate business practice that liberates people to build upon their emerging entrepreneurial personalities. They need to build the walls and fences so as to protect the ideas, support the work in progress, nurture the people involved and allow for a higher level of patience to see a return coming ‘down the line’.

The individuals wanting to take on this intrapreneurial role need to think through how to serve the interests of the organization in different ways that break with the existing and normal, learn to exploit and explore all the inner relationships to advance their work and learn to adapt constantly as they go, as they adjust to failure and building upon a series of successes.

The antibodies that lie within any organisation are waiting. Those that fear change and those that feel threatened, jealous or protective of their turf being trampled on. The ones who will want to frustrate, exhaust and determine a pathway towards project death by any means are a constant threat. Intrapreneurs and management alike need to be utterly vigilant in attacking these antibodies if they really see value in promoting this intrapreneurial culture.

The mountains that are needed to be climbed to unleash that Intrapreneur spirit

It all starts with belief, pure and simple. A belief that having Intrapreneurs working within organisations will make a difference in the innovation work needed, and then identifying and encouraging those able to take this task on. Somewhere in this conviction, you can see ideas that can be translated into successful outcomes by unleashing this intrapreneurial spirit. These ideas need to be bigger ideas, perhaps radically different, not the everyday stuff where the organisation should have already set up an innovation process to ‘grind’ these through to successful outcomes.

This needs to send a powerful signal that the official licence to change has been granted, and better support for innovation and growth can partly come from deploying Intrapreneurs. It announces this as a parting of the ways from just the “busyness of business as usual” by exploring new ways to seek out the innovation that can be different but clearly, needs to be managed differently.

So what is different and what does that mean to whom?

Intrapreneurship has to be established as a specific system that can be set up and provided to those wanting to take on a different challenge. It needs to become a solid part of the strategy for innovation otherwise it is quickly seen as ‘just another experiment.’ This would fail to attract the right type of person; it signals a lack of commitment, so those budding Intrapreneurs stay hidden in the woodwork or looking to leave, so as to break free to pursue their personal goals and dreams, even taking away the emerging blueprint to disrupt the very firm that has given them this understanding.

There are many enablers to make this transition happen. The most critical are deep management support, creating a culture for entrepreneurship to thrive and knowing the type of people that can make this happen. The quality of any ideas, the mandate that goes with that idea and the funding and milestones needed to be in place and the clarity of failure and what that means. Each of these becomes a critical enabler to make this concept work.

So then we need to consider values, personalities and the operating conditions.

Firstly not everyone can simply become an intrapreneur you have to possess a certain resilience and toughness. They need high levels of tenacity, this mental toughness and commercial zeal to drive through the concept they are working upon. The optimism, staying ready to adapt, be flexible but also the underlying ‘steel’ to be assertive, creative and determined to push something through, to overcome the many barriers and resistance that comes with exploring more radical innovation.

They must continually make the business case, negotiate and navigate around the system to achieve their ends and that often requires a deep knowledge of the many ‘ins and outs’.

They need to forge their business community, building the identity with what they are undertaking, reaching out to the network both within and outside the organisation. They need to unpick and unlock resources that bring additional ‘scarce’ skills to help, and just fostering this underlying culture of resilience needed both personally and within the project management.

These attributes need nurturing and supporting and this is where a clear sponsor comes in. This person needs to provide ‘air cover’, needs to help the intrepreneur to navigate through the obstacles thrown up within the parent organisation and ensure there is always a high level of trust as the decisions and progress are being made. It becomes more reliant on relationships, not processes being put into place. The job and the relationships need constant engagement.

The shared belief is based on two essential points; as innovation is a discovery process the people involved in finding the solutions are as equal to the ideas they are pursuing. It is toughest at times of setback or failure; it is being agile enough to deal with ambiguity, uncertainty and making a change, even when change is painful. It is about dealing with measured risk and returns.

So to intrapreneurially tango you have to have a clear mandate

1. To ensure the team has degrees of freedom to create, design and innovate
2. The mandate that they can question and challenge the existing mould to achieve success
3. Knowing the break points to being commercially courageous against being foolhardy, to know the confines of risk but the chance to grab a real opportunity
4. To find the ways to keep all involved energised, incentivised and focused on the prize, the opportunities and the contribution to the goals
5. To keep informing, to make the work transparent and open for others to contribute, help and support.
6. Knowing the difference between timely updates and keeping the head down just that little longer as the breakthrough ‘ahh’ is just around the corner
7. Design in consciously the methods and ways the organisation sees’s the value and the alignment
8. Be constantly aware that performance will be judged, more than likely under a harsher spotlight than for others and recognise what you are working on is commercially critical and decisions will often be based on pragmatic, rather than opportunist or idealistic criteria. Live with it as part and parcel of the job.
9. Consciously stay out of the everyday stream, even challenge if this should go through a typical ‘stage gate’ process as it is really hard for most to understand what makes up a great idea and that it is not a linear process but an iterative one, full of loops, failures, experimentations and revalidating and retesting.
10. Make sure the governance is highly dynamic and agile, trading off the progress of insights, learning, discovery and experimentation in a journey that recognises iterative and flexible decision making that favours adaptation and informing. Making sure there is a right to make mistakes as long as people learn from them and they were contained within the confines of the risk profile.

Intrapreneurship offers the potential of being a vital part of your innovation strategy

As organisations seek growth they need to encourage higher levels of impact. Those that take the route of becoming an intrapreneur share in this desire to build something that has a valuable contribution and impact.

To take on this challenge requires a different mindset and most probably set in a ring-fenced environment. One that conveys flexibility and agility but a need for pace and speed, have higher levels of risk-taking and a clear realisation that failure is part of the learning, a commitment level sometimes beyond ‘belief’ and simply don’t take existing procedures, barriers and established rules of engagement as a reason not to do something, they are true ‘bunker busters’.

In summary

More and more value creation is coming from start-ups, they search for dynamism and points of significant competition, to deliver those more radical, sometimes disruptive solutions. To overcome the built-in risk-adverse and general slowness in large organisations, intrapreneurs need amazing energy to ‘push the obstacle and barriers’ out of the way and still stay ‘fixated’ on the opportunity to bring it to commercial fruition.

Not an easy task but one that is running in parallel to the entrepreneur outside, demonstrating they can deliver on a dream and opportunity that does make a clear contribution and impact.

So are you tapping into this real momentum behind the idea of Intrapreneurship within your organisation? Are you seeking out validated learning?

Publishing note:  This blog post was originally written on behalf of Hype and with their permission, I have added to my own site as well.

Save

The post Exploring the Intrapreneurial Way in Large Organizations first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Three years back I took a view on what to focus upon in my innovation activities to meet client needs, they did seem to make sense at the time.

In many ways, I was fairly happy with the outcome, as many of the places I would put my required but limited resources behind, in providing a depth of understanding, were highly relevant, topical and needed, so were good spaces to offer my thinking, advice and solutions into.

Fast forward these last few years and I often wonder where that focus has actually gone – the focus has been a little ‘bounced’ around but for good reason, I feel, yet, it needs a fresh re-calibrating on my approaches going forward.

Innovation has been rapidly changing and much of its basics have been swallowed up by some defining issues that have raced up to the top of the innovation agenda and it is right to respond to these.

‘Breaking’ practices or new methodologies are much harder to master and advise upon, to determine clear positions and propositions.

