Thinking Partner Ecosystems in design and delivery. There is a need to resolve immediate, mid-term, and long-term issues to show progressive thinking on how to grow collaboratively. How to collaborate to deliver impact, and create value when building your thinking in products, services, or new business models on any Partner Ecosystem design and thinking. One methodology stands out for me: the three-horizon framework

Partner ecosystems are highly valuable for delivering on these ambitions. Partner Ecosystems enable you to go beyond addressing immediate and surface-level issues to tackle deeper, systemic challenges and position clients at the forefront of collaborative and co-creative approaches.

In my view, this requires a progressive mindset that considers growth, impact, and value across various time horizons. This mindset lends itself really well to applying the three-horizon methodology.

The concept of three-horizon modelling, which considers short-term resolutions, mid-term growth, and long-term impact and value creation, is particularly relevant in this context.

Immediate Needs / Short-Term Resolutions (Horizon 1):

• Partner ecosystems should address immediate challenges and resolve pressing issues, such as supply chain disruptions, resource shortages, or regulatory changes and compliance.

• However, these short-term solutions should be designed with a broader vision in mind, laying the foundation for more sustainable and scalable approaches in the future.

• The searching for underlying root causes or systemic issues that need to be recognized and addressed later as partner ecosystems can develop short-term solutions that address the immediate problem and lay the foundation for more sustainable and long-term solutions.

• Collaborations within the ecosystem should prioritize knowledge sharing and data transparency, enabling a deeper understanding of the power of openly collaborating and sharing insights,

Mid-term Strategies / Growth (Horizon 2):

• Partner ecosystems should focus on mid-term strategies that enable growth, innovation, and competitive advantage. This involves co-creating new products, services, or business models that leverage the collective expertise and resources of the ecosystem partners.
• Building on the insights from short-term collaborations, partner ecosystems should drive growth and innovation by co-creating new products, services, or business models that significantly increase competitive advantage.
• By extracting and exploiting ecosystem partners’ collective expertise, resources, and diverse perspectives to anticipate and respond to evolving market trends, customer needs, and technological advancements more effectively.
• Mid-term strategies should also consider the potential impact on various stakeholders, including employees, communities, and the environment, ensuring responsible and sustainable growth.

Long-term Vision, Impact and New Value Creation (Horizon 3):

• Partner ecosystems should develop a long-term vision that transcends immediate commercial interests and addresses broader societal and environmental challenges, often contributing to underlying causes.

• Initiatives on this horizon should focus on broader areas of concern and contribution to solving, such as climate change mitigation, social equality, public health, and sustainable development, ultimately contributing to preserving human life and well-being. This involves collaborating with diverse stakeholders, such as academia, government agencies, non-profit organizations, and local communities, to co-create solutions that have a lasting positive impact.

• By co-creating solutions with a positive and lasting impact, partner ecosystems can position themselves as leaders in their respective industries and contribute to creating a better future for all.

Recognize we need to “cut through” different issues over different time horizons

• To truly “cut through the issues” and position clients ahead in their thinking, partner ecosystems must embrace a holistic and progressive approach that addresses immediate needs while simultaneously working towards mid-term strategies and a long-term vision. This requires open communication, trust, and a shared commitment to collaboration and co-creation among all partners.

• By fostering an ecosystem that values growth, impact, and value across different time horizons, organizations can address current challenges, shape the future of their industries, and contribute to a more sustainable and equitable world.

The value of the three-horizon approach

By adopting a three-horizon approach, partner ecosystems can simultaneously address immediate needs, drive growth and innovation, and create lasting impact and value. This progressive mindset requires a holistic understanding of the interconnectedness of challenges, a commitment to continuous learning and adaptation, and a shared sense of purpose among all ecosystem partners.

This approach recognizes that tackling systemic challenges requires a long-term perspective and a willingness to embrace complexity. It acknowledges that short-term solutions alone are insufficient and that true transformation necessitates a multi-faceted approach considering various time horizons and stakeholder needs.

The power of this Partner Ecosystem approach is that you recognize that in each time horizon, it considers growth, impact, and value across partner thinking and contributions. It breaks down complexity from the diversity of opinions and ideas. The recognition of cause, effect, and systemic issues catalyze the thinking. They provide this collaborative effect, bringing collective intelligence.

Your time to act is now- why not?

If you are curious to find out more, then let’s make the initial contact.

I have entered into a collaborative partnership with SIA Partners on Partner Ecosystems. Combining expertise, connections, methodologies, capabilities, and client work in advising, mentoring, and consulting is exciting; in offering some genuinely unique IP methodology in concept designs, research, and industry and institution connections, a compelling service offering is emerging. We believe the diversity within the proven application and combined strengths offer much.

The time to engage to discuss what this might mean to different businesses, institutions, and societies requires radically new thinking. Partner Ecosystems can solve complex issues, make a real difference in enhancing lives, and, in many cases, save lives through collaborative efforts.

Why not contact SIA Partners or myself to have an opening discussion? Where we, as your forward-thinking partner, are capable of helping you navigate the intricacies of today’s landscape and being your catalyst for the future in driving transformative change through greater collaboration and co-creation.  

Together, we can explore the challenges and possible scenarios that would help you move rapidly forward on your partner ecosystem journey, resolve your challenges and advance your future role in society and the values and impact of what you can offer.

+

The Three Horizon Methodology is discussed extensively here

The post The value of applying the Three Horizons to Partner Ecosystem thinking. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Now I am a terrific admirer of Steve and his thinking but he does, I feel, rush to an assumption to fit one specific problem area, most coming from the start-up world. I apply the three horizons from the more mature organizations perspective and in a much wider lens framing approach than clear he does.

Steve Blank, no less, wrote about the problems with applying the three horizons as his view recently. You can read it here. He changed the title from “the fatal flaw of the three horizon model” to “fast time in three horizon high” mainly due to the push back he received from one of the original creators of this framework. It got even further dampened down into a more observational under “McKinsey’s Three horizons Model defined Innovation for years. Here is Why It No Longer Applies” in a Harvard Business Review posting that digs him further into his specific business focus corner that little bit deeper, as his title assumes.

Steve, I have news for you, the three horizons frame is healthy and fit for use, maybe not in your specific application (although I know it can be) but in multiple applications. I am not sure he decided why he became so dismissive on the 3H. “Fatal flaw, fit for use” can confuse a wider audience, many living off his pronouncements, when the value of this 3H frame is even more compelling today than when it was first proposed. It has moved on, not regressed.

