Corporate industries are growing at an exponential rate in today’s market space. Big players like Motorola are coming down due to lack of innovation in the right direction. After a big hit razr the mamoth organization came tumbling down for there was never a diversified product after it.
Ironically even big player’s will some times fail to innovate and fall pray to cut throat competition.
The Lion’s Share of innovation always comes from the wrong person in the wrong place in the wrong industry at the wrong time in conjunction with the wrong user.
— Tom Peters
Industry is now in a situation where in it has to innovate constantly or fall prey for its competitors.
The chances that a big scheme of innovation will succeed are very low. It often comes from the simple observation of the procedings in the market place or in the organization it self.
Listed below are few of the many areas which can be dealt with.
Technology planning ( Clear Road map )
Optimization ( Applying schemes like 6 Sigma to optimize each sector of the organization there by making the entire organization optimized )
Breakthrough in the technical domain or making something clearly new
Many more .. list is left to ones’ imagination and understanding of the system.
Some contradictory use cases of managing innovation are below. They are often called as myths in the industry.
I would like to spill out some personal thoughts and those of Tom Peters on the same.
Its not strategic planning with innovative projects, its Play Along !
Strategic planning “will” lead to the “no surprise” outcome but there is always ambiguity to be dealt with in business innovation.
The French army ( 1930 ) invested billions of dollars on the Magnoit line after long and hard study and understanding of the war situations. They were flanked in no time by the flexible German tank strategy.  Mainframe computers came into the market with a prediction of a handful (!) to be sold.
They thought the only buyers are labs ( Bell, Census Bureau etc ). Contrary to that when Xerox introduced high end offset printing technology, the market estimate was 70,000 units. But the intial sale was about 7,000. Both of them are now unquestionably one of the biggest markets in the world (Main frame computers and Printers ! ).
More examples include the mergers and acquisitions that have failed during the 2007-2008 time frame. All of them were strategically planned. Only 4% actually made it through to be successful.
The reason is classical, Not everything that looks good on paper will actually work out to be a good option in the real world.
Strategy works as long as it is flexible enough to accomodate changes real time due to the ambigous market scenarios. There are more than enough failures reported on “sitting and thinking for a long time and the whole thing went for a toss” strategy. Mixture wanted !!
Full planning on an innovation project, may be not a good idea !
Complete technical information and Market reasearch that really makes sense will make sure that the plan is always intact and makes sure an initiative meets its goal. Simulation cannot take you too far, you must always experiment with real products and real customers. Then they will know of the changes that must be made.
Any company which sees a good idea will try to put it into implementation. Lets say, they have put $x million and lot of resources. As the idea tries to turn out after a couple of months, they see some bottle neck which they started hands on with the idea. But the competitor moved ahead of you in that region, by following an alternate approach. Now you are struck in the same bottle neck and you are not sure if you should drop and follow the competetor and deal with IP issues later or you should keep burning money in the same direction.
The question there is why did you not try to do it first after some initial analysis ? Most of the time it will turn out to be following the competetor. If you had taken pre-emptive measures for this and apply the Plan-Execute entangle method you will not be in that situation in the first place.
Split the task into parts and start proceding in that direction, if you see major bottle neck you can drop it there it self and proceed in another direction.
There is also the possibility that if you dont plan at all, you will end up creating a mess ..
If you dont execute at all, competitor might move forward in that direction and supply the product before you. And you will be the one paying the royalty, if IP is involved.
Creative Results need time for development process or “Try it Now !”
Planning an entire development process and then coming up with problems is double waste of time. Always try things than thinking for too long. It saves time and gives better approach.
It is obviously plan and execute but not in series, it is in parallel.
Idea to End product always needs a catalyst. In Tom Peter’s words they are called as champions.
Experimental thinking is a champion’s quality. You need to experiment your idea first. Lot of the ideas go down the drain because sometimes they dont end up being a successful product / Process.
They are the people who can take failures, set backs and still keep moving with the same speed.
Building Teams that work !
Organization comes up with an initiative and usually if its big they tend move lot of employees into it and start running with a big strategy. Keep it simple is the mantra ! What do you really want to achieve ? This is the mistake usually done by big companies with lot of liquid cash to dispense.
Apple was started in a garage with handful of motivated engineers ( Steve Jobs did not even graduate ! ) and they knew exactly what they were doing.
Have a big team is not the key. Having a focused team in which roles are well defined is the solution. Observe the Big teams in the organization funcnationality, you will see a lot of overlap of work assignment. This usually happens in mamoth organizations where Time to Market converts itself to commitment in big numbers but the original force would be just half of what they have, with a clear boundary.
This is always a debatable topic but the point here is what do you really want and what kind of team do you think can really achieve this.
Highily innovative and creative projects are usually done by small and structured teams with aweful lot of focus and motivation.
We can go on and on .. There are scores of books on these topics.
But the point is idea thats are great, execution that perfect and fast, optimized time to market and making it better the next time. Most of all, if one approach fails, forget it ! Move to next.
Thats plain simple innovation strategy.