This certainly involves investing a lot into getting a certain clarity and perspective, through researching constantly, finding fresh insights, sifting through comparisons, discussing and exploring them, so as to eventually determine the value to specific challenging environments and different organisational maturity levels.

Not only that, it is how to related these to different market conditions, so as to offer thoughtful advice to a broad audience of practitioners and leaders within the corporate world. This advisory world on ‘breaking practices’ is necessary yet often undervalued.

The excitement of ‘breaking innovation’ is in the pioneering, experimenting, discovering, sharing and exchanging. If you are always open to this new thinking, it does enrich and advance innovation understanding and that makes it so valuable but so demanding. Many of them have been utterly enjoyable to explore.

There are so many thinkers, experimenters and explorers contributing, that it makes innovation a terrific space to be part of, it is always evolving and challenging much already established but it means a constant attention to understanding it, sifting through often conflicting voices, translating the new practice that others, time-starved, can then appreciate and can relate too, and then see how they can deploy this into their innovation structures.

The ‘lead- lag’ time is sometimes very long and tortuous to make the necessary changes within organisations and get the necessary ‘buy-in’.

Recently I felt it would be useful to complete a re-assessment to recalibrate my position.

A good starting point was to go back and see what I have been writing about in the past three years. I often write down and capture my initial thinking, then it evolves through different steps, experiences to consolidate my thoughts and work through what I felt was my position on a given subject. It gave me a clearer set of possible outcomes and an essential foundation to build upon.

There is this constant, pressing need to absorb, synthesise and translate what is constantly coming towards us in innovation thinking.  My focus has been to blend this emerging thinking into core aspects of my innovating beliefs as well as contributing to building innovation capabilities, competencies and capacity, my key focal area.

Doesn’t the innovation needle keep shifting constantly?

So increasingly as I looked back I noticed that I have been providing different sets of posts that were more reactive, reflective and responsive. Sometimes taking stock it does surprise you on how the innovation needle had been moved, again and again. This sometimes makes navigation sometimes difficult, you do need clear anchor points.

Often we were missing the constants required to ‘set in place’ innovation, those anchor points, otherwise, we often are simply increasing the layering on, more and more, not giving enough emphasis on how to integrate these into a newly emerging practice of innovation but recognising the essential basics that are constantly needed, irrespective.

The basics of innovation still form around building engagement, leadership, involvement, in constructing a culture, the climate and environment needed, so as to allow innovation to evolve. Then that constant investment in people, networks and relationships, that need to come together and, finally the structures, systems and governance that are flexible enough to make what we work upon as responsive, agile, adaptive, exploitive and exploratory, to end up with great new ideas, things and finally, winning successful concepts.

The shifts taking place around innovation have been significant in their impact

The shifts taking place has been hugely shaped in how digital transformation continues to grow in its importance. how it is influencing much that is surrounding innovation, as it continues to disrupt in faster, demanding ways, where it deconstructs and then we need to reconstruct our innovation thinking so as to gain from this transformation occurring all around us.

Also, there is this growing concern, actually it never went away,  perhaps more enforced than ever today, over the issue of ‘risk and return’ as innovation becomes increasingly complex. As we push to increase the need to push for breaking out of many of our incremental innovation mindsets to tap into real growth opportunities, the pressures continue to build. More help is needed here to make these more of a robust risk / return structure that ‘accounts’ for all the uncertainty in new innovation development.

We seem to be stumbling towards breaking out our innovation activity in more radical, distinctive and adaptive ways. We are certainly treating innovation differently, depending on the sense of opportunity and the desire to work towards the solutions these need. You see progress but it still seems maddeningly slow as dedicated innovation resources are still very ‘thin’ on the ground.

Other real changing forces influencing innovation

The other real forces of innovation change in this relatively short period, have come from a greater explosion of Lean Management principles and incorporating Design thinking into our work. Both being rapidly embraced within our organisations, large and small. How these are fully integrated remains a challenge for most.

Then you have the emergence of platform and ecosystems to build around, the continued onward movement of crowdsourcing and all the variations (or derivation’s) of ‘crowd’ and co-creation’, combined with all the ramifications of the network and relationship building effect we need to leverage. It is this ‘raw’ power of technology that is transforming much,

It is this ‘raw’ power of technology, pushing the flow of knowledge and exploiting the different social mediums that are swirling around us, with many suggested designs and frameworks, that need deeper capture and translation to extract new value.

We all need to think through the value of the pivot, prototype, the constructing of minimal viable products  and rapid experiment and design. Then we have the growing value of experimental labs and establishing ‘pockets’ of entrepreneurs-in-residence, both have increased in focus.  We are learning faster, shutting down what does not work as we go, adapting faster than before our innovation concepts, by being engaged and constantly informed by customer needs.

It has moved well beyond the “how” into the “what, why and where”. The “when” still is subjected to different levels of impatience it still seems. Speed is dominating at present then “Scale” and  the constant worries over the”Execution” of the new value proposition.

Reflecting on all of this – so what does this all mean? Reacting to this in new framing ways.

Within my numerous posts responding to breaking practices, I have wanted to capture the changes occurring. What is clear, we are seeing a growing momentum towards more ‘collective’ agility, higher fluidity,  adaptive enterprises with a growing mantra of adjusting, exploring and quickly responding, to the needs seen in rapidly changing markets and equally across our shifting customer base, to service present and future needs, bringing together a growing interplay around innovation, offering a fluidity in its perspective.

This we have termed the new interplay surrounding innovation and centres around the interplay in three essential change points we need to focus upon. I attempted to capture these initially in this post a visual of nine primary components as the framing point to gather around. The final point of change in emphasis has been on measuring innovation, we need to shift to successful and ultimate outcomes and rethink our measures, in my view, on a new innovation balance sheet thinking.

There has certainly been a lot of innovation change, requiring fresh thinking and this has been the main reason why I have responded accordingly over the past few years.

Even with all this advancement in innovation, you do have to stop and ask are we just layering on more content, more complexity than organisations can honestly cope with?

Are we any clearer about what we do and why and how and where we do it?

We often skip over the basics, ignore that many that need to understand innovation within our organisations fail to understand its parts, its process and its different timing. We still lack a common language of understanding and this is still holding us back. In many ways, it is ‘freezing’ much to move innovation forward strategically.

I feel the most important contribution to building a common framework of understanding and through this, a common language has been in the work Jeffrey Philips of Ovo Innovation and I collaborated upon. This has been in determining the importance of alignment between innovation and the strategy of the business and formulating an approach that engages the leadership into establishing the vital innovation connections needed to be put into place. This we called the Executive Innovation Work Mat and makes the critical connections required for innovation to have a clear corporate identity and offer the conditions to build and thrive from this framework.

Our continued failure to manage risk correctly for innovative concepts

Then, the one really big elephant always rumbling around in the board room is how do we manage risk. Risk management for innovation is still a really uncomfortable area and we often fail to appreciate the ‘risk differences’ and due to this, many promising ideas for innovation investigation or progress get ‘canned’ because it is hard to make the returns, in our obsession with hard numbers, especially in the early stages, to meet the corporate hurdle rates. The risk management for innovation needs urgently addressing in far more imaginative ways, to allow for greater innovation activity and exploration to contribute into a greater growth phase than we currently are struggling to provide.

Do we still have a rotten innovation core? Possibly…….I think yes, well, it is still immature.

