Category Archives: Innovation

Webinar – Winning the War for Innovation

Webinar - Winning the War for InnovationOn September 12, 2012 I will be presenting a webinar in cooperation with Imaginatik, a leader in the idea management software category.

The webinar is titled ‘Winning the War for Innovation‘ and we’ll be helping you take a look at whether or not you’re ready to accept that innovation has become a top priority.

Innovation has become a key source of competitive advantage, and the companies that thrive are those that innovate on a consistent basis – like Amazon and General Electric. Failing to innovate will put you on a straight, but treacherous path to extinction.

I will explain why innovation is so crucial today, and investigate the importance of building a continuous innovation capacity.

  1. How product cycles have fundamentally changed
  2. How global competition affects innovation
  3. How to build an innovation vision
  4. How to ‘make time’ for innovation

The world’s leading companies commit to embedding innovation deeply into their organizations. It becomes part of their DNA. Developing a consistent ability to innovate distinguishes today’s winners from losers.

Which group do you want your company to be a part of?

So, join me for this exclusive webinar Wednesday, September 12, 2012.

Click to Register for FREE

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Apple Touches on a Potential Innovation Integration

Apple Touches on a Potential Innovation Integration

Recently Apple announced its intention to acquire Authentec, a biometric authentication company. Apple was in a real hurry to complete the acquisition and it makes you wonder whether Authentec’s fingerprint authentication technology will make it into the home button of the iPhone 5 and possibly the iPad Mini in the coming months.

If Apple were to integrate the Authentec technology into the home button on the iPhone 5, the iPad Mini, and eventually the iPad 4, then it would not only create a handy way to make the devices easily personalized for multiple users of the same device (or just a simple password-free login for a single user), but purportedly the technology also has the ability to recognize multiple fingers (allowing for the home button to potentially achieve multiple functions), and to serve as authentication for mobile payments (most likely via NFC – Near Field Communications).

That would mean that Apple would add a lot of new functionality with the integration of this tiny piece of hardware, several software updates, and another tiny piece of hardware for NFC. But more importantly, these tiny pieces of hardware and software could make the computing experience more personal, and more naturally personalized as you move around the environment into different applications.

I know it is only a replacement for what could or can be done with a password, but I would love to be able to have apps like Netflix personalized based on whose finger was used.

This could become a great example of flexible design and innovating for the future present if they launch the iPhone 5 with these technologies. That would show that they started the design process with this as only a possibility but decided AFTER the technology looked ready to actually integrate it into the shipping product, and remained flexible enough to integrate the component near the end of the design process – something that is very hard to do, but very powerful.

Are all of these potential innovations ranging from the minor (login) to the transformative (speeding up mobile payment adoption) likely to make the cut for the iPhone 5?

I guess we will wait and see what happens on September 12th.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

A Refreshing Approach to Product Innovation

A Refreshing Approach to Product InnovationSometimes it is better to be late than never. Starbucks recently announced a new line of energy drinks – Starbucks Refreshers. There are two flavors Cool Lime and Very Berry Hibiscus and instead of copying other energy drinks, and use the same active ingredients as the usual suspects, they instead decided to use something uniquely Starbucks – green coffee extract.

Starbucks Refreshers are coffee drinks that don’t look like or taste like coffee, but provide the caffeine jolt that many of their customers are looking for nonetheless. And as an added bonus, they are coffee drinks that are much lower in calories and fat than many of their traditional hot or iced lattes. Coffee for the lactose intolerant too!

Starbucks has done something else smart, and that is that they have created a self-reinforcing product loop that allows for three different preparations and use cases for the same basic product, all in a single summer product launch:

  1. A customizable cafe preparation with multiple sizes and fresh fruit
  2. A canned, chillable pre-mixed portable preparation
  3. An extremely portable VIA DIY preparation without the water

In addition to being sold in their stores and licensed locations, the can and VIA preparation can be distributed via Starbucks’ existing grocery distribution channels.

Starbucks Refreshers are a great example of taking components of your brand and other organizational assets and leveraging them to create new products that people might not have thought about you creating, but that feel like natural extensions to them instead of a stretch.