Actually, he is wrong again on that initial innovation positioning for the 3H. It was proposed by McKinsey for a growth strategy framework and then others then took its framing principles and applied them differently. The 3H can lend itself to innovation application in multiple ways really well. Not sure the changes in titles conveys his message better than his provocative one of “fatal flaw”, which has been challenged already, with due “diffidence”. The “fatal flaw” might be in his rigid application and not in the many ways you can apply the Three Horizons potential across a broad range of framing techniques.

Steve is absolutely right, speed has made such a difference for every organization to quicken their pace. Each of the horizons has for some come closer together, or as I recommend, need all working in parallel, not one following the other

Actually, I value the three horizons in analyzing a business, its position today and its stated position tomorrow and look for gaps or opportunities to work on the different horizons needs of supporting the present, building capabilities in the near term and exploring the future in imaginative ways. One of the outcomes is more than likely, in most cases, mean adding new competencies, capabilities, and capacity.

Also, the three horizons is a good dialoguing frame to allow each of the voices within an organization to have their opinion “aired” and then the combined voices determine the path forward. I’ve written on that here in a post “Drawing out the different voices within the three horizon methodology for Innovation” and here. “Are you engaging with all the different voices around you?

I also offered up a different perspective on using the Three Horizons as a Wire Frame” Applying the Three Horizon Thinking to a Fresh Perspective of Innovation Design”

Then I looked at how to manage our assets “The New Game Or Is It? Asset Orchestration” talking about modes of commitment to innovation as first suggested by Javier Busquets.

I can go on and on about the potential versatility of the three horizons, just put into search on this posting site “three horizons” you can view the different articles I’ve published on this, or equally you can download these within different summary series, within my “insights and thinking” page, under the three horizons. They do offer a detailed build on this framework to bring it all together.

Then to finish here in my push back to Steve and his (restricted) view of the three horizons, in one of my posts “The Compelling Value of the 3H for Innovation Management“

He can perhaps open up his thinking a little more on the 3H and its value?

I still think he fails to see this beyond his “relative delivery time” applied to each horizon. He is absolutely right that horizon three deliverables have sped up but I still believe he thinks outside big organizations (thankfully to get alternative thinking) and inside these, the three horizon framework is a great (initial) organizer, to break down the complexity of thinking, if you apply it with some different imaginative thinking.

It gives a portfolio thinking for setting different priories, revealing needs, and expertise to give the renewed intensity of purpose towards each horizon. It breaks down complexity and gives the actually greater intensity of purpose.

The three horizons can be in need updating from its original purpose but if you apply one definition you can miss the real power of its value, I see multiple applications.

I think Steve does a good job of challenging some of the shifts we are undergoing in thinking differently.

Sometimes he does like to sensationalize this but that is partly why he stands out in challenging much. He makes us sit up and listen. His lens, coming from the startup environment challenges many existing ones of the incumbent.  I am always really pleased to see it through his highly “entrepreneurial eyes”.

Today if you apply the three horizons as originally intended it certainly does not solve his basic argument of a speed of deployment and asymmetry but it gets the conversation framed in larger organizations in many imaginative ways if you are prepared to step outside the three horizons original constructs thinking.

Applying the three horizons to breaking down complexity in how we organize and manage and why it needs to be seen in different frames does not go away. It does a great initial job of recognition and allocation, to tackle different challenges of managing change in different ways.

Perhaps Steve is applying his own thinking too rigidly to the three horizons, he might want to open it up in its rich potential of the application. Sometimes leaders might miss the memo as he suggests but also those writing the memo miss important points to restrict and not open us up to alternatives.

Yet as we see business as ones framed in threats, disruption concerns, ways to deploy resources, allow a focus on where to place “thin” resources, apply different techniques for prototyping, minimum viable products, tackling legacy etc there is an amazing richness within this three horizon framework. They are under appreciated.

One day I want to find the opportunity to dig around the greater value than looking through his prism of the “start-up is eating the established business world”. He is totally right that incumbents are facing more challenges from new competitors that make the incumbents business model quicker to becoming obsolete.

If you apply time to the three horizons model you do get what he states but if you take the assigned horizon work and apply the principles of simultaneous working them, you get a level of clarity that most new entrants can never comprehend, as they often do not have the level of insights that the incumbent does.

We need to apply the concept of the three horizons in greater ways for the incumbent, not just as he suggests, through one lens that he seems constrained in this limited application.

The post How do you apply the three horizon framework in your thinking? Steve Blank you are limiting your thinking. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

They might be operating at the two ends of the current internet trading spectrum and are coming from different market maturity positions but it is the asset management that is becoming critical for delivering the profit or dragging performance.

Now Amazon is far from “asset heavy” when you compare them to the Industrial companies like GE but asset orchestration is seemingly getting far greater management time for all companies it seems. The lighter you are, the more likely you are to be more flexible and adaptive to respond to more disruptive challenges being faced by industries that are undergoing the shift to being more “digitally enabled”. Alibaba is very much a good asset orchestrator.

I wrote a post some time back called “Asset Orchestration is required for more Dynamic Innovation” and offered a thought (or two) such as “you must orchestrate the capabilities, to purposefully build what is needed to deliver the final result”. At the time I had been reading some work undertaken to frame this asset orchestration by Sirmon et al during 2007 and 2008 that focused on the different actions of the manager, or asset orchestrator.

In this research they (Sirmon et al) suggest there are three primary stages of structuring, bundling and leveraging resources for the purpose of creating new value for customers and gaining competitive advantages, however temporary in today’s world. It is why this needs to be dynamic, ever evolving, to keep orchestrating your assets continually and it was not until recently I made a further set of connections into asset orchestration. Let me repeat these as they are increasingly important in the world of platforms and ecosystems.

Let me repeat these as they are increasingly important in the world of platforms and ecosystems.

The three primary stages of asset orchestration can be broken down:

• Structuring involves acquiring, accumulating and divesting resources to form the organization’s resource portfolio.

• Bundling of integrating resources to form capabilities, that can stabilize or provide incremental improvements to existing capabilities, or that enrich and extend existing current capabilities and thirdly, pioneer, which creates new capabilities.