It is clear innovation is constantly advancing, yet and this is my reflective thought here, it can have countless layers of fresh paint but if the basic foundation is not solid, it only hides the truth underneath, one that needs fundamental addressing that innovation has a rotten core until you peel away these layers and fix the basics.

Fixing the basics comes back to much within my initial focal points that I worked through some years back. The trouble is I do so often get worried that a reoccurring theme gets a little, dare I say it, boring.

Yet if we do not fix the foundations it might seem boring to keep going back to resolve these but the fundamentals of anything, including innovation, is getting these built on a solid platform, otherwise, it becomes a very expensive vanity ride for many. So should I feel guilty, worried or concerned by continually reverting back?

The attraction of riding the new wave

Like most caught up in innovation I do get often caught up in the wave of new innovation, actually, I love it, it keeps the passion burning brightly in discovery, curiosity and intrigue, in learning, experimenting and exploring, as these are often the clients need to understand and evaluate against.

Yet it does seem to me many innovators within the business organisation do simply miss the basics within their own thinking or organisation and fail to fix these. They keep moving on, restless, wandering the innovation plains looking for these new feeding grounds but are they just feeding themselves, or actually failing badly in feeding all those ‘left on the reservation’ that make up the larger organisation? Not securing their futures by sustaining the innovation forces, seeing innovation as their personal adventure and not a sustaining organisational one?

Those that do pay attention to the basics in innovation and its management become so much better placed to be the disruptors. Why, simply because they have their people’s engagement and identification as central to their innovation activity, they know the basics, they have experimented and learnt, they make the connections, they get it, work it and shape it. Just like the potter at a wheel, innovation is like clay, temperamental; it has a tricky relationship of the shaping, defining, applying lots of practice to get just right with plenty of practice and some ‘learning’ from failure.

So am I cresting or riding the waves? What is the difference?

So perhaps many of my past messages or focal points are as relevant today as when I drew them up, yet as we continue to introduction improved methods, different approaches and more adaptable and flexible practices, my biggest fear becomes an increasing reality that many executives are simply not any clearer on how to manage their innovation.

Cris Beswick founder of thefutureshapers, put it nicely to me a couple of weeks back: “because the basics around innovation are not common knowledge so senior teams are somewhat paralysed in terms of being able to move forward strategically, despite the need”

It can be a dangerous assumption that we ‘think’  innovation is well understood, often it is not, it continues to be a serious source of frustration and disappointment, at all levels. This ‘fixing the basics’ still needs a clear focus to resolve, to forge a pathway for others to understand. It needs a constant balance between extolling the old, exploring the new. Blending practice.

I hope I can keep attempting this translating and embedding innovation practice, I keep trying, yet it is for other people to judge if this has paying value to their innovation understanding. I believe it does.

* This post was updated and amended on 12th July 2016.

The post Are you having fun riding the innovation waves? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

We need to increasingly deliver better end results; as more distinctive, bolder and creative, delivering greater value to our customers’ needs. Can we change our thinking to achieve this?

Let me offer some of my thoughts on why we need to reinvent our innovation management.

The power of technology, software and the use of the cloud is combining in new powerful ways. We are looking for greater data capture and analytics and this is offering us a very different set of options than in the past. The framing of the innovation potential has to be altered. Altered in different products. services and business models. But will it?

Yet many organisations still stay locked into their established ways, systems and structures. Many organisations are failing to renew themselves. Innovation seems to be trapped in the past, we need a new framing to break it out and make it more dynamic and adaptive to meeting constantly changing needs.

Innovation needs to become far more responsive and dynamic, to respond with imagination and intent of purpose.

To achieve this innovation requires a greater organisational engagement than ever before. It needs mobilising differently, in radically different ways; to capture different opportunities in more agile, adaptive and shaping ways.

Often we look at innovation through a single lens but it does need to accommodate different dimensions that can be exploratory or exploitive, we need to both widen the aperture of the lens and simultaneously change lens to view things differently.

We certainly need far more “mission-orientated” innovation, that is both converging and synergistic, strategically aligned, building on the back of past work and ‘sunk’ investment but equally, pushing out in new ways. Innovation should be constantly renewed and refreshed, it needs investments for its future.

Rapidly changing market conditions are challenging us more

Our portfolio of innovation offerings is facing different market conditions. Some of our products and services are in stable and predictable market conditions, others are being subjected to significant change, caused by technology, adapting to new emerging trends or changing demands and shifting regulations. All of these can challenge the existing business and we need to respond in different ways and at different speeds.

This also seems a time where there is increasing opportunity to shape industry evolutions through multiple ways and use of the many technology enablers, in exploring new relationships, investing in networks and platforms to collaborate and extend beyond our own restricted abilities. All of this requires a greater adaptive and shaping capability. For this, we need a far greater innovation translation canopy to explore. A new framework. Actually ‘multiple’ frameworks.

Applying The Strategy Palette to our Innovation Needs

Initially provided by BCG as a strategy palette, I have set about adopting this framework to innovation.

I initially wrote in “Shining a powerful innovation light into the Corporate board rooms” about the application and value of this frame differently. The difference is that mine is an Innovation Strategic Palette by applying its use in developing the innovation strategic content that  boardrooms need to build better, clearer and far more comprehensive innovation strategies.

We can apply this to change our innovation thinking, to make it more versatile to what we need from our innovation today. It can open up our thinking and allow us to gain a revised understanding of how innovation can be mobilised in different ways.

By applying this framework through four archetypes alternatives, you can  see emerging different design options to innovation. Choices that can provide the catalyst that can drive innovation’s renewal. It really can be used as a problem recognition diagnostic tool or a starting point for innovation opportunity dialogues .

We are in need of finding innovation frameworks that can guide, seize and respond to emerging opportunities quicker, at today’s new innovation speed in agile ways. Exploring this palette framework has to be valuable, to offer a new flexible approach to dealing with these multiple forces of upheaval and threat with clear intent and design in response.

Why this call for innovation renewal? Why do we need to re-think our approach to innovation?

Firstly the need for consistent renewal

We need to constantly renew within ourselves, that seem a constant today and our innovation efforts need a serious renewal for many reasons. We are facing unprecedented challenges, complexities and competition. We are mostly facing sluggish growth and find an increasing new competition from unexpected sources, looking to disrupt established markets, probing to change the game, innovation has an urgent need to adjust to a whole new set of different business dynamics.

Where and when do we invest, why and how? The need for different handling and thinking

Knowing when and where to invest in an innovation renewal and organising for it is a tough call. It tends to fly in the face of excepted practices, based on constantly attempting to improve the efficiencies and effectiveness of the processes. Often innovation discovery is unique, the pursuit of bringing innovation from discovery through to commercialization has many unknowns and inconsistencies of practices.

Innovation and its management are hard to align into much of the established practices and this is one of its toughest tests; to be treated differently not attempted to be drawn into other organizational activity by applying a mixture of routines and linear handoff, it needs mobilizing in different ways, to capture different opportunities in more agile, adaptive and shaping ways.

Innovation needs a different handling, more adaptive, more discovery-orientated, more exploratory, testing and probing to validate concepts and ideas.

Addressing the changing market conditions through different innovation design.

Why I think this BCG strategic palette has it ‘bang on’ is in the fact they recognize that business environments have three discernible dimensions: predictability and how you can forecast it, malleability and how you shape it, alone or in collaborative ways, and the harshness of the existing market conditions and how you set about surviving this. It is how you set about executing innovation outcomes within these three dimensions will give that greater distinctive need to the design and execution of your innovation solutions. Just thinking about the prevailing conditions can alter perceptions.