Starbucks Refreshers are also a great example of looking at your raw materials in a new way and as a result a new product solution in born.

What might happen if you looked at your raw material inputs in a new way?

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Innovation Locker

The Innovation LockerI came across a Wall Street Journal article recently that caught my eye, an article about Amazon Lockers. The concept is pretty simple. Amazon offers customers in select locations the option of having their package delivered to an Amazon Locker instead of to their street address. When the package arrives they receive an email letting them know where to pick it up along with the code to unlock it, and because most of the lockers are being placed in locations like convenience stores, often the customer can pick up their package 24 hours a day.

This is a great potential innovation for the segment of their customer base that has trouble receiving their packages – either because they live in an apartment or condo that is difficult to deliver to, aren’t home to sign, or because they are worried that their package might be stolen.

But the motive for the experiment is not purely an altruistic customer service one, companies like Amazon pay up to 20% more to have packages delivered to a residence. So, delivering a package to a locker helps Amazon save money too – helping to offset the costs of installing and maintaining the lockers. And as a bonus they serve as OOH (Out Of Home) advertisements in a context where people’s minds are already open to buying things.

So, what did the Wall Street Journal miss?

The Wall Street Journal missed the most important part of this whole idea, and one of the potentially most innovative parts of it. If you’re still missing the hidden golden nugget, one more hint before the reveal – think Amazon Web Services (AWS) including services like EC2 (Elastic Computing Cloud) and S3 (Simple Storage Solution). Now you should see that the real innovation nugget here is that what may look at the outset as a service innovation, is actually a platform innovation.

The same problem that has led Amazon to create the potential innovation that is Amazon Lockers, is a problem for all other online retailers. So, Amazon and their customers definitely benefit from the lockers, but they likely can also be leveraged by any retailer that sells their goods on Amazon. AND, in the future there is no reason that in much the same way that Amazon productized S3 and EC2, Amazon could also productize Amazon Lockers and sell it as a service that any other company can purchase and use.

Multiple MailboxesSo who should have come up with this potential innovation?

FedEx, DHL, UPS, and the US Postal Service all missed this as a potential innovation that any of them should have actually developed. The inspiration for this potential innovation was sitting in full view all along. The US Postal Service installed multiple mailbox solutions in many subdivisions long ago to increase efficiency, and make it so that anyone receiving a package receives a key in their mailbox that opens a larger box in the same unit for package retrieval.

Final Thought

Are Amazon Lockers a good idea? A potential innovation? Yes, I think so. Whether they make the transition from interesting experiment or invention to innovation (through adoption) we will wait and see. But the fact that Amazon is expanding their test is a good sign that the transition from invention to innovation will be made. To close, I would just like to say that Amazon has some other possibilities they could (and likely will) explore, including:

  1. Pursuit of space rent reduction through use of the touch screen to suggest certain products for purchase that the host store might sell.
  2. Show suggested products from Amazon with a ‘send me more info’ button to email the customer more information about a product shown on the screen (to their email or possibly to their phone)
  3. Allow the customer to announce via social media that they’ve just picked up their product
  4. Pick select customers to win a prize based on some kind of points scheme related to their number (or value) of pickups – or just by pure chance – (check door 32 and you might be a winner) – adding an element of fun, mystery, and anticipation to the customer’s package retrieval experience
  5. Allow people to order popular products from what is effectively a kiosk, either for immediate delivery or via Amazon Prime delivery back to the locker in a couple of days

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Veracity Required for Innovation Success

Veracity Required for Innovation SuccessA recent post by Jeffrey Phillips titled Velocity is the Only Innovation Outcome That Matters sparked respectful disagreement inside me.

I believe that when it comes to innovation, veracity is more important than velocity. Let’s look at the definition of the word veracity from our friends over at Merriam-Webster:

Veracity

1: devotion to the truth : truthfulness
2: power of conveying or perceiving truth

In my opinion it is more valuable to spend time on identifying the right customer insight and the right way to communicate with customers about the solution which you create to serve the insight, than it is to spend the same amount of time inventing faster or launching faster.

