BusinessWeek Online Extra - October 11 2004 - At P&G, It's "360-Degree Innovation" an interesting interview with P&G's Chief Technology Officer, Gilbert Cloyd, discusses the ways that P&G's innovation efforts are changing to match the changes in society and industry such as the ever increasing pace of innovation in consumer-driven markets (and not just there!), increasing competition from an increasing number of established brands, and more a more informed consumer base.
In response, P&G has had to look beyond their own backyard and blend their own internal innovation efforts with efforts aimed at soliciting ideas from outside the company. Internally, this means encouraging the cross-fertilisation of ideas and concepts internally to take advantage of the innovative power of intersections between differing concepts. Externally, the internet has proven a powerful tool to allow them to exploit the entrepreneurial spirit and the tremendous intellectual capability that exists outside the company.
An interesting article, worth the quick read.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Research at Rice - September 2004 - "Bad, rather than positive, moods may spur creativity under certain conditions" - In an article in the Journal of Applied Psychology by Jennifer George and Jing Zhou of Rice University's Jesse H Jones Graduate School of Management - it seems that positive moods may not, in fact, encourage creativity. Rather, negative moods may actually enhance it more effectively than positive moods.
The report focuses on the relationship between employees' moods and the conditions or context in which they perform their tasks, the role of recognition and rewards, and the extent to which employees know and understand their feelings.
Their results suggest that, dependant on several factors, employees may use their current mood to judge their progress on a creative task - "good moods signal that good progress has been made and that current efforts are sufficient" says George.
Although far from conclusive as the data was based on questionnaires and rating forms from only 67 helicopter company employees - hardly overwhelming - this actually supports soon to be published work by Imaginatik Research based on interviews with 45 managers and consultants that suggest that managers in the current innovation economy face a tough task ahead of them.
One the one hand, in order to encourage the collaborative and knowledge-sharing environment that is necessary to achieve an effective innovation climate, employees must be happy within their environment and with the company they are working for - with confidence that their creative and collaborative work is desired, valued, and of actual implemented value to the company.
On the other hand, in order to be motivated to innovate around a subject, there must be a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the status quo around that subject in order for people to be motivated to be creative and come up with alternative solutions. Keep an eye out for the new research when it comes out in the Corporate Innovation Newsletter and also at http://www.imaginatik.com/research
The report focuses on the relationship between employees' moods and the conditions or context in which they perform their tasks, the role of recognition and rewards, and the extent to which employees know and understand their feelings.
Their results suggest that, dependant on several factors, employees may use their current mood to judge their progress on a creative task - "good moods signal that good progress has been made and that current efforts are sufficient" says George.
Although far from conclusive as the data was based on questionnaires and rating forms from only 67 helicopter company employees - hardly overwhelming - this actually supports soon to be published work by Imaginatik Research based on interviews with 45 managers and consultants that suggest that managers in the current innovation economy face a tough task ahead of them.
One the one hand, in order to encourage the collaborative and knowledge-sharing environment that is necessary to achieve an effective innovation climate, employees must be happy within their environment and with the company they are working for - with confidence that their creative and collaborative work is desired, valued, and of actual implemented value to the company.
On the other hand, in order to be motivated to innovate around a subject, there must be a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the status quo around that subject in order for people to be motivated to be creative and come up with alternative solutions. Keep an eye out for the new research when it comes out in the Corporate Innovation Newsletter and also at http://www.imaginatik.com/research
Thursday, September 30, 2004
London Free Press: Business Section - Innovation needs to be promoted Articles like this one from the London Free Press' Business section are increasingly showing up in the media. As a bellweather of trends to come, the media is usually quite slow to pick up on emerging trends - which means that the importance companies are placing on innovation in Europe is already much larger than people currently think. That's also why conferences like "innovateEurope" are making such ingrounds - and if you're working in an innovation-related area, I would make sure to attend this conference to find out what else is coming up in the European market. Watch out US - Europe's coming up strong!
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
HBS Working Knowledge: Innovation: The Innovator's Battle Plan - September 2006 Seems Clayton Christensen is the hottest thing in innovation at the moment - the result? Yet another book - it seems he's over the writer's block that spanned the years between Innovator's Dilemma and Innovator's Solution all of a sudden as "Seeing What's Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change" comes out on the market, much to the anticipation of Clayton's growing fanbase.
This article on HBS' Working Knowledge website excerpts from his new book which is co-written with fellow Innosight partner Scott Anthony and McKinsey consultant Erik Roth and looks at the interesting scenario of what happens when companies with asymmetrical abilities compete against each other. Specifically, the article focuses on 3 topics:
1) How asymmetries propel disruptive entrants
- The authors explain: "Asymmetries allow disruptive attackers to enter a market, grow without incumbent interference, and mitigate the incumbent's response when it is finally motivated to counterattack." They go on to say that this disruption tends to follow a 3 step process:
Step One - Entrants enter behind a shield of asymmetric motivation; early incumbent response leads to "cramming"
Step Two - Entrants grow and improve; incumbents choose flight - ie, the incumbent chooses to cede the new market space to the attacker because it continues to deem the market unattractive
Step Three - Entrants utilize the sword of asymmetric skills - what was initially a small market/attacker, has now become a big one - however, as the attacker still has the advantages of its asymmetrical skills, the incumbent has trouble adapting to compete because it find itself lacking the ability to adopt the new business model necessary. What was once the incumbent's strengths - successful products and processes are now its weaknesses.