The framing of our innovation does have serious strategic consequences.

Those that are honest enough to admit that what they have achieved to-date in innovation activity is just not going to ‘cut it’ for the future, will be making a  very ‘tough’ call but it might be one of the best ones they are about to make. It opens up the thinking to let alternatives in.

I think we all need to constantly look at a renewal of innovation as essential in our thinking, as the conditions we operate within are more volatile than ever before. Over shorter times many things have evolved, suddenly changed, altered and moved on. So by not constantly refreshing we have allowed systems and tools to stay stuck in the past, we stay ‘bound’ to innovation in a current format often far too long. We need to shake out the cobwebs and renew ourselves.

The innovation spirit needs rethinking by taking a more versatile and shaping approach

We fail to constantly refresh and challenge our understanding. We need not just to adjust to our goals but more importantly to adjust from our knowledge of understanding of how we are managing innovation. We simply do need new and different framing mechanisms to be applied constantly as we set about innovation design if we believe in growth and fresh value creation.

It takes a real innovation zeal to renew, thinking this through in different new ways. Renewing innovation needs recognition. Focusing on renewal offers much. Don’t just rip-up or simply dispose of what we have, think through what renewing can give us in improved solutions, often at much lower cost and customer acceptance but most critically to decide and balance the different speeds and challenges innovation development has. Innovation and its management need to be thought through afresh.

Framing our thinking towards our future needs of innovation relates to the conditions we face today and can possibly foresee coming towards us. These conditions of ‘being’ predictable and unpredictable’ begins to determine the type of innovation approach to take.

We need to be fluid, flexible and have different mindsets of thinking innovation.

The approach we take is offering up this mix of the classical, the visionary, the adaptive and shaping and from these first we need to decide the tools, frameworks, resources, structures and systems that best work in each case, the what is applicable to bring to fruition different ideas within each of these dimensions offered in the palette.

We also need to recognise that innovation is different each time, for each opportunity, where it needs resourcing and managing differently. This  BCG strategic palette approach can offer a framework that does offer us a broader variety of options in our innovation thinking.

We also need to recognise that innovation is different each time, for each opportunity, where it needs resourcing and managing differently. This  BCG strategic palette approach can offer a framework that does offer us a broader variety of options in our innovation thinking.

Shifting our thinking

We must move away from a one-size fit all mentality, one where all innovation ‘chugs’ along, within the same process and pipeline. At present this copnstraining approach is killing so much of the potential within innovation. How can all those distinctive, radical and breakthrough concepts, all trying to be measured, squeezed and determined by one processing lens of innovation, all being constrained by traditional thinking, never ever seeing the light of day, as commercial outcomes because we ‘kill them off’?

Exploring different framing mechanisms are necessary

We not only need to apply the three horizons thinking for building and allocating our innovation to different time horizons but I would suggest we need to apply this BCG palette approach for our innovation approaches.

We need to break out of this current mindset trap of one-dimensional thinking, into that dual one of wanting to be simultaneously exploring and exploiting, managing the known and seeking out answers to the unknowns, keeping a balance between today’s business and those concepts that can grow for our future and that will need constant renewal, questioning and evaluation.

We do need new framing mechanisms to be applied to our innovation design and I just feel this palette frame can make a useful contribution as we apply different thinking to redesigning innovation in need of this renewal.

The post Future Innovation demands a different approach first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

A Question:

Getting to a root cause of innovation blockage
So what does block innovation? Arguably there are plenty of things up and down organizations: a lack of resources, an overcrowded portfolio of ideas, a lack of dedicated people, treating innovation as a one-off, keeping it isolated and apart from mainstream activities.

The list could go on and on, no question but to seek out a meaningful exchange of minds let me offer these outlined below as ones to tackle. Get a discussion going on all of these needs ‘being selective’, raised at separate times and then integrated into a collective ‘declaration of innovation intent’ going forward.

Let’s take a different perspective.

If you could ask a series of questions that might help unlock innovation blockages it would make such a difference to our innovation performance and engagement. I think this might need a good external facilitator as my recommendation, one who has deep innovation knowledge and expertise, able to manage the ‘dynamics’ within the room.

What would happen if you could get the leadership in a room together to discuss innovation which would allow innovation dialogues to emerge? Perhaps allowing those conversations that begin to build a common understanding, a common language for innovation? Your aim is to seek out those diverse, different views for the challenges that lie within innovation and your job is to draw these out. It is not easy yet the rewards could be huge.

Gaining a working consensus to share across the organization so these blockages can be openly discussed and in time-resolved would make for a very powerful advancement on all those fragmented, unstructured and personal opinions that have been allowed to ‘form’ as there was no structured dialogue. Here, again are my ten intractable challenges to resolve

The ten innovation intractable challenges – surfacing real barriers to innovation.

I’d suggest these might be a great starting point, tough to manage but phenomenal if you can surface them, provide a growing consensus to cluster around that results in providing a clearer leadership dialogue or guidance to how they see innovation.

These are shaped as discussions to raise, explore and extract views and then to be pulled together into a collective position, that gives strength and identification to resolving issues surrounding innovation. Surfacing differences, finding common ground and developing a ‘collective’ way forward make a significant contribution to building a common language and common sense of identity. It underpins innovation engagement. It gives confidence to any innovation undertaking.

• Addressing the issue of unfamiliar responsibilities – new and different ways of working, understanding, of allowing innovation to take hold and flourish is often demanding on those to find those new ways of responding, leading, to encouraging others. It becomes even harder when innovation is often added to increasing a person’s responsibilities. This different way of thinking needs surfacing. Many holding leadership positions in our organizations are uncomfortable with innovation, it is too intangible, it was not something they worked upon, and it often seems to ‘sit’ outside the normal processes and structures. It is full of risk and uncertainty. It is raising the unfamiliar yet it should become a great place to start this dialogue to bring innovation inside what we do, as a consistent.

• Innovation demands new directions – making significant changes to the way the organization is run is very challenging, potentially disrupting and needs thinking through at the top-level well. To ‘hone’ an organization into a lean efficient and effective ‘machine’ is one thing, to allow diversity and conflicting signals to pervade and challenge this is an extremely uncomfortable territory, so ring-fencing often seems to keep it at bay! Is this the right solution, are we facing different times to manage our organizations in 20th-century practices? If we are needing to become the 21st century in our thinking and practices how do we open up the dialogue Where do agility, flexibility, adaptive and exploratory come into our thinking, into our systems, into our culture?

• Inherited problems always surface – addressing countless and inherent problems is messy and requires dedicated resolution. Changing a culture to become more innovative can be a massive step in structure, organization and policies. How do we manage such a revolution, what is needed, and what is a culture and environment for innovation anyway? How do we manage our legacy, what should stay, and what can go? How do we set about this?

• Problems within the organizations make up – of inadequate experience and resistance to change especially surface when a person is not equipped to deal with it. Installing innovation capacity, capabilities and competencies need figuring out. How long does this take, and where can we turn to? How do we relate the change to its positive contribution to the future and can innovation lead that change?

• High stakes of innovation – demanding ‘breakthrough innovation’ makes everyone feel increasingly vulnerable and increasingly visible and it is for leadership to take ownership and real responsibility to manage this demand and shape the risk and set off fears against the gain and return. They need to be ready to ‘positively react and encourage’ both in supporting winning solutions and extracting positive learning from failures. Can you run breakthroughs alongside incremental innovation activities, what is really different in how can we manage these?