In fact your innovation velocity can exceed your innovation veracity as shown in this article.

And many a company has fallen foul of going too fast and thinking an invention will become an innovation when they are ready to launch it, including Microsoft with the Windows Tablet and Apple with the Newton, only to find that customers were not ready to adopt it as an innovation until years later.

Velocity is definitely important, but more isn’t necessarily better. Many times the competitor with a lesser innovation velocity but greater innovation veracity has ended up winning. Look at Apple and the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, etc.

It’s also more important to look for the barriers to adoption than it is to look for the barriers to creation. Innovation is all about value and this is why it is so important to pay just as much attention to value access and value translation, as you do to value creation, because it takes doing all three really well with a solution with real innovation veracity to find innovation success.

Fail to identify a solution with real innovation veracity and you are likely to miss potential elements of optimal value creation, you will likely struggle to make its value accessible, and there is a greater likelihood that you will fail to properly translate the value of the solution for your customers.

So, taken another way, the search for innovation success is a search for truth. You must therefore unlock the inner truths of your intended customers (think unmet needs or jobs-to-be-done), you must search in areas that your intended customers will feel are true for your brand, and areas that feel true to employees given the company’s mission and values. When your pursuit of innovation centers around truth and when you commit to a focused effort to increase your innovation capability – and to pursue Innovation Excellence – then and only then do you have your best chance at innovation success.

What innovation truths are you searching for?

How much innovation veracity can you create?


Build a Common Language of Innovation

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Adopted Child of Innovation

The Adopted Child of InnovationInnovation is everywhere. Or at least the word is. CEOs talk about innovation, every technology company claims to be innovative (or to want innovative employees) and now we’re even seeing advertisements on television talk about innovation. Even Nissan, which has had innovation in their tagline for two years now, has decided to change their tagline from “Innovation for All” to something new “Innovation that Excites.” Okay, it still has innovation in it. But, the fact that they decided to move from innovation being something that is democratic, to something that is exciting, is an interesting shift. Maybe now that everybody is claiming to be innovative they felt the need to say, “No, our innovations aren’t like everyone else’s, our innovations are exciting!”

Because people talk about innovation so much, and misuse the term so frequently, I think it is important to reiterate my definition of innovation and talk a bit about the differences between invention and innovation and the differences between innovation and improvement. My definition of innovation is:

Innovation transforms the useful seeds of invention into solutions valued above every existing alternative – and achieves wide adoption.”

Adoption is of course key to something moving from being an invention to innovation, but then so of course is the threshold that something is valued above every existing alternative, and as a result isn’t just merely useful – but valuable. Crossing this threshold means that people willingly replace their existing solution. Crossing this threshold is what solidifies your solution as a true innovation. And that’s the point.

Improvement versus Replacement

All companies must focus on improving their existing solutions. But at the same time they must also constantly be on guard against other ways of potentially solving the same customer problem or fulfilling the same customer need. Six Sigma does a great job at fulfilling the mission of improvement and at helping to achieve operational excellence. But while an organization must be ruthless in their pursuit of perfection, or the amount of perfection that their customers are willing to pay for and that they can make profitably, organizations must also make a commitment to the pursuit of innovation excellence. The reason companies must strike a balance between the pursuit of improvement and replacement is that sooner or later something will become possible that wasn’t possible before – due to changes in technology AND customer psychological readiness for change – creating an opening for replacement. Really good value translation (and education) can help accelerate that customer readiness, but launching before both conditions exist can lead to financial ruin. When replacement does become inevitable, the only question is whether you will continue to focus on improvement and be replaced, or whether you will have the courage to replace your own solution with a new one…

Is there any innovation here to excite?

For fun you might want to check out one of the latest Nissan advertisements from the United Kingdom for the Nissan Juke that I’ve embedded below. Is the car itself innovative? No. Is the advertisement innovative? No. But it is creative. Is there any innovation in the product at all? Well, that depends. It depends on whether there are any new components that don’t just merely improve their performance but instead completely replace the traditional approaches to solving the targeted problem or performing the job-to-be-done. What do you think, true or false?