Corporate industries are growing at an exponential rate in today’s market space. Big players like Motorola are coming down due to lack of innovation in the right direction. After a big hit razr the mamoth organization came tumbling down for there was never a diversified product after it.

Ironically even big player’s will some times fail to innovate and fall pray to cut throat competition.

The Lion’s Share of innovation always comes from the wrong person in the wrong place in the wrong industry at the wrong time in conjunction with the wrong user.

— Tom Peters

Industry is now in a situation where in it has to innovate constantly or fall prey for its competitors.

The chances that a big scheme of innovation will succeed are very low. It often comes from the simple observation of the procedings in the market place or in the organization it self.
Listed below are few of the many areas which can be dealt with.

  • Technology planning ( Clear Road map )
  • Optimization ( Applying schemes like 6 Sigma to optimize each sector of the organization there by making the entire organization optimized )
  • Breakthrough in the technical domain or making something clearly new
  • Many more .. list is left to ones’ imagination and understanding of the system.

Some contradictory use cases of managing innovation are below. They are often called as myths in the industry.

I would like to spill out some personal thoughts and those of Tom Peters on the same.

Its not strategic planning with innovative projects, its Play Along !

Strategic planning “will” lead to the “no surprise” outcome but there is always ambiguity to be dealt with in business innovation.

The French army ( 1930 ) invested billions of dollars on the Magnoit line after long and hard study and understanding of the war situations. They were flanked in no time by the flexible German tank strategy.  Mainframe computers came into the market with a prediction of a handful (!) to be sold.

They thought the only buyers are labs ( Bell, Census Bureau etc ). Contrary to that when Xerox introduced high end offset printing technology, the market estimate was 70,000 units. But the intial sale was about 7,000. Both of them are now unquestionably one of the biggest markets in the world (Main frame computers and Printers ! ).

More examples include the mergers and acquisitions that have failed during the 2007-2008 time frame. All of them were strategically planned. Only 4% actually made it through to be successful.

The reason is classical, Not everything that looks good on paper will actually work out to be a good option in the real world.

Strategy works as long as it is flexible enough to accomodate changes real time due to the ambigous market scenarios. There are more than enough failures reported on “sitting and thinking for a long time and the whole thing went for a toss” strategy. Mixture wanted !!

Full planning on an innovation project, may be not a good idea !

Complete technical information and Market reasearch that really makes sense will make sure that the plan is always intact and makes sure an initiative meets its goal. Simulation cannot take you too far, you must always experiment with real products and real customers. Then they will know of the changes that must be made.

Any company which sees a good idea will try to put it into implementation. Lets say, they have put $x million and lot of resources. As the idea tries to turn out after a couple of months, they see some bottle neck which they started hands on with the idea. But the competitor moved ahead of you in that region, by following an alternate approach. Now you are struck in the same bottle neck and you are not sure if you should drop and follow the competetor and deal with IP issues later or you should keep burning money in the same direction.

The question there is why did you not try to do it first after some initial analysis ? Most of the time it will turn out to be following the competetor. If you had taken pre-emptive measures for this and apply the Plan-Execute entangle method you will not be in that situation in the first place.

Split the task into parts and start proceding in that direction, if you see major bottle neck you can drop it there it self and proceed in another direction.

There is also the possibility that if you dont plan at all, you will end up creating a mess ..

If you dont execute at all, competitor might move forward in that direction and supply the product before you. And you will be the one paying the royalty, if IP is involved.

Creative Results need time for development process or “Try it Now !”

Planning an entire development process and then coming up with problems is double waste of time. Always try things than thinking for too long. It saves time and gives better approach.

It is obviously plan and execute but not in series, it is in parallel.

Idea to End product always needs a catalyst. In Tom Peter’s words they are called as champions.

Experimental thinking is a champion’s quality. You need to experiment your idea first. Lot of the ideas go down the drain because sometimes they dont end up being a successful product / Process.

They are the people who can take failures, set backs and still keep moving with the same speed.

Building Teams that work !

Organization comes up with an initiative and usually if its big they tend move lot of employees into it and start running with a big strategy. Keep it simple is the mantra ! What do you really want to achieve ? This is the mistake usually done by big companies with lot of liquid cash to dispense.

Apple was started in a garage with handful of motivated engineers ( Steve Jobs did not even graduate ! ) and they knew exactly what they were doing.

Have a big team is not the key. Having a focused team in which roles are well defined is the solution. Observe the Big teams in the organization funcnationality, you will see a lot of overlap of work assignment. This usually happens in mamoth organizations where Time to Market converts itself to commitment in big numbers but the original force would be just half of what they have, with a clear boundary.

This is always a debatable topic but the point here is what do you really want and what kind of team do you think can really achieve this.

Highily innovative and creative projects are usually done by small and structured teams with aweful lot of focus and motivation.

We can go on and on .. There are scores of books on these topics.

But the point is idea thats are great, execution that perfect and fast, optimized time to market and making it better the next time. Most of all, if one approach fails, forget it ! Move to next.

Thats plain simple innovation strategy.

Advertisements