• Scope and scale of innovation – Managing scale and scope is demanding and requires well thought through systems and processes. To scope innovation needs robust business case approaches, its flexibility in its management and then to scale this up requires well-established approaches and clear commitments to its engagement and execution. Are we really good at seizing ‘breaking’ opportunities and quickly scaling these up? Can we learn new approaches to this? How do we approach to scale, scope and speed for innovation?

• External pressures multiply – everyone has an opinion outside the organization, let alone inside. Balancing these different interfaces and the pressures from these as you explore innovation needs managing well. Avoid that trait of just keeping piling on the raising of expectations and then failing to back this up, by demonstrating progress or ensuring you are not actively working on this alignment. What does it take for the ability to deliver on the promise? What can we learn by listening to those outside, what can we take inside and apply, have we our core beliefs to check these opinions against to stay firm upon or adapt to these new insights?

• Influencing without full authority – key activities within innovation usually demand that you become reliant on others. You need to spend (seemingly) inordinate time explaining and gaining others to make their ‘buy in’ and find ways for them to find their own identification with concepts. So by ‘growing identification’, you are able to move emerging innovation concepts along the pipeline.
• You also so often need to find often imaginative ways of attracting across the resources needed. This is especially hard for senior managers to adapt to, the need to attract across, instead of simply expect, demand and just take, today people want to be attracted and expect to learn from the experience and exposure. How can we learn new ways or different ways where collaboration becomes the norm and we can learn to borrow and exchange resources across functions more freely and then let them go to move on to the next challenge where their talent is most needed? To let go and watch talent soar.

• Work more with a listening and feedback culture – this can be totally different from the way business has been conducted up to today, through a more hierarchical structure. Flattening organizations to allow greater two-way flow sucks up time; it simply undoes or unpicks ‘command and control’ over time. It takes time to establish and gain confidence and momentum.
• You need to allow more for debate, it shifts and alters the hierarchy and structures and that is a big step into an unknown, yet it is necessary for organisational change, to allow innovation to truly flourish on a more sustainable basis. What needs to be put into place to listen and respond to our organization’s and customers’ needs? How can the relationships within the organization re-calibrate and mutually respect each other’s position?

• The need to develop workgroup diversity – innovation asks for more diversity in opinion, it draws out more in thinking, in discipline, in alternative approaches and solutions. This often leaves senior executives feeling they are less in control, reliant on others and that can feel scary and surface their own insecurities, buried increasingly as they moved up the organization and took on responsibility and accountability.
• It challenges often their very notion of management as they have known and experienced it. Innovation in its management does certainly challenge many past notions of managing, such as productivity, yield and simple extraction. How can we encourage a greater diversity of thought, of working, of judging performance that would help our organization’s absorption of different knowledge and approaches occurring all around us? How can we exploit and explore and know when to apply the differences in our thinking

To summarize

Each of these ten innovation challenges needs to be surfaced at the right time, usually as early as you can to provide a person handling innovation to gain the best and strongest foothold of their understanding..

Each one of these ‘intractable’ points can individually block innovation from advancing – we must find ways to bring them out, to surface opinions and find common solutions to resolving them. We need to build these into a common understanding to move innovation forward.

To send out a compelling message into our organizations we are wanting to tackle these intractable, so as to give innovation its rightful place within all our thinking and activities, to ’embrace’ it as it is far too important for our growth and future sustainability. None of us individually has the total answers but together we can find them.

Finding that right moment is not easy to draw these out but it is certainly necessary, otherwise those (often) hidden barriers never come to the surface and get resolved, leaving innovation trapped unable to release its true voice and significant worth and value to the organization’s fortunes.

The best way to ‘kick start’ this off is to bring in an experienced facilitator of innovation and let them probe, prompt and push to find the emerging answers to these often intractable challenges. To confront these challenges, you can unlock them and make them building blocks and not barriers to greater innovation.

** The original list of the ten innovation intractable’s has been adapted from “creating learning experiences without changing jobs” by Cynthia McCauley at the CCL in 2006. I’ve applied it in my way of surfacing these innovation issues and I believe many people’s personal concerns at the executive and senior organization levels that need their resolution and discussion to become more confident in innovation and its management.

The post Coaching helps overcome the ten innovation intractables first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

If we ‘subject’ all of our innovation thinking to go through the same process we lose so much. How can you treat incremental innovation in the same way as radical or breakthrough innovation? You need to apply a completely different thinking and approach to the type of innovation you are thinking through. You must be prepared to abandon established thinking if it is not resolving the problems you are facing.

Beginning any journey is never easy, you stumble a little until you find a certain rhythm

I wanted to start somewhere and it is breaking our existing mentality of how we manage innovation as the first critical point to challenge. Due to this has become a much longer post than I would like and I apologize for that but I wanted to get the mentality issue well ‘aired’ and I needed to cover off a number of bases to frame this.

Funnily enough as I was thinking how to begin I came across two short verses from the Bible, both from Matthew 9.16 & 9.17. and wanting to start here on why we should be Shining a powerful innovation light into the Corporate Boardrooms. It might be a strange place to start for many, yet it somehow allows me to begin my journey.

“No one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the wine would burst the wineskins, and the wine and the skins would both be lost. New wine calls for new wineskins.” – I believe we need to find a new framing position for innovation as the disruptive forces and challenges we face today are growing and call for new ways of managing.

“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse.” – We have been renovating our innovation process until it becomes unrecognizable by all the patches we have been applying and is it really providing the results we want?

Innovation today disappoints

We are not achieving the impact from all our innovation endeavors that we should. There is a time to radically redesign our innovation. We need to shift our thinking as innovation is providing disappointing returns and we are in urgent need to find a new re-framing position of the organization’s innovation engagement.

Innovation needs to become far more responsive and dynamic, to respond with imagination and intent of purpose. To achieve this innovation requires a greater organizational engagement than ever before. It needs mobilizing differently, in radically different ways; so as to capture different opportunities in more agile, adaptive and shaping ways

If we do need to re-present innovation to our corporate boards to engage in more, we need to offer them a compelling set of arguments on why innovation needs a fundamental rethink, a renewed focus on building the capabilities, competences and capacities that are possible if you engage in a comprehensive innovation management.

Shifting the innovation mindset, resolving a present day dilemma

I’ve written about this need for fluidity and taken this part to frame this post

“Stability and fluidity – how can both work alongside each other? They are opposites yet we need both to thrive in today’s world. Many theorists have suggested, of having in place the ‘ambidextrous organization.’ This would need organizations to design their organizations in their structures, people and processes to either be focused on ‘being efficient’ or being ‘change orientated’. An increased level of duality. The mindset of exploiting or exploring but can we have both, I certainly think so, it mostly depends on what we are about to do to get this mental picture of which frame of thinking should dominate but not be exclusive.

I have been drawn to this ‘dual’ system of ambidextrous as it helps resolve one of the consistent stumbling blocks for innovation to ‘take hold’ and evolve. Innovation is constantly fluid, needing to be adaptive as we learn and adjust to new learning and this is constantly requiring a very change orientated approach. Often innovation comes up against a rigid system and for many “just seems not to fit”

Innovation struggles as it often remains outside the prevailing system. Innovation constantly challenges against the dominant mindset within organizations, who like the idea of innovation but are mostly measured to drive efficiency and effectiveness, keeping highly focused on the short-term performance as their role, reward, advancement and key to ongoing career success, so innovation ‘sits outside’ their domain of focus”

Something needs to change if innovation is really important.