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Velocity is the Only Innovation Outcome that Matters

Velocity is the Only Innovation Outcome that Matters

Recently I wrote an introductory blog post about the importance of VELOCITY as an innovation outcome. Today I want to drill a little deeper, to examine why velocity is so important to many businesses, and why innovation should be the technique that many turn to to accelerate velocity.

Few people would quibble with the argument that the pace of change is accelerating, and continues to accelerate. If, for example, you could teleport yourself to the Roman empire and examine the living conditions of the average family, you’d find that conditions weren’t overly improved for hundreds of years. New technologies were infrequent and scientific discovery was slow. Fast forward to the early Middle ages, as learning and communication improved, and we see an increasing pace of change. Comparing, say, the 1200s to the 1400s would demonstrate significant gains for the upper class in terms of products, services and technologies. But the pace of change for significant portions of the population was still slow. Consider even the 1950s and 1960s. Much of the world lacked basic infrastructure, communication systems, adequate food, while the “developed” world had all of these factors and more. Today, it’s not unusual to find people in depressed circumstances with access to cell phones, the internet, bank accounts and many of the trappings of a fully modern society. The pace of change has delivered more goods, services and technologies, and distributed them more quickly in the last few decades, than many believed possible.

Factors Driving Pace of Change

What factors drive the increasing pace of change? I’m sure better minds than mine have pondered this question, but a few factors seem relatively obvious. First, better information systems and communication systems. When communication is difficult, it is hard to transfer knowledge and information. As communications systems have advanced, the ability to spread information more broadly has improved the pace of change in many areas. Second, the distribution of education. Today, many of the world’s best universities are resident in the US, the UK, Germany and other “western” countries, but increasingly excellent universities are identified in India, China and other countries. Further, access to education, over the web, over the improved communication channels means that far more people can gain education and build skills. Third, the increasing demand for better living conditions, better lives for our children, more access to more things. Fatalism and the acceptance of a terrible life is a thing of the past. Everyone, everywhere demands a better standard of living, more access to more and better goods and services. These demands create the opportunity for a market, these demands are filled with new and better supply.

These are factors that I think are driving the increasing pace of change. But you don’t have to accept my assertions, you can see the increasing pace of change for yourself in adoption curves of technology. The “S” curves of technology adoption over the last 100 years demonstrate that it took years for a radio or television to penetrate many households, while newer products like VCRs, cell phone and PCs penetrated very quickly. One reason this is true is that the infrastructure (electricity, communication standards, interactivity) was built, deployed and stabilized. As the infrastructure got better, it became easier and easier to deploy and to use new technologies. See the increasing acceleration of adoption in the “S” curve image below.

Technology Adoption S Curves

Implications of Accelerating Change

The implications of this acceleration should be obvious – the pace of change and rate of acceleration is ever increasing. Individuals who were once satisfied with only one model of product are now more likely to be clamoring for more variety, more choice. This is something that even Henry Ford missed. Simply solving a basic transportation need led to ever increasing demands to satisfy comfort, status and ego needs. For many products and services, life expectancy is decreasing at the same rate as the accelerating pace of change. Few firms can count on long product cycle times.

Why this matters to Innovation

If these assumptions are true, then VELOCITY, as defined as speed in a specific direction, becomes very important for a firm’s ability to grow and compete. Relying on long product life cycles is not an option. Customers will demand new products, new features at an ever increasing rate. Firms can’t simply “dump” older technologies and products into “developing” markets because those market too understand the product/feature acceleration and reject older products. This acceleration means that firms must address the most significant barriers to velocity within their businesses. There are three barriers they must address:

  1. The ability to bring products to market very quickly. Most organizations have well-defined, stage-gate models that use waterfall approaches with many signoffs to reduce risk. These existing processes are long, drawn out affairs designed to prevent mistakes and perfect products rather than systems attuned to customer needs and expectations. One of the first activities many firms should undertake is to innovate their product development cycles.
  2. Few firms have invested in true innovation capabilities. Yes they have some “innovation” teams and perhaps even some systems or processes meant to sustain innovation, but they don’t consider innovation core to their business. Innovation – purposefully creating new, meaningful products and services that clients will want – will increase the organization’s speed, and potentially its velocity. It can increase velocity if…
  3. Executives create clear strategies based on the understanding of the importance of velocity. Innovation can result in more speed, based on improvements in the product development cycle time and in generating new ideas more effectively. But the difference between velocity and speed is intent. Velocity is speed in a specific direction. Executives must provide the demand for speed, combined with the insights that detail specific directions. Innovation needs far more attention from executives, in terms of greater importance and more clarity and focus.

