Do you organize your business for Innovation?

There is a popular saying attributed to Greek author and philosopher Plato (427 BC – 347 BC, The Republic) that says  “Necessity is the mother of all inventions”.  This has proven true for all the history of mankind from 500,000 BC, when fire was discovered by Homo Erectus (early humans) until the most modern times when human race is able to invent sophisticated and complex models for social and economic order.

While this is true that the inventions has played a big role in the advancement of human societies, it is also a fact that the benefits of these inventions has only been realised when someone (individual or people) is able to understand the use of this invention and employ this for public or private gains.

For example, fire was first tamed by early humans around 500,000 BC but it was primarily used as a defence against harsh weather out of necessity. It’s use to cook food was not discovered until much later when the humans developed their sense of taste.

Take another example of “printing press” which was first invented by German Johannes Gutenberg around 1440 in Roman Empire. As the technology developed the book printing and book making started but it was not until 1605 when the first newspaper  Relation aller Fürnemmen und gedenckwürdigen Historien was published in Strasbourg by Johann Carolus. It was Johann who discovered  there was a need or desire among people to know about the events happening in the the society and he tried to satisfy this need using an existing technology i.e. printing press.

An invention can be defined as a discovery or an idea about something. An invention does not automatically lead to widespread use.

Innovation is the process of linking an invention to satisfy a specific need in a business or social context. The people who work on finding ways to do this are called as innovators. The people who take the existing technologies and package them together and commercialise it as an offering and build organisational structures to support this, are called entrepreneurs.

As I explained in my other blog “Why companies need innovation? A market competition perspective”, innovation is not a choice today for any company rather it is a must for sustainable growth in today’s marketplace.

So if we agree that innovation is key, then what is the ideal recipe for an organization to promote innovation in its ranks. Does it mean that you need to create a creative culture or need to hire people who can think outside the box? Or does it mean that tech companies can follow the Google model where all software engineers get time to work on their own projects? Or the solution is in organizing an innovation or hack day?

In my opinion, all of these are just steps in an organizations journey to become more innovative and relevant to the market. They create a momentum for the people to start thinking and come up with ideas (some good and some not so good).

Before this happens however, there are two very important steps which are often ignored or are not executed properly.

First, understand you competitive environment and recognize your strengths and weaknesses in a systematic way. This realization along with the knowledge of market opportunities will provide you many choices to how to differentiate your business against your competitors. This will inform you who is your competitor and who is your friend. This is the basis of defining a business strategy. A clear and well articulated business strategy is very important for every organisation which is embarking on an innovation journey as it acts as a guiding force for all innovation activities the organisation takes.

Second, create a governance model or idea selection process which can take all new ideas from all parts of business and evaluate them for the value they will create for the organisation for the business strategy. I will go into the detail of this later but this is an important building block of the innovation process and the absence of this will be like holding sand (ideas) in one’s hand. It is also important to make everyone aware of this process so that people understand how this works and how their ideas are evaluated.

Now obviously you need to hire good people who are passionate about their jobs and want to solve new problems and you can use some of the following techniques to generate new ideas and promote creativity:

  • Create a stimulating environment by allowing people to work in smaller teams in casual settings ideally with cross functional teams
  • Remove barriers between engineers and their customers
  • Promote cross functional collaboration
  • Give people or cross functional groups some problems and allow them to come up with solutions. Give them some time and resources to do that. As I wrote earlier, some people choose to follow Google model or Facebook model. Some companies also use ideation, brain storming and other techniques to get ideas.
  • Invest in technologies or processes which allows teams to test their ideas with the end users quickly and effectively.

Overall all of these building blocks are important for any business to have an organisation wide innovation process. There are many advantages of this innovation model:

  • It ensures that organisational resources are spent on the initiatives that support business strategy.
  • Articulating a clear business strategy guides all team members to understand what is the purpose and goals of innovation.
  • Using an innovation governance process allows the management to filter and select the best ideas which delivers strategic value to the business.
  • People will be happy to know the organisation really values their ideas and has a process to evaluate and implement (transparency is key).

By following these steps organisations can come up with a comprehensive innovation system.

I have provided my thoughts at a high level and organisations will have to adapt this at the business unit and corporate level as per their business structure and needs.

What size matters for start-up businesses? For new and incumbents.

I was discussing with some friends at MBS about a better model for start-up businesses when this question came up. What is the right size for a start-up? The general agreement after the discussion was that most of the start-ups start small with only handful of people who at the start are called entrepreneurs and later become founders :) This smallness in size is very natural. These start-up businesses are generally based on some idea which the founders conceive and then try to shape up in the form of a business by securing finance (or self finance), setting up relevant operations, building up the right technology to create capacity to get to the customers etc. As the firm’s operations and capabilities grow, the company staff numbers grow accordingly and then the founders realise that they need a dedicated human resource personnel to manage the workforce effectively. In case of most successful businesses whether they are technology oriented or not, the market success of the operation has dictated the firm to grow. It all depends upon whether market needs the value the new company is offering or market is not interested. If market embraces the new offering and customer numbers grow then this is like more oxygen for the firm and firm grows quickly and then comes all the decisions about growing business, maintaining growth, hiring suitable workforce, building the right hierarchy for the various functions of the firm etc.

We all agreed on this when a friend asked another question. Is the same strategy workable for an incumbent firm too, especially if it is trying to open up a new channel to diversify its reach to customers or trying to grow into a new product line? This generated a mix reaction among the group. Some people were in favour of this strategy while other argue that an incumbent company should use its resources to invest some free cash flow to invest in the new ventures.

My answer to this question was that there is not a single right answer to this problem and it depends upon a firm’s intention, target market and its current position and product mix. No two businesses are similar in the sense that if they are similar then they are perhaps dealing in commodities and they are only competing based upon prices. If we exclude such businesses and consider only the businesses which are adding value by creating new technologies or introducing some new business model then these businesses by nature are different from each other. Whether it was B&N in USA entering into online bookselling in order to thwart the threat posed from 150 or some online bookstores (including Amazon) or Sensis in Australia going online for its directories business anticipating a surge in the number of customers, both businesses had different set of challenges and they must had to adapt their strategy accordingly. In case of B&N they threw bucket load of money into creating a good online presence but could not match the technical capability and sophisticated product development capabilities of Amazon which invested much less than B&N. But it also depended upon the business model of the two firms. While Amazon was a tech start-up and therefore did not have any investment in brick and mortar, B&N was a brick and mortar business having more than 700 stores in USA at that time. Similarly business situation was different for Sensis when it went online recognising that the online channel offers value to customers and they will embrace the online search in the coming years. If they did not move quickly or if they moved only when their print business started declining then they would have given too much time for any other start-up to get into their territory and eating their market share.

But the question is still unanswered. Usually the incumbent firm has a brand to protect from any fallout of the new venture while successful ventures are gradually brought back into the parent brand fold. I think in today’s globalised and competitive market it should be part of corporate strategy that how the new investments will be made into new ideas (line extensions, product extensions etc). The key factor determining the success for the new product teams is whether they can stay small while taking advantage of the common resources that the company offers and at the same time don’t bogged down by the traditional beaurocracy.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.