We innovators need a new model of change, for at least eight important reasons I can initially think of:

1. As innovators we aren’t simply responding to external change, we are creating change, both for customers and for our companies and markets. (inside, proactive change vs external, reactive).
2. External change is far more unpredictable, in global markets new threats emerge from anywhere, at any time and often delivered in totally unexpected ways, through new business models that totally cut through and disrupt the existing positions, they can render the existing obsolete in seemingly rapid time, irrespective of the efforts to respond as they have discovered the unmet need to deliver solutions to it.
3. The pace and nature of change isn’t slowing, but is accelerating and will continue to accelerate. (increasing pace, frequency and amplitude of change). Organizations need to pick up the pace, learn to accept a greater risk, experimentation and rapid adjustment on the new knowledge flowing in to build the final outcome to the needs of the market / customer.
4. Sudden evolving markets makes everything needing to be ‘super’ responsive by existing players, to the sudden realization they have missed opportunities, Many existing organizations cannot cope and alter with this demand for agility, flexibility and responsiveness. They need to (re)learn this and build it into their systems and often this realization comes too late. Some industries have been undertaking a responsive approach, for example in their supply chain thinking. Think Zara, the Spanish clothing retailer and how it changed the game.
5. As often demonstrated, most innovation has the potential to be business model innovation, which will require change. (As more innovation becomes focused on business model innovation, this will create even more change).
6. We recognize that change is no longer an occasional threat but a constant companion (shift from the idea of change as a threat to developing an ongoing change capacity as a competitive advantage).
7. The idea that companies can achieve a protected steady state where change won’t affect them doesn’t seem to apply anymore (long periods of stasis, or standing still are no longer possible. Must be able to change/evolve constantly).
8. We need to think of change as a capability that we constantly deploy, rather than a threat we typically avoid. (Need to develop change as a capability, to build skills, reduce barriers).

We need to ask of ourselves if we recognize our need to change

How can we establish Innovation as the vital link to a process of change and strategic direction options, that lifts the debates of managing today’s business by linking it into the future and then turning this thinking into a series of plausible and coherent set of activities?

How can we focus the energy around the boardroom table on to this linking the future work to the shape and the organization’s needs, making the growing innovation debate as strategic as it can be?

Four articles that help shape the change in mindset making it far more of a dual one.

For a start I would recommend you read the four articles I have summarized in my own way below,  to provide a greater depth of understanding in some of our starting points of changing the existing mindset within the boardroom. Here is my brief summaries of these, partly re-affirming but extending thinking to ’embrace’ these:

Two articles are from Scott Anthony or his Innosight team or in collaborations.

Firstly, Two Routes to Resilience

“Sooner or later, your company will probably need to transform itself in response to market shifts, ground breaking technologies, or disruptive start-ups”. Read about this here

“First, major transformations need to be two different efforts happening in parallel. “Transformation A” should re-position the core business, adapting its current business model to the altered marketplace. “Transformation B” should create a separate, disruptive business to develop the innovations that will become the source of future growth.

Second, the key to making both transformations work is to establish a new organizational process we call a “capabilities exchange,” through which the parallel efforts can share select resources without changing the mission or operations of either”

Dividing the effort in two allows leaders to develop a new strategy for the core that doesn’t need to make up for all the business lost to disruption”

Secondly, What Do You Really Mean by Business “Transformation”?

“When executives say transformation what do they really mean? Often, the word confuses three fundamentally different categories of effort”. Read the article here

“The first is operational, or doing what you are currently doing, better, faster, or cheaper. Many companies that are “going digital” fit in this category — they are using new technologies to solve old problems.

The next category of usage focuses on the operational model. Also called core transformation, this involves doing what you are currently doing in a fundamentally different way.

The final usage, and the one that has the most promise and peril, is strategic. This is transformation with a capital “T” because it involves changing the very essence of a company. Liquid to gas, lead to gold”

Defining what leaders mean when they drop the word transformation matters, because these different classes of efforts need to be measured and managed in vastly different ways.”

Two further articles are from Ralph-Christian Ohr

Ralph writes under his blog http://integrative-innovation.net/

The first is “A Model for Integrative Innovation Management”

In his view sustainable successful innovation management systems in organizations are required to be based on a couple of essential premises – all of which can be considered necessary conditions. Read his article here

Innovation management follows a balanced portfolio approach. The entire innovation portfolio is divided into exploitation-oriented and exploration-oriented innovation initiatives, where following characterizations hold:

Exploitation-oriented initiatives are related to running core business by executing and enhancing existing business models or technological capabilities. The primary direction of impact is value capturing (commercialization). Examples: Product, service or process innovation, portfolio extension, innovation of selected business model components (e.g. channel or operations), market research.

Exploration-oriented initiatives are related to developing future business by searching for novel, and often disruptive, business models or technological capabilities. The primary direction of impact is value creation (configuration). Examples: Business model development, platform/ecosystem innovation, basic technology research & development, startup engagement, innovation intelligence.

Ralph and I share the belief that the three horizons is a distinct playground for innovation initiatives

Exploration- and exploitation-oriented innovation initiatives can be assigned to three strategic horizons. As outlined below, the horizons address different proximity to the core business with regard to business model or technological capabilities – and therefore indirectly time scale. The horizons’ strategic objectives can be put in a nutshell:

H1 – Core: Optimization of existing business models and technologies, addressing of existing markets

H2 – Growth: Acceleration and scaling of new business models and technologies, adaptation of existing business models

H3 – Future: Discovery and validation of new business models and technologies, shaping of future markets

A lot of my own work goes into developing the understanding, usage and practice of working with the three horizon methodology. Ralph and I share a lot on this as core to a way forward. Here is my White Paper and short presentation opener to this 3H thinking to capture, translate and combine the innovation for today and leading towards the future.

Ralph’s second article is equally making the Case for Dual Innovation

This is revisiting the need for a higher level of organizational ambidexterity to be built into the organization. So often something is dismissed without it being fully worked through. Ralph puts up the case for revisiting “dual innovation” equally suggested within the Innosight articles. Read his article here.

“In the past, systematic dual innovation management approaches have often been discounted due to falling short of expectations or lacking prevalence across the sum of companies. Both reasons, however, don’t necessarily imply the basic concept is inappropriate or even wrong”

“Adequate buy-in on part of executive/senior management and proper implementation of these approaches are mandatory prerequisites in order to make them live up to their potential and – as a consequence – increasingly trusted and applied. The above studies clearly reveal: Organizational ambidexterity proves to be a necessary condition for outstanding corporate innovation capability. Company boards may ignore it at their peril.”

The need is for us to get thinking in ‘dual’ minds for ‘greater’ innovation delivery.

Exploitation  <=> core transformation, i.e. doing what you are currently doing in a fundamentally different way

Exploration <=> strategic transformation, i.e. changing the very essence of a company

The thinking in dual ways is a really important part of bringing innovation thinking into the boardroom, framing this through a three horizon approach that can provide a common language, a different thinking mindset and build future discussions in appropriate time horizons and impact assessments. Also take a read of “Mapping innovation across the three horizons” to link this powerful concept into any board rooms thinking over the present and future for placing different innovation activities.