• Leveraging involves a sequence of processes to exploit the organization’s capabilities to take advantage of specific market opportunities. This includes mobilizing, offering a clear plan or vision of needed capabilities, coordinating for ways to integrate these necessary capabilities and finally, deploying to achieve a resource advantage (or gain) that promotes market opportunities and instills more entrepreneurial strategies to exploit new resource configurations

A new moment of recognition for me was tucked away in my past research

The catalyst to this recent light bulb moment (well for me) was a thesis written by Javier Busquets, while at the Copenhagen Business School. His paper was “Orchestrating Network Behavior for Innovation“, written in 2010 but becoming increasing relevant to today’s world of managing assets more lightly.

We are seeing a change taking place around the building of networks and the way organizations are forming coalitions through ecosystems and platforms and in combining new technologies and blending business fields. Again I think Alibaba is doing a really good job of that. They are deliberate orchestrators. They are agenda setting, mobilizing, consolidating and coordinating different points of emerging value.

Within the thesis of Javier Busquets, he evaluates much of the published literature that ties up with dynamic capabilities, the network effect and capacity building and the constant way these orchestrators keep extracting more value from the network, that continues to expand.

I have been building my own understanding of these in (yet another) dedicated posting site for building Innovation Fitness Landscape Capabilities into Organizations.  Orchestrators seemingly are keeping pushing the boundaries and moving their relationships into this constant dynamic evolution. Arguable orchestrating, as seen this way, sets a new innovation path we all need to understand and I keep pursuing.

I particularly valued Javier’s Chapter 3: “Orchestrating Network Behaviour for Innovation” as it connected again a part of separating out in the ecosystem and platform work Jeffrey Phillips and I are undertaking, the differences between old economies and new is increasingly coming up.

One highly relevant observation

One comment he made was “orchestrating is a function of (1) changing the rules of the game to keep the game alive and (2) avoiding disruptions, thus ensuring continuity through the connection between the old and the new, or between past behavior patterns and the present and future ones.”  It is balancing the difference forces coming into play increasingly in a world of ecosystems and platforms of leveraging external resources and keeping them highly dynamic.

Shaping new boundaries

So is asset orchestration becoming increasingly critical in the age of ecosystems, platforms and managing technology and data? As we build our understanding of the power of this connectivity we are constantly changing the rules. As Javier Busquet suggests, it is about “shaping new boundaries“, ones of opening up new space, opportunities and sources of innovation, to build new platforms for discovery and collaboration potential and build new, differentiating capabilities to innovate.

Combining views- the three horizons and modes of commitment to innovation

One visual got me excited. It just fitted with my extended view of how the three horizons can be taken out and extended further. In adapting his original diagram I have added this 3H view.

It takes the 3H framework into the very need of today, developing the thinking of each of the three horizons to work towards our transformation from the solo organization offering (disconnected) products and services into ones that connect technology by platform participation and ecosystem exploration for greater innovation. Here is my adapted visual and opens up my thinking even further.

In summary

So I do feel asset orchestration is rapidly becoming a critical management need to manage effectively. It is recognizing its potential in managing the asset dynamics to deliver innovation that stays ahead of the curve as we expand out and collaborate on a range of platforms and ecosystem engagements to navigate towards a different future.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

The post The New Game Or Is It? Asset Orchestration first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Many innovators are simply happily working away with no specific guidelines, apart from the general remit of “we need to be more innovative”, it lies in the boardroom that is not communicating the board’s needs clearly enough down the organization.

Building up our capacity to innovate does need to understand and reflect the organization’s business activities, as innovators need to grasp the value creation aspects that will deliver the necessary capital-efficient and profitable growth, and then ‘go in pursuit’ to achieve their contribution to these goals.

Even the basic questions often remain unclear, those of how are we looking to grow revenue, save costs, reduce working capital or improve our fixed capital? Managing our innovation activities can help in all of these. Actually if you ask I expect the CFO would say “all of them” but each does have implications on understanding of the fit and eventual role of innovation’s contribution.

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

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

Risk is kept vague so we can often avoid the unknowns associated with any really different innovation, it becomes ‘the art of avoidance’ by the person who wants innovation but not the risks associated with it.

Innovation is not the usual

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

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

PA Consulting in this report were suggesting there are five innovation killers – fear, lack of focus, innovation engine failure, the wrong ROI and finally, a real reluctance to invest. Pretty bad I think?

In one of the outcomes of the report it asks “can we continue to allow 47% of senior executives to describe their innovation activity as a ‘costly failure’?”
Some things need to radically change and having ‘coherence in the innovation activity needs to be central to this needed change. So where do we start?

Maybe we should all start visualizing first.

Recently XPLANE, visualization thinkers who apply a design thinkers approach, produced two brilliant visualizations on the organization, one as the Cost of Confusion and the other as the Value of Clarity. (direct pdf links)
Xplane quite rightly suggests that a picture is worth a thousand words, well for me, these two visualizations I would regard are worth millions to any organization wanting to understanding why their strategy and innovation efforts go wrong and how to begin to put them right.

I would suggest you download them and circulate these around your organization, starting with all your board members and then you really can begin to enter that necessary set of discussions about coherence or a lack of it.

Leveraging the power of the three horizon methodology for innovation

I greatly favor the three horizon methodology to work through for achieving this coherence in understanding. The three horizons offer an excellent framing technique to bring this ‘coherence’ that we need from our ‘here and know’ activities and future innovation efforts. This coherence leads onto knowing what innovation capabilities are needed, what are missing and those really critical ones required to defend the core more effectively alongside (yet separately) needed to expand the potential in the future.

Dedicating time to knowing your innovation capability fitness

I have been constantly working away at what constitutes the dynamic capabilities for innovation and those, shall we say as more static and simply repetitive. It is identifying the difference, and then knowing how to apply these that are dynamic and highly valuable to obtain, against those that simply require a little dampening down.

We then ‘map’ these to the innovation needed to build a growing innovation capability set. This work has a dedicated website for the building up of the case for focusing on this under www.innovationfitnessdynamics.com.

Knowing what are the critical factors for innovation and their dependence for sustaining innovation success is becoming such a vital necessity to understand so an organization can place the appropriate resources behind them.

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

Deciding that capabilities can be better leveraged requires a separation of exploit and explore.

The aligning of strategic direction (and importance) with any capability needs is in the understanding of what activities are diverging with the core and those converging.

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

Today we need to exploit and explore and our capabilities need to be built fit for one of these two purposes. Exploiting is today’s business need, to leverage and improve on the existing business and equally, in parallel, explore for tomorrow’s new business growth.

The need to diverge and converge

The diverging ones need to have a real emphasis on improving performance, how they are managed for cash or to eventually sell or dispose of. Then we have those that are converging onto the new ‘known’ core of the business to grow and expand.