Conclusion

So, hopefully you can see that perhaps the most important outcome innovation can deliver is velocity, that is, corporate speed with purpose. I’ve identified at least two areas where more internal speed is important, if a firm hopes to keep pace with its competitors and its market demands. Executives play an important role here as well. Our corporations become comfortable with our operating models and the internal pace of business. While our internal pace may be valuable, comfortable and well understood, our internal pace is irrelevant if the external pace of change is different. Far too many firms have too many structures that impede speed and velocity, and are too comfortable with a slow pace of change. Why they may believe they need innovation to create new products and services, these firms fail to realize how important it is to accelerate their operations and keep pace, at a minimum, with the market. And, not only is speed important, but velocity. Meaning that while we increase internal speed we do so in important, strategic directions.

In subsequent posts I’ll address the concept of innovation as a catalyst for corporate velocity.

Image credits: Pixabay, Forbes

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Velocity, Speed and Innovation

Velocity, Speed and Innovation

Flying for 12 hours at a stretch can give you a lot of time to think, in between in-flight meals, movies and other on-board entertainment.

The more I thought about the current state of innovation, the more I realized that many of us have it all wrong. We at OVO often talk about innovation as an enabler to strategy, not a strategy itself. But I think there’s something much deeper going on than that. First, we know that many executives WANT more innovation. But they don’t want innovation for its own sake. They want innovation that drives more revenue growth, more differentiation and more creation of compelling products and services than what would otherwise happen. This means that innovation must create solutions with more return than existing methods, with only incrementally greater risk.

Executives want to be Innovative, they don’t want Innovation

In the final analysis, CEOs and senior executives don’t want INNOVATION, they want the benefits and outcomes of well-pursued innovation activities, namely, growth, differentiation, market penetration, disruption of adjacent markets and so forth. If there are easier ways to achieve these outcomes, CEOs and organizations will gladly pursue the alternatives, and forgo the risks that surround innovation. What risks? Because of the investments in management tools, techniques and training to improve efficiency and effectiveness, many businesses have very efficient but very brittle and fragile operating models. Innovation introduces risk, uncertainty and change into organizations and business models honed to avoid these issue. Further, most work teams have been right-sized and down-sized to the point where incremental work is almost impossible to engage. No, what executives want is not innovation per se, but they would like to be viewed as INNOVATIVE and enjoy the benefits of meaningful, valuable new products and services.

Why Velocity is more important than Speed

Perhaps what I’ve come to realize is that what most organizations need more than anything is VELOCITY. Let me explain what I mean by Velocity. My daughter’s physics class was working on the definition of motion and speed. Speed measures how fast an object is moving, so many feet or miles divided by the amount of time it takes to complete the distance. Physics and calculus distinguish SPEED from VELOCITY, by taking the stance that VELOCITY is Speed in a specific direction. Physicists and scientists would say that VELOCITY is a Scalar concept.

When we think about most businesses, VELOCITY is exactly what they need. They need speed to compete with a host of changes occurring in their markets, from increased competition to lowered trade barriers to a rapid increase in the abilities of individuals and firms in developing countries and markets. However, speed isn’t all that valuable if it’s in the wrong direction. VELOCITY is speed in a specific direction, and that’s what many organizations need. They need to be faster, more effective, more innovative, and end up in a place that was intentional.

VELOCITY connotes the idea that the firm is going somewhere that matters. How a firm knows where to go is dependent to some extent on corporate strategy and how well that strategy is communicated. Further, how it knows where to go is dependent on the firm’s ability to assess market trends, develop scenarios and understand customer needs. These final factors are innovation tools, which help describe a range of possible futures and help decipher which ones are relevant and important.

Speed kills, Velocity Wins

Over the next few posts I will write about speed, velocity and their relationship to innovation. Because increasingly innovation is just a method to help a firm increase its speed in a particular direction. Speed will become the new competitive weapon in a highly competitive market, but speed in and of itself is useless without intentional direction and guidance. We’ll look at why speed is ever more important, and how good innovation contributes to speed and velocity.

Another way to think of this is that innovation is a feature, and speed or velocity are the potential benefits. I’m increasingly convinced that velocity in a business sense – getting to the right markets and opportunities faster than others, and doing so intentionally – is the capability that will distinguish winners from losers in the coming years.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

New White Paper on External Talent Strategies

Innocentive - New White Paper on External Talent StrategiesFollowing on the heels of a recent thought leadership webinar (link to recording) on the same topic, this white paper explores the intersection of talent management and open innovation strategies. The paper dives into why having an external talent strategy is becoming increasingly important and how it can help your company accelerate innovation, shows how leading organizations manage their open innovation and crowdsourcing efforts (including case study examples of companies like P&G), and provides proven strategies and steps to take for attracting talent to your organization’s innovation efforts.

Download this Complimentary White Paper

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Making Innovation Sustainable – Part 4 of 4

Click on Part 1 or Part 2 or Part 3 if you missed them

Innovation Is Social

These quotes from John Hagel’s article are important because they reinforce the notion that innovation is a social activity. While many people give Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and the modern – day equivalent, Dean Kamen, credit for being lone inventors, the fact is that the lone inventor myth is just that — a myth. All these gentlemen had labs full of people who shared their passion for creative pursuits. Innovation requires collaboration, either publicly or privately, and is realized as an outcome of three social activities.

1. Social Inputs

  • From the very beginning when an organization is seeking to identify key insights to base an innovation strategy or project on, organizations often use ethnographic research, focus groups, or other very social methods to get at the insights. Great innovators also make connections to other industries and other disciplines to help create the great in sights that inspire great solutions.

2. Social Evolution

  • We usually have innovation teams in organizations, not sole inventors, and so the activity of transforming the seeds of useful invention into a solution valued above every existing alternative is very social. It takes a village of passionate villagers to transform an idea into an innovation in the marketplace. Great innovators make connections inside the organization to the people who can ask the right questions, uncover the most important weaknesses, help solve the most difficult challenges, and help break down internal barriers within the organization — all in support of creating a better solution.

3. Social Execution

  • The same customer group that you may have spent time with, seeking to understand, now requires education to show them that they really need the solution that all of their actions and behaviors indicated they needed at the beginning of the process. This social execution includes social outputs like trials, beta programs, trade show booths, and more. Great innovators have the patience to allow a new market space to mature, and they know how to grow the demand while also identifying the key shortcomings with customers who are holding the solution back from mass acceptance.

When it comes to insights, these three activities are not completely discrete. Insights do not expose themselves only in the social inputs phase, but can also expose themselves in other phases — if you’re paying attention. Flickr famously started out as a company producing a video game in the social inputs phase, but was astute enough during the social execution phase to recognize that the most used feature was one that allowed people to share photos. Recognizing that there was an unmet market need amongst customers for easy sharing of photos, Flickr reoriented its market solution from video game to photo sharing site and reaped millions of dollars in the process when they ultimately sold their site to Yahoo!. Ultimately, action is more important than intent, and so as an innovator you must always be listening and watching to see what people do and not just what they say. Build your solution on the wrong insight and nobody will be beating a path to your door.

Bringing It All Together

If your organization is struggling to sustain its innovation efforts, then I hope you will do the following things.

  • Find the purpose and passion that everyone can rally around.
  • Create the flexibility necessary to deal with the constant change that a focus on innovation requires for both customers and the organization.
  • Make innovation the social activity it truly must be for you to become successful.

If your organization has lost the courage to move innovation to its center and has gotten stuck in a project-focused, reactive innovation approach, then now is your chance to regain the higher ground and to refocus, not on having an innovation success but on building