Dogma, mindsets and conflicts often dominate our boardrooms

I wrote about Lingering dogma, fixed mindsets and conflicting needs and wrote at the end “I can’t promise it can stop all the unhealthy debates around innovation in the boardroom by adopting the Three Horizon framework. What it might change is the perspective of where to focus the expertise and energy to make innovation far more the strategic bedrock, that organizations are looking to achieve, the link towards a healthier future. It’s not personal any more, its considering options in a future-orientated way for their business, to find better ways to thrive not just survive”

In summary, as the first post of why innovation must reside in the boardroom

The first thinking ‘out loud’ ( a long one I must admit) of moving innovating thinking far more into the corporate boardroom comes from the need to establish a “thinking mindset” within our boardrooms, a duality of mindset. One where they ‘collectively’ within the boardroom needs to think in dual ways, exploring and exploiting, to establish distinct types of transformation efforts, and innovation initiatives, combined with the use and application of embracing the three horizons, this becomes the first group of thinking for “shining innovation into the corporate boardrooms”.

Footnote: Where I seem to be heading is in my intent of making innovation itself a transformational journey, perhaps even a “renaissance” as we all are facing and needing to tackle all the disruptive forces around us.

Save

The post Establishing a new mentality for innovation first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

This seems an appropriate time to begin to rethink and explain innovation, partly in this need to fight these “immune systems” in fresh ways and partly to redrawn, re-frame and renew the value of innovation; in how it can help organizations going forward in very volatile times.

So let’s shine some light on new ways or even recognized paths for innovation to re-enter the thinking within our corporate boardrooms, in different ways that might resonate more in these more ‘dynamic’ times.

I like this organizing framework shown above, it can  allow us to gain a revised understanding of how innovation can be mobilized in different ways, to give value in dealing with these different forces to help move you towards a growing level of renewal.

So I want to begin a series of posts around positioning innovation frameworks, tools or approaches that build the boardroom “innovation toolkit” to deal in both the predictive and unpredictive environments. The suggestions that will be offered are designed to help tackle the disruptive forces swirling around the business that are rising, increasing the uncertainties to future invest. It is attempting to address the concerns on how to organize the “forces of innovation” to combat them, to raise the confidence level in the boardroom to ’embrace’ innovation far more than seemingly the case today.

Firstly the background to this attempt to re-frame the innovation value proposition.

What prompts this has been a spate of recent reports raising concerns largely about innovation uncertainty in our boardrooms. This made me draw back and reflect, now it is time to re-frame and renew the message of innovation and its management..

The three previous posts that reflected this ‘dark period’ for innovation come out of different reports. My posts are here, here, and here. I did got fairly emotional in firstly reading the reports, and then in these three reviews – my dark period but rightly so, I believe.

The story so far if you have not read my previous three posts

The case has been made that our boards are risk-adverse, experimentally shy and digitally inept. They are struggling to adjust to the disruptive forces attacking the core of their businesses.Can that be challenged and certainly changed?

Boards feel their organizations are slow to respond, far from agile and flexible, delivering up a series of poor levels of innovation performance in the solutions to grow the business. Our boards are equally not encouraged to change the business models and offer a new way forward, to get these significant threats ‘contained’ in different ways.  In many ways innovation is moving backwards due to a risk-adverse approach, missing numerous opportunities, or just not wanting to learn from past mistakes.

You might feel this has a level of abdication and quiet acceptance to it, that the inevitable is coming towards them at higher speeds and complexity than they can ever imagine. This has left them poorly equipped to manage this growing set of disrupting forces in ways they have been used too, it is creating a high level of uncertainty and uneven attempts to undertake the changes necessary. Increasingly this management rigidity within the present management style, continues to favor efficiency and effectiveness through repeating practices, processes and highly structured systems. Those are designed to extract the maximum from constantly reducing the minimum needed to get the job done.

Well you are right, many of our boards are simply incapable to think beyond their past management experiences, one that is focusing on leveraging a return for each quarter to yield ever-improving short-term results, pushing  ‘incentives’ that everyone is encouraged to sign up too, for supporting this approach and their participation gets rewarded. Yet it can be also so different, perhaps liberating if they took a different tack.

Heading towards a promised land through innovation is certainly possible

Can we lead them out of this ‘dead end’ they seem to have found themselves in, a cul-de-sac,one they continue to drive along as this cost-driven, short-term road? Yet it can be very different, pursuing a more open freeway or highway seeking out growth, if you allow imagination, beliefs, determination and character to find that alternative pathway by having that real desire to make all the changes necessary, and there are many, let’s be clear upfront.

It is a journey not for the weak-willed or one undertaken half-halfheartedly but with real innovation intent and purpose.Each journey is unique but full of commonalities and these need to be revisited or explored in fresh ways. Embracing innovation fully can propel you forward, in often many unexpected ways but also in some bold and thoughtful ones.

So where do we start?

So in a series of blog-posts, I want to “shine innovation into the corporate boardrooms,” I am hopefully offering a way forward for those time-starved or presently not as well-equipped to pull this innovation structure together into a more cohesive ‘whole’ that can raise their confidence in innovation and grow in their engagement to this emerging discipline.

The framework here, I will be breaking down in my own innovative way, as my approach to strategic innovation thinking. This is different from the way that BCG is suggesting using this framework although their title “Your strategy needs a strategy” certainly brought me to their Strategy Palette as my framing concept.

The difference is that mine is an Innovation Strategic Palette by applying its use in developing the innovation strategic content that  boardrooms require to build better, clearer and far more comprehensive innovation strategies. So I am adapting it specifically to innovation and the outcome is through these four archetypes that is leading to ‘arriving’ at renewal, for a greater chance of survival in today’s more disruptive world.

This frame will determine most of the content of the posts going forward.

The management of innovation needs organizing.

The intent of applying this innovation palette is to encourage, through the proper management of innovation, to provide and convince the boards’ they can develop a greater appetite for growth, even in increasingly disruptive times. Innovation should have a very high strategic importance on the board’s agenda, I am hopefully this contribution can help.

We need to change the thinking around the present attitudes to innovation engagement at boardroom level, in changing the risk profiles and tolerance of failure. The options to innovation should be made up of a healthy mix of extending the existing business, strengthening and extracting from this core, to find the time and resources so as to provide a greater strategic intent to find more distinctive innovations, that give a confidence in the future, as well as be fully supportive, provide encouragement and determined commitment to explore the future, where more radical and breakthrough innovation potential ‘resides.’

From what I have seen and read there seems a clear need to address the skill-set at board level to handle innovation, to equate to digital disruption and technology differently. The real urgency is to encourage board members to act far more proactively through managing innovation, to evolve and utilize a Boardroom innovation toolkit that can be built.

The business world is far more risky today, far more complex, we are becoming more failure tolerant or ultra defensive. Innovation thrives in the unknown and undiscovered innovation territory, waiting to be explored and exploited.

Noble aim, willing intent. Lets see if I can make a dent in the innovation universe for corporate leaders.

It is being equipped with the right toolkit of innovation management that  perhaps board members can then start seeing themselves as new business development leaders, that has innovation at the heart of their future decisions.

The post Shining a powerful innovation light into the Corporate Boardrooms first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

One where it is offering up a healthy mix of rain, stronger sun, a little flurry of snow and some heavy wind too.

It can constantly confuse us as it can rapidly alter within the same 24 hours to often keep the heating on, when it should be switched off and visa-versa. It can be an uncomfortable month of adjusting constantly, second guessing of what might be ahead.