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

We certainly need bolder investments in knowledge around the make-up of innovation capabilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Achieving Innovations Capability Coherence first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Following on from my suggested Common Language approach to the Three Horizons, I would like to outline here its significant value, within any innovation management thinking.

Clarifying our options requires multiple thinking horizons – seeing beyond for all possibilities by listening to the different voices

For me, the three horizons have great value to bring together and  map all the different thinking and possible innovation options over changing horizons.

You can frame innovation in alternative ways by using this approach. Innovation has multiple evolution points and working with this framework allows you to significantly improve all of your innovation contributions.

It goes well beyond the present value of ‘just’ fitting your existing innovation portfolio and directional management into a typical one-dimensional view of just working in the present.

By separating your thinking, appreciating that different voices are competing for attention provides a higher diversity of opinion, different perspectives for improving innovation’s eventual value. Those different voices involved can be highly engaged, all wanting to add their perspective:

• You have the voice of today operating in horizon one exploiting the core, the incumbent business. The manager(s) responsible are protecting, leveraging and delivering today’s result, very much focused on the operational and result orientated issues. Fully concerned with managing the existing business, maximizing returns and keeping the organization going efficiently and effectively, delivering on the needs of the short-term.

• Then you have the second voice, the voice of the entrepreneur, those more pushing into horizon two, the ones eager to experiment, to try out new things. They are wanting to push further, to explore and extend, accepting some aspects will not work but keen to investigate, search, experiment and learn from these discoveries. They are experimenting with the current business model but also wanting to push the boundaries to explore alternatives that might have a disruptive or radical aspect where they can begin to equip themselves to understand

• Last we have the third voice, the voice of the aspirant, who is looking to build a different vision, they operate mostly in horizon three, believing in different, more pioneering, perhaps radical solutions that seek to visualize things in their ‘ minds eye’. They are far more aspirational. They are looking to explore concepts that often can seemingly look on first ‘sight’ to be totally incompatible to the reality of today, even they can potentially challenge today’s existing core, perhaps cannibalize it or radically alter its very nature. Those operating within this horizon three are often picking up on ‘weak signals’ that are out there that signify a changing future that might impact their own and set about capturing all that can make this a significant game-changer.

It is the combination of these different three voices that need to come together and frame the innovation journey by using the three horizons framework.

Establishing a common understanding of operating in each horizon becomes critical

Innovation is constantly facing disruption; it is constantly going through life cycles and new waves of different activities. We need a far more robust, well thought-through way to apply our innovation resources to meet and anticipate these changing events and for this I always recommend the three horizons.

With the effective use of the three horizons you can see opportunities completely differently beyond the existing mindset and activities, it takes innovation from tactical to strategic, to foresight in your evaluations.

We need common ways to build a language around innovation and its management.

We need common ways to build a language around innovation and its management. As the three horizons can help frame the allocation of resources, determine the innovation road map and contribute to structuring the portfolio into its different parts, it can be essential to this building a common understanding and recognition of its organizing value

Appreciating its evolving value

If you can appreciate the value of the 3H frame in its potential, firstly to aid the mapping out of the present and the challenges the business can find itself in, it gives a common position for all to work through, to find common ground and focus on delivering on the understanding collectively.

The three horizons can help you move towards articulating the road map to the future and provide the encouragement to turn this into the ‘what, when, how and why’ that future innovation always needs figuring out the sorting of the essentials to ‘fuel it’.

It can assist in the evidence-based gathering to exploit (h1), extend or expand (h2) and to explore(h3) how the existing core will grow and be seeded or orientated in future ways. It can be a significant contributor to providing the vision, values and beliefs that an organization can orient towards and work towards.

It can help us break out of existing mindset traps through its evolutionary steps to clarify, explore and identify all the different voices and then explain the “how and where we move towards as our innovating future”.

The 3H is a frame that I genuinely believe is an essential management method for innovation’s good management practice.

In Summary its innovative value to you and your organization

I believe the 3H framing technique that can structure the evolution of the innovation needed within organizations.

It can be based on existing evidence or as we learn, building evidence-based change, so we can use its framing to adjust to new information and knowledge or be adjusted to the changes occurring, that happen in the years ahead, as the organizations move towards their innovating future. It can offer a solid structure to the (strategic) decisions that they have to be made.

Why can’t it additionally become an essential visualizing tool, no different from where the Business Model Canvas has established itself?

It is a frame that should be an essential management method or framing technique that can structure the evolution of the innovation needed, based on existing evidence or as we learn.

We use its framing to adjust to new learning or as changes are occurring in the years ahead and the 3H does give a very essential part of the narrative of innovation, something we often lack.

*********

Go to the “search” on this site and enter “three horizons” you can view the different articles I’ve published on this, or equally you can download these within different summary series, within my “insights and thinking” page, under the three horizons. They do offer a detailed build on this framework to bring it all together.

The post The Compelling Value of the 3H for Innovation Management first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

As you may know, I have been writing significantly around the Three Horizons in relationship to innovation.

Initially drawing on the foundation within the McKinsey initial papers, updated here under their enduring ideas, and in particular based on by its original authors of the book “The Alchemy of Growth” by Mehrdad Baghai, Steve Coley, David White and Stephen ColeyThen I discovered the work of the International Futures Forum, based in Scotland, where a group of members have extended the 3H significantly, well beyond McK’s initial work from my perspective, into a broader, more robust methodology tackling complex problems.

It was this IFF work that excited me, it opened up my thinking to find better ways to deepen the innovation connections and framing that could be suggested in the use of this three horizon frame in exploring and expanding different techniques and approaches.

Connecting the innovation thinking dots

I realized the significant role the three horizon framework could have within our innovative thinking that was still missing and decided to take this further, beyond the original authors view.

I have written about this since my first post “The three horizon approach to innovation” “in September 2010, after some initial prompting from Tim Kastelle who shares in its value and place in our innovation thinking.

Here I want to provide a common language and approach to the three horizons

I have continued to build my understanding in practice and in my research on the 3H and have published this thinking through a series of articles and posts found as a collection in my insights and thinking page, that focus specifically on relating the 3H to the innovation space for dialogues, planning, portfolio debates, differentiating the distinctions between the three and generally arguing for its value in the management of innovation.

This intent has been to grow awareness and offer a better understanding of how it works, fits and has this great value for innovation’s management that should be within all organizations thinking around working through its innovation ambitions for the future and relating these to the reality of the present.

Go to the “search” on this site and enter “three horizons” you can view the different articles I’ve published on this, or equally you can download these as summary series within my “insights and thinking” page under the three horizons. They do provide a detailed build on this frame.

Understanding the way to approach each of the horizons

I published in August 2011 a suggested: “emerging framework to help navigate across the three horizons” in a further blog which provides clarity of how to structure, frame and think in these different horizons. This is how:

Pushing this thinking further I felt we needed a common metric of understanding

Recently I have taken this further and felt there was a need to provide a common language and application for approaching the three horizons. We need to look beyond where we stand

 These common metrics of understanding I’m publishing for the first time here

I believe this can be adopted as a suggested approach to thinking about each horizon separately, covering this from the many different perspectives. I hope this provides for an even greater adoption of the innovative thinking we all need to have in our planning, discussions and management of innovation.

So each Horizon needs a different focus, a different management approach, different goals and different thinking.

If you would like a copy of this as a pdf or download Three Horizon Common Language Table

It would be great if these were further built upon and accepted, it would help in our management of innovation.

The post The Three Horizons – Providing a Common Language in its Innovation Use first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

We need to clarify how to identify the existing prevailing or dominant system and the challenges to its sustainability into the future, i.e. the case for change (horizon 1). Innovation can lose the ‘fit’ aspects over time as the external environment changes.

We also need to think through the desirable future state, the ideal system you desire and the emerging options. Those that can displace what you already have. Often you can find elements in the present that give you encouragement (horizon 3); keeping yourself open to all options that could lead to transformational change.

Often the struggle is to draw out the nature of the tensions and dilemmas between vision and reality, and the distinction between innovations that serve to prolong the status quo and those that serve to bring the third horizon vision closer to reality (horizon 2); This is the space of transition, often unstable, called the intermediate space where views can collide and diverge.

We work this framework in a specific sequence of H1 – H3 – H2.

There is a good reason we look at H1, then H3 and then H2 in that order. Horizon two is the toughest one, as it needs to balance between today’s existing innovation and those seen as important to the future. H2 is you transition horizon, one where you need to learn, to gather, to pilot, prototype, place limited bets and investment to learn and adjust as you work towards improving your understanding and knowledge for making the ultimate move of managing what is or shaping in horizon three.

To get there, you will adjust, pivot and constantly reshape as you learn and experiment. This is the value of this horizon 2 as you work out how the landscape is changing and requiring constant adjustments. The horizon 2 tends to work on those sustaining innovations (h2-) and those transformative innovations (h2+).

There are always plenty of uncertainties to map and resolve
Clearly it’s not acceptable to stay still and be good at what you already do and expect this to just continue out into the future. We need to consciously evolve in how to counterbalance today’s business needs with new business opportunities offered out in Horizons 2 and 3. These are providing you with a more robust innovation portfolio of options under investigation and development.

Having different perspectives will enhance your innovation activities
The 3H framework offers a perspective that accepts the need to both address the multiple challenges that occur in the first horizon, foster the seeds of the third and, allocate appropriate focus and resources to manage the transitions from one to another. We secure, build and explore across these different horizons.

What makes the model valuable to innovators is that it ‘accepts’ that competition is restless, markets are evolving, and that change is a constant. The three horizons approach offers the methodology for constructing plausible and coherent innovation activities projected out into the future. It looks for emerging winners.

This is not a planning tool; it is providing a valuable evolutionary perspective that dialogues can be formed around so decisions on where to focus and what resources to apply can be made on a more plausible and coherent set of activities, projected into the future, searching for emerging winners that can change and challenge your existing business.

The need is to address the challenges in horizon one and nurture the seeds of the third. It is not an either/or, good/bad discussion. You need those robust discussions to form fresh perspectives. The key is in listening out and becoming adept at managing these conversations between the ‘voices’ of the three horizons.

The three voices that need to be in the same room
The different voices involved can be highly engaged, all wanting to add their perspective:

• You have the voice of today, the incumbent, the manager(s) responsible for delivering today’s result, very much operational and result orientated, that are more concerned with managing the existing, maximizing returns and keeping the organization going efficiently and effectively.
• Then you have the second voice, the voice of the entrepreneur, the one eager to experiment, try out new things, wanting to push further, to explore and extend, accepting some aspects will not work but keen to investigate, experiment and learning from these discoveries.
• Last we have the third voice, the voice of the aspirant, who is looking to build a different vision, believing in different, more pioneering, perhaps radical solutions that seeks to visualize things in their ‘mind’s eye’, far more aspirational. This concepts often can seemingly look on first ‘take’ to be totally incompatible to the reality of today but are picking up on ‘weak signals’ that are out there that signify a changing future that might impact your own.

It is the combination of these different three voices that need to come together and frame the innovation journey by using the three horizons framework.
You really should give it a far greater consideration within your innovation toolbox, it ‘aids’ the framing of your present to future needs and gives ‘voice’ to all the different thinking and opinions on building the innovation pipeline, balancing the portfolio and helping to identify all the gaps and opportunities that need resolution.
*****
Publishing note:  This blog post was originally written on behalf of Hype and with their permission I have republished it on my own site with some small adjustments. I recommend you should visit the Hype blog site where they have a range of contributors writing about a wide-ranging mix of ideas and thoughts around innovation, its well worth the visit

The post Drawing out the different voices within the three horizon methodology for Innovation first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

How do we set about engaging with all these different voices surrounding innovation?

Have you ever worked with the three horizon framework?
It is really useful for managing your innovation activities, drawing out the often conflicting voices within the organization on how to take innovation forward. The approach can unlock you from just being caught in the present, to one of envisaging a future that then allows you to begin to build different capabilities, competencies and capacities.

Find out more here and here and here on the three horizons or within this blog site put “three horizon approach ” into the search box. You will find  I have provided a considerable overview in different posts’ thoughts on the 3H thinking and why I place such value in it for innovation’s evolution.

The 3H framework offers a perspective that accepts the need to both address the multiple challenges that occur in the first horizon, foster the seeds of the third and, allocate appropriate focus and resources to manage the transitions from one to another.

What makes the model valuable to innovators is that it ‘accepts’ that competition is restless, markets are evolving, and that change is a constant. The three horizons approach offers the methodology for constructing plausible and coherent innovation activities projected out into the future. It looks for emerging winners.

The 3H not a planning tool; it is providing a valuable evolutionary perspective that dialogues can be formed around, so decisions on where to focus and what resources to apply can be based on a more plausible and coherent set of activities projected into the future, searching for emerging winners, those that can potentially change and challenge your existing business but evolve it in clear ways.

The 3H is a dialogue mechanism to help frame the evolving journey and allow you to move towards it in a better-structured way.

The need is to discuss the challenges in horizon one and nurture the seeds of the third. It is not an either/or, good/bad discussion. You need those robust discussions to form fresh perspectives. The key is in listening out and becoming adept at managing these conversations between the ‘voices’ of the three horizons.

The three voices that need to be in the same room

• You have the voice of today, the voice of the manager(s) responsible for delivering todays result that are more concerned with managing the existing, maximizing returns and keeping the organization going efficiently and effectively.

• Then you have the second voice, the voice of the entrepreneur, the one eager to experiment, try out new things, explore and extend, accepting some aspects will not work

• Last we have the third voice, the voice of the aspirant, who is looking to build a different vision, believing in different, more pioneering ways and visualize things in their ‘mind’s eye’, far more aspirational they often seem on the first take to look to be totally incompatible to the reality of today.

The different voices involved can be highly engaged, all wanting to add their perspective, you need to listen to them. You need to search for common ground, growing recognition and sometimes realization, that these are not so much separate voices, but actually ones that can all be combined, to provide a far greater outcome when they can ‘see the same future’ but through their own specific voice.

It is the combination of these different three voices that need to come together and help frame the innovation journey. It is by applying and using the three horizons framework and its methodology you can draw out and advance better outcomes for your future innovation activity.

There is this powerful need to look toward the future

Based on what we know today and what we can set about building and exploring, does hold the exciting promise of the future. Look out of ourselves offers a more rewarding prospect. Valuing the often conflicting voices around us or even seeking them out provides for richer promise.

We need to keep reflecting upon what is dominant, prevalent and seems to be pattern-changing, as these positions are constantly shifting. Scanning the horizons and what is simply all around ‘us’ offers those ‘pockets of the future’ to invest in, explore and experiment, to be open to change, to shape and prepare for, to become far more “future ready”.

Initially these pockets of the future may seem a long way off, often just really weak signals, but are indicating different, perhaps far more radical and perhaps disruptive changes for our organizations to re-equip for. The earlier yon can spot and organize for changes ahead the greater the chances of building the different capabilities and competencies these are more likely to need.

Technology clearly comes to mind with wave upon wave of change is crashing against the established rocks, beginning to weaken the existing structures and form new ones. Innovation gains from this constant flow, if you are ready to receive it.

Change does come from different experiments and explorations

It is partly through the treatment of innovation, feeding into the system a rising wave of future innovations that alter positions. Staying stuck in ‘just’ incremental to serve the existing conditions in the market seriously constrains you for the future, you stop growing, exploring, being curious and experimental.

You need to encourage experimentation, testing, prototyping, accelerating the learning and then being ready to scale what holds promise and abandon what seems not to.

For this, you need all the voices within your organization seeing the future, so they can consciously work towards it, even when it might seem vague and not fully clear. The 3H framework draws out discussions, it helps project into the future.

Just always remember, the present is already in decline.

Look out, do not stay locked in.

Entrenchment limits your options to break out, as much as you might feel it needs defending, as it’s providing your present-day core yet it is ‘holding you hostage’ not able to break free and embrace the future in the planned ways you can achieve.

The post Are you engaging with all the different voices around you? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Packed all within a day there was plenty of material ‘fodder’ to feed off of and learn from.
A really good conference but what quickly followed was a strong dose of that withering on the innovation vine.

I read two consulting surveys on innovation

I’ve been suddenly pulled out of my virtual bubble back into the harsh realities of where innovation really is. Just simply how innovation is struggling and that lies far more at the top of our organizations than below, those below who are simply trying to ‘get on with the job’ but with at least one hand (or even two) tied behind their backs.

I have been reading two sets of observations, one from Fahrenheit 212, the other from Innosight and my mood began to change. I’m suddenly back in reality where we have this huge gap between those ‘working’ innovation and those at the top simply not engaging with innovation or still failing to understand it or even failing to connect the dots.

A growing gap at the top in what they need to do to make the connections both inside and outside the organization to manage the changing landscape. One that still suggests we have this consistent failure to align the strategic and innovation activities and provide a more balanced orientation in the mapping to different horizon thinking that is needed. It seems perspectives are totally out of whack.

The Fahrenheit 212 Post on their recent observations left me perplexed.

Firstly Fahrenheit 212 asked 100 chief innovation officers a set of questions around their getting their innovation projects to market. They claim that forty-five percent of respondents said fewer than 10 percent of their projects make it to market.

Fahrenheit claim that was an “eye-opener for understanding the challenges that innovation practitioners have,” where Fahrenheit was suggesting 60 to 70 percent of incremental innovations should be the success rate.

As this view came through the Washington Post under “Corporate attempts at innovation are overwhelmingly dying on the vine” I was not able to view the actual results directly or more of the thinking that went into this and can’t find any further reference on this on their website besides a Facebook entry. I’d like too.

Why? – well surely there are significant differences between projects being managed or piloted at the CINO level than passing through the organization as supportive and incremental? Yet until I can understand the context of these ‘statements’ it is hard to judge this piece of information and its real importance, presently it lies as a “oh yeah”.

As a starting point what is judged as an innovation project from the CINO’s perspective versus the everyday innovation occurring. Are these numbers so “eye opening”?

The whole position and value of the CINO is certainly up for grabs and in a ‘forming’ stage. One really good point made as a quote by Jon Crawford-Phillips, a partner at Fahrenheit 212 was this: “The primary value of the chief innovation officer is the connectivity between the company’s growth strategy and the decisions and focus of the senior leadership team and the translation of that into an innovation agenda”.

Crawford-Phillips was recommending corporations don’t align innovation with their financial interests and suggested establishing this. He comments: “There’s a strategic way in which they allocate resources to core innovation, and there’s clear metrics around the performance of core innovation and a clear understanding of the financial impact of that innovation on the company’s balance sheet.”

I struggle with what I should be getting out of this ‘report’ as Fahrenheit 212’s suggestions because if they are determining clear metrics in core innovation performance and a clear understanding of the financial impact on the balance sheet then it is no surprise innovation practitioners have difficulties in getting initiatives and projects through organizations. Can projects that are in themselves innovative be measured on the same metrics as established known ones?

The comments reported from the survey leave more questions than answers and has this set of observations really helped ‘advance’ innovation? Maybe more will emerge. It seems to fit perhaps with their Money and Magic message.

On the other hand, Innosight and their Strategic Readiness Survey really is the actual eye opener.

Innosight offers an executive briefing on their “Strategic Readiness and Disruptive Change” and this survey throws up some serious worries for me.
The report prompts deeper thinking on how organizations are really having difficulties in transforming themselves with all the disruptive change going on around us all. A real eye opener.

Innosight’s summary provides a good snapshot of the issues:

“Disruptive change is accelerating, driven by the rapid emergence of new technologies, the blurring of lines between industries, and competition from both traditional and non-traditional players. As a result, corporate lifespans are shrinking”.

“How does the shifting landscape affect enterprise strategy and corporate innovation efforts? To see how organizations assess their ability to anticipate and respond to disruptive change, we (Innosight) recently surveyed more than 800 executives across 20 industries. The results shed new light onto the challenges and opportunities that leaders face in crafting strategies to steer their companies in both the near and long term”.
Top-level findings included:

• Fully 85% of respondents say their organizations need to transform in response to disruptive change – yet only 49% say that feel very confident or confident that their organizations are prepared for transformation in 3 to 5 years. That number drops to 42% in a time frame of 5 to 10 years.
• Large companies face an even greater “strategy confidence gap.” 83% of respondents from companies with over $1 billion in revenue agreed with the need to transform, and only 36% say they are confident to do so in a 5 to 10 year time frame.

The confidence gap suggests that organizations lack both the long-term orientation and the tools to plot long-term strategy. The survey bore this out:

• Only 12% of organizations have a formal growth strategy with at least a 5+ year time horizon.
• The remaining 88% either have no formal growth strategy or it is shorter term.

This short-term bias has implications for the ability of companies to develop disruptive or transformational innovations—the kind that open new markets and attract new customers—and which typically require a longer-term perspective.”

What a difference a well-structured survey and report can make.

I would recommend taking the time out to read this report. It signals much of what is so wrong at present in the sacrifice of the future, even the eventual existence of the organization in years to come.

This report seems to reflect a broader trend that this frightening “strategic confidence gap” is a huge one, where senior executives are seemingly being increasingly caught up in the short-term demands.

They seem to have scarce time to re-equip themselves, let alone their organization, for the changing landscape and are simply ‘kicking the bottle down the road’ and taking the pay packet that goes with short-term performance. Surely this has to change? Is it so bad?

This report is indicating it is really bad.

I liked the heading to each part of the executive briefing from Innosight as they do summarize the challenges that need to be faced and resolved.

• The Confidence Gap: The Desire – But Not the Ability – to Transform
• A struggle to Keep Pace : A Sense of Falling Behind the Market
• Strategy Shortfall: Growth Plans Focus on Near-Term
• Process Shortcomings Undermine Long-term Planning
• Technology and Changing Consumer Preferences Expected to Be Most Disruptive
• No Lack of Ideas, But Difficulty Getting Through Innovation’s “First Mile”

The last heading is a clear nod to the topic being explored in a new book. Recently Scott Anthony , Innosight’s managing partner, wrote a book “The First Mile: A Launch Manual for Getting Great Ideas into the Market”.

That first mile—where an innovation moves from an idea on paper to the market—is often plagued by failure, in fact, less than one percent of ideas launched by big companies end up having real impact. The ideas aren’t the problem. It’s the process.

Gaining value from consultants’ insights if it enters the public domain

We should get solid value out of research or insights from any consulting research if it is published. So two of our leading innovation consulting companies, Innosight and Fahrenheit 212 approach knowledge sharing in different ways.

Innosight provides a good depth in their report, although it is perhaps light on final takeaways and conclusions, whereas Fahrenheit 212 reported comments are just, well, simply ‘light’ and lacking the depth I would expect from them. At least their survey should link into their own report. This I simply can’t find.

I finally reflected on what makes good thought-leadership from consulting practices

Take a look at this from http://www.sourceforconsulting.com/whitespace/

What makes good thought leadership?

“The clients of consulting firms are inundated with information and analysis from every direction. Unquestionably, the vast majority are binned or deleted instantly”. So what are the factors likely to attract attention,  Sourceforconsulting.com suggest the following:

• Differentiation – will the potential reader pick up and begin to read this piece of thought-leadership? (If it is actually available even!)
• Appeal – does the writing style and presentation encourage the reader to keep on reading past the introduction and beyond? Where do they go from this?
• Resilience – will the reader feel confident in what they are being told? Whether a client buys into the idea a consulting firm is trying to put across depends on the evidence.
• Prompting action – ( I kept all the guidance within this section in, as it is relevant to the two reports I have focused upon) Will the reader do something because they have read this report?

Good thought leadership takes the reader beyond the ‘that’s interesting’ stage – it gives them the tools and inspiration to identify issues in their own organization or to begin to address a pressing concern.

We ask whether the next steps for the reader are clear. We also check that the material isn’t a poorly disguised sales pitch which would undermine its credibility and chances of prompting action.

A tale of two both working in innovation consulting.

Two innovation consulting firms offering up their insights and I feel the one from Innosight is simply much further down the thought- leadership path, in its linkage of its practice and report around disruptive change. It ‘calls for’ and ‘prompts’ action.

Perhaps Fahrenheit 212’s report should have been rooted far more in what it does, that is identifying, developing, designing and implementing profitable new products and services and then framing this within their survey remarks, as this is the space they play in and by all accounts play well. It would have made better sense to me.

I think we all need to think about why innovation might be withering on the vine. We all need to ensure the contributions we make, into conferences, summarizing reports, writing blog posts or being engaged in innovation activities, as consultants or practitioners.

We need to ensure that we do not lose sight that innovation is still struggling to make headway in the ways it should, with the appropriate messages getting delivered effectively and sometimes we all often miss that ‘line of sight’ on that.

Any thoughts on the observations from the reports or what they contribute into our thinking around innovation?

The post I wonder who is withering on the innovation vine? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Today we grapple with more uncertainty than ever before, we are facing so much change. For many of us this is the time of year when planning out the future becomes more ‘top of mind’. These are moments where we have to stop chasing the daily numbers, pushing the immediate projects that are in the pipeline and turn our attention to laying out our future plans.

Sadly we often make a poor ‘stab’ at this thinking through process; we don’t get our thinking into the right mental frames.

The problem for management is anything discussing the future enters the ‘zone of uncertainty’ and this ability to often ‘read the tea leaves’ can very much determine the future health and direction of the organization. Ignore these shifts or signals and you are on the path to your own ‘destruction’.

Not only should we search for possibilities that extend and strengthen our existing core offerings but we should search out on a wider basis.

Often we make a complete mess of this planning out of our future.

We have not prepared as we should have done, we take what we are doing and project that forward, adding a few tweaks to give it a more ‘innovative’ feel that continues the incremental path we all so easily like to work in.

Help is at hand if you care to grab it!

The other way is to stop and think about this very differently. For this we need to develop different mindsets, ones that change, ones that can allow us to think in different time horizons.

That is managing innovation not just in today’s operational horizon (h1) but in traversing into the future with more breakthroughs (h2) and transformational innovation (h3) that is organized around the three horizon methodology.

The three horizons ‘asks you’ to apply three totally different mindsets to see constraints, weaknesses and often very limited opportunities differently, often called “weak signals”, it alters your thinking into a far more evolutionary approach. We just do not allow our thinking to open up to this evolutionary approach.

We stay trapped in our existing thinking, due to a lack of time or a lack of encouragement to think differently, to challenge our existing approaches to business.

We tend to look more at extending products but we only play a little with business model alternatives and rarely with ideas that stretch our minds or pick up on these “weak signals”. We stay trapped within our existing bodies.

Can we attempt to break free? How about if we broke our thinking down into separate steps?

Different mindsets and discussions are based on (h1) operational: the here and now, (h2) more entrepreneurial: attempting to detect shifts and adjusting in agile ways, (h3) more futuristic: based on values, visions and beliefs. Each needs separating.

a) Firstly we set about to clarify the burning needs relating to your present position and link these to your known strategy and approaches but keep questioning this to keep it fresh and relevant to ever-changing market conditions.

b) Try a technique like concept boarding that can capture the emerging trends so you can begin to put together plausible ideas that may be those emerging winning needs (h3) you begin to articulate and frame these. These start to shape your decisions on where to focus your ‘future’ resources as you search for emerging winners.

c) Then you begin to think through the “space for transition” (h2) to begin to reflect and start working through that constant dilemma of “protecting core or investing in new” debates. You are beginning to shape an ‘emerging’ strategy that really brings your thinking out.

d) The end result is you are beginning to explore fundamental different premises for replacing “business as usual” with exploring nascent ideas. Then you need to seek out the appropriate platform, a strategic planning meeting, to explore these.

e) Often these H3, even some in H2 are weak signals today where many unknowns prevail but allow you to straddle between (h1) improve, (h2) extend and (h3) change. You begin to see these differently; you begin to plan them differently.

What emerges is more uncertainly know you need to map and ‘attack’ this

We are moving across ‘transitional ‘points. We do need this longer-term perspective and we do need to traverse into the future in clear thinking through steps (or horizons).

Our horizon one (h1) does begin to decay faster today than ever, it does not fully cover off the strategic fit we want and can begin to lose its dominance over time. We need to manage this transition, not let others, our competitors or new entrants, manage it for us.

It is how we manage this transition becomes so critical. We need to exploit developing trends that are emerging (h2) and begin to tune into possible options in the future (h3).  Within these options will emerge the winners and become the more dominant systems or solutions that we should be moving towards, even from today.

Some of these only have faint emerging signals but they need to be brought into the innovation portfolio activity to explore, often in novel ways.

The horizon two is beginning to address some of the current decay arising from the core within the existing activities (or system). Here we have the highest tension.

The discussions that centre on often conflicting views of the future, compared to the existing realities and those providing the returns for today’s business. Often we can detect change but we consciously ignore them.

This is the place where the disruptor’s are at work, existing or new competitors, working at displacing your products and market positions

Managing the rising stars or a future transforming one is hard in existing structures.

The concepts that emerge from horizon two will include the rising stars of the organization and will, over time, become even the new core business.

These are a mixture of step-outs from today’s core, or extensions that have come from the adjacent work consciously being undertaken or are truly emerging as new activities that need new depth in capabilities and time to build.

Many executives ‘defending’ the core will ‘attack’ or hold back any release of their resources to help these emerging initiatives. It is a ‘hard-nosed’ reality.  It needs a very high level and conscious set of decisions coming from the top to determine these new moves.

Do not believe that when most executives ‘just’ react and shrug their shoulders regarding h2 as a natural, everyday occurrence, it is far from not.

Many have to come ‘kicking and screaming’ to supporting emerging activities. Far too much ‘invested’ interest comes into play. They see this more as a threat not an opportunity. It is not their sand box so why should they ‘play’.

These positions need drawing out and how you execute on your thinking will help.

Horizon two is where you work through your future options

This is where you try out, experiment, explore. This is the transiting point (my space of transition and zone of uncertainty) where you work through different dilemmas and paradoxes to shift the organisation through this horizon two to position it for the longer-term future.

This horizon is a real point of disruption to be well-managed as you navigate from shifting resources from today’s core to that third horizon, the predicted future where ideas and proposals are still forming.

The ‘zone of uncertainty’ needs more of your time

Horizon two actually ‘claims’ more time and attention than on the surface it deserves but this is the wrong thinking approach,  it simply needs too. This is not about supporting the ‘existing’, this is working actively on the ‘preferred’. It is working to reduce current shortcomings, injecting new life and vigour into the present to offer a broader sustaining future.

Horizon two investments should be challenging ‘business as usual’ and should contain many of the catalysts for renewal, for the future growth. It is renewing the ‘fitness for purpose’ through innovation taking you along different pathways to the long-term successors of your business.

You owe it to your planning to think in different mindsets and horizons

The three horizons working through in different mindsets does allow you to pick your fights, explore your emerging options and show others how and where you can possibly win in better ways than just in the ‘present’. You are ‘allowing’ discussion to shape the future business in  a more evolutionary way.

By ‘seeing’ these three horizons differently and setting about managing the different challenges each horizon brings, can help you can break down the complexities within the issues.

By simply recognizing and then attacking the ‘uncertainties in horizon two (h2), you do have a much to have a better chance to ‘win’ in more ‘transforming ways’ by anticipating and evolving the delivery of innovation in a more structured way.

Structuring your thinking across different horizons is far better than ‘jumping into your plans’ as more of that “business as usual”, simply repeating the same exercises from previous years that keep you on a safe path but maybe, one that plants even more seeds of destruction for your business.

You might have chosen the path of least resistance or work, due to not giving this adequate time but you will certainly be missing the real opportunities to ‘transform’ your existing business. Your choice?

The post Entering the zone of innovation uncertainty first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.