2) Identifying the firm with the sword and the shield of asymmetries
A company given the space and time to create a new market and/or attack the lower tiers of a market with no competition from and incumbent has the potential to develop competitive advantage through different skills and business models. They have "asymmetric motivation". The authors identify three factors that contribute to that motivation:
a) A small opportunity that might be interesting for a small company, might well look uninteresting and too small for a larger incumbent
b) Opportunities such as these typically involve customers that are considered to be undesirable, non-existent, or in an unprofitable minority to be served directly by the incumbent
c) Smaller firms are able to utilize disruptive business models that would not fit the classic ways in which established firms make money.
3) Circumstances in which high-potential disruptive development will prove disappointing
There are of course, many situations in which the disruptive process is not followed through on. In these cases the incumbent is able/forced to come back and is usually caused by one of 2 circumstances:
1 - The flight response for incumbents is really only an option when they have a decently sized market to flee to. Firms might either not be able to flee to another segment or current majority customers might decide the new market is more attractive for them. This causes incumbents to fight for that share - sometimes before the entrant has time to develop the asymmetrical skills necessary to create competitive advantage.
2 - The entrant's use similar methods/business models/etc to the incumbent's (ie doesn't develop the unique skills to create barriers) - or develops a business model that is not unattractive to the incumbent - in that case, the barrier to directly competing is reduced and , once the entrant proves to the world that the market exists, the incumbent's reaction changes from flight to fight - without the advantages of developed asymmetry, the incumbent has a lot of advantages in the battle ahead.
This is an excellent article that should be read by everyone involved/interested in corporate strategy - which clarifies some great subtleties in the corporate battlefield for new markets. Looks like Clayton will have yet another hit on his hands! He's obviously not getting tired of book signings yet... :)
This article on HBS' Working Knowledge website excerpts from his new book which is co-written with fellow Innosight partner Scott Anthony and McKinsey consultant Erik Roth and looks at the interesting scenario of what happens when companies with asymmetrical abilities compete against each other. Specifically, the article focuses on 3 topics:
1) How asymmetries propel disruptive entrants
- The authors explain: "Asymmetries allow disruptive attackers to enter a market, grow without incumbent interference, and mitigate the incumbent's response when it is finally motivated to counterattack." They go on to say that this disruption tends to follow a 3 step process:
Step One - Entrants enter behind a shield of asymmetric motivation; early incumbent response leads to "cramming"
Step Two - Entrants grow and improve; incumbents choose flight - ie, the incumbent chooses to cede the new market space to the attacker because it continues to deem the market unattractive
Step Three - Entrants utilize the sword of asymmetric skills - what was initially a small market/attacker, has now become a big one - however, as the attacker still has the advantages of its asymmetrical skills, the incumbent has trouble adapting to compete because it find itself lacking the ability to adopt the new business model necessary. What was once the incumbent's strengths - successful products and processes are now its weaknesses.
2) Identifying the firm with the sword and the shield of asymmetries
A company given the space and time to create a new market and/or attack the lower tiers of a market with no competition from and incumbent has the potential to develop competitive advantage through different skills and business models. They have "asymmetric motivation". The authors identify three factors that contribute to that motivation:
a) A small opportunity that might be interesting for a small company, might well look uninteresting and too small for a larger incumbent
b) Opportunities such as these typically involve customers that are considered to be undesirable, non-existent, or in an unprofitable minority to be served directly by the incumbent
c) Smaller firms are able to utilize disruptive business models that would not fit the classic ways in which established firms make money.
3) Circumstances in which high-potential disruptive development will prove disappointing
There are of course, many situations in which the disruptive process is not followed through on. In these cases the incumbent is able/forced to come back and is usually caused by one of 2 circumstances:
1 - The flight response for incumbents is really only an option when they have a decently sized market to flee to. Firms might either not be able to flee to another segment or current majority customers might decide the new market is more attractive for them. This causes incumbents to fight for that share - sometimes before the entrant has time to develop the asymmetrical skills necessary to create competitive advantage.
2 - The entrant's use similar methods/business models/etc to the incumbent's (ie doesn't develop the unique skills to create barriers) - or develops a business model that is not unattractive to the incumbent - in that case, the barrier to directly competing is reduced and , once the entrant proves to the world that the market exists, the incumbent's reaction changes from flight to fight - without the advantages of developed asymmetry, the incumbent has a lot of advantages in the battle ahead.
This is an excellent article that should be read by everyone involved/interested in corporate strategy - which clarifies some great subtleties in the corporate battlefield for new markets. Looks like Clayton will have yet another hit on his hands! He's obviously not getting tired of book signings yet... :)
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Mass High Tech - Imaginatik puts software under new management- August 23rd 2004 Written by staff writer Christina Torode, Mass High Tech wrote this piece on how Grace Performance Chemicals, a division of WR Grace, use their Idea Central product. Paul Westgate, Grace's Director of Innovation said of his company's implementation of the software: "we not only benefit by coming out with new products, but we are able to get our employees focused, companywide, on a particular subject”.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Businesses Online- August 19, 2004 - Jeff Bezos: "Blind-Alley" Explorer In the Business Week interview with Jeff Bezos he talks about Amazon.com's need to stay on top of their market. Although it's a little light on innovation insights, he does talk about the importance of being able to try out new concepts quickly and easily as possible - by organizing teams into "two pizza teams" (the number of people that can be fed on two pizzas - is teams of about 6) - Amazon keeps product development teams agile and flexible, driven, and able to handle many projects. The malleability of the internet is also a huge boon, as they're able to do things such as show one customer one thing, and show another customer an alternative to market test concepts quickly and easily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)