On the innovation front I have been experiencing the same feeling of adjusting to uncomfortable days.

First, I was reviewing a report from Accenture, on how US big business was treating their innovation as more left to chance in their report, with my summary here on cloudy execution, my snakes and ladders. This ‘rocked’ some of my beliefs, ones where I thought we actually were making the progress on innovation understanding. It seems this is not the case, we are going backwards and then my month got suddenly worse from a report from Deloittes.

The Deloittes report was on how leadership within Boardrooms under  my”uncharted waters”, was about how our boards are struggling to get their ‘collective heads’ around disruption and how innovation can, or cannot, dig them out of the threats they are facing. They are being disrupted constantly across the business. They are caught between fear and uncertainty on what to do and clearly that is not a comfortable place to be.

Both reports, as I was reviewing them, left me a little depressed to say the least and it just continues…..like the April weather…. leaving me totally uncertain and then what pops up….

Adding to this innovation reporting mix- Innosight provides a further angst report.

So a further report, this time from Innosight, throws even more angst into the boardroom, adding further into this mix of fear, caution, grim reading on a lack of innovation commitment facing larger organizations. The report from Innosight is in their Spring Insights, called Corporate Longevity: Turbulence Ahead for Large Organizations it just added more worrying news from my perspective on innovation lack of top level progress.

I again buckled up for a further reading of unpredictable innovation resolutions, just like this April weather, all raining down on us from those not heeding, understanding or changing their thinking. In many boardrooms they are not wanting to tackle in fresh ways the future and work towards embracing all the disrupting forces swirling around at present. They seem to want to hold on and not let go of the past .I’m getting really innovation weary from all this

So three reports I thought “oh no”- the grim reaper is truly upon us.

Innosight’s report starts with “We’re entering a period of heightened volatility for leading companies across a range of industries, with the next ten years shaping up to be the most potentially turbulent in modern history.”

Reap what you do not sow Mr Boardroom member- uncertain futures, badly invested in

So we all know that 50% of the current S&P 500 will be replaced over the next ten years, didn’t we? Well I did from past readings (clever me) but it is never nice to be reminded again. Not because of its reality but because of the leadership we have in place in many of these organizations is in the denial it will happen to them.

That is what is for me so upsetting. They earn Squillions and screw the long term health of the organization totally up as more often the case, because they were not even focusing on any belief of the future, just taking in the rewards for the immediate present. They could have done something about it but seem incapable to show the level of leadership to achieve this, just why, why is that?

With so much additional disruption coming from technologies, from start-ups, from intense M&A activities and having this ‘being overtaken’ by more agile, quicker growing companies just piles on the pressure within the boardroom but ignoring its threat as “it will not happen to me” without the boldness, decisiveness and intent to reinvent the organization to catch the different ‘waves’ of opportunity is sometimes bordering on criminal, well for me- what about you?.

Innosight in this report has a great passage

“Viewed as a larger picture, the lifespan chart serves as a barometer for marketplace change. And the stakes couldn’t be higher. Shrinking lifespans are in part driven by a complex combination of technology shifts and economic shocks, some of which are beyond the control of corporate leaders. But frequently, companies miss opportunities to adapt or take advantage of change. For example, they continue to apply existing business models to new markets, fail to respond to disruptive competitors in low-profit segments, or fail to adequately envision and invest in new growth areas, which in some cases take a decade to pay off”.

This sums it up pretty well for me. We have failures all around us going on due to this lack of imagination, a poor coherent longer-term vision, a lack of confidence to achieve any form of transformation lies within the organization and so it becomes incapable to undertake the transformation that it needed to undertake, due to continually miss the opportunities offered to evolve.

Leadership still lacks real innovation commitment, the linkage to growth, to fending off disruption, of tuning into current and future needs, the message of embracing it has simply not got through to those within the boardrooms; one that the comprehensive management of innovation can offer significant improvements on present performance and they need to fully take hold of it, to learn and leverage, to explore and exploit, in imaginative and breakthrough ways.

Innovation can offer a pathway out of the existing position that many organizations are facing, ones of poor growth, limited sustainability and growing erosion of their existing market positions, often spiraling down, with cutting existing costs seen as the only option. It can be so very different if they wanted to fully engage with innovation. Others are reaping the rewards of their own inabilities in the boardroom to commit the time needed to practice innovation.

The question is “will it change?” If so how, why and when- not with these answers.

The Innosight report points out in the organizations they surveyed of 91 companies with revenue greater than $1 billion across more than 20 industries across the world, the shocking news  that only 24% have a growth strategy with a time horizon of beyond five years, 16.5% report having no formal growth strategy or a growth plan at all as they are seemingly “too busy executing”, “really don’t have time to focus on it” or “we don’t have a good process for formulating a growth strategy that we are confident about”

Then you get the “but of course we are committed to long-term innovation” but it is our “day-to-day decisions that undermine our stated strategy to change” Oh for heavens sake can this really go on? To make substantial change when you are facing the type of change and threats occurring today can easily take up to a decade to fully realize.

So the future continues to be pushed off, growth stays morbid and we resort to simply cutting costs, lowering choice, quality and resources to handle this, we continue to outsource our future to others, who are more than ready to take it on and learn, so as to take your place eventually.

So let the bell toll- let’s say goodbye to 50% of who we know today, you deserve it.

It leaves you utterly sad, even depressed. Innosight offers these thoughts below as a worthwhile thought, when so many of these larger organizations are not heeding or reading about their serious lack of commitment to innovation and the future. They seem apathetic or incapable to comprehend what this eventually means to the future of their organizations.

So Innosight suggests: “Leaders have to confront what might be called tensions, balances, or, even in extreme circumstances, paradoxes. They must optimize today, and discover tomorrow. They must be decisive and bet on moonshots, and defer to experiments. They have to focus, and enable serendipity. They have to leverage the core, and break its constraints”

It seems many just simply do not have the appetite to grow, to look towards the future when their own investment and return is tied mostly to the present.

It just does not seem boards are confident in innovation. There seems a reluctance in wanting to take ownership for innovation, one encouraging and investing more confidently in an evolving/ learning series of experiments to evolve the future of their business in iterative, exploratory ways. It is not a ‘core’ discipline or focal point as innovation continues to have been left to others outside the boardroom. That needs to change.

We are left to judge each company by deciphering ‘the smoke and mirrors’ offered that are claimed to form their “unique” innovation culture, to attempt to determination the staying power and their true belief and undertaking in a future, and make our judgement- mostly it should be yank our money, run like hell, until this future can be well-articulated and well-backed in action.

As companies sadly stick to their historical core as the business, falling to take the risks, invest in the new growth ventures and experiments to build towards a better shot at the future, so I say “just simply go, fade away and leave a puddle as your mess or contribution, and forget the thrill of reinvention and providing a ‘sense of destiny’ and taking pride in exploring more than simply exploiting, often just for your own personal gain”

So Goodbye, many of you in leadership positions, as you do not serve innovation well for its potentially exciting future. You are simply letting down the communities, the stakeholders, your customers, our futures, by not heeding all these ‘darker’ messages coming out of Accenture, Deliotte, Innosight and countless others telling you to change or die!

The “Grim Reaper” is knocking on many boardroom doors. Let him cut away the dead wood and we can all move ahead.

The post No Company deserves to survive with apathy in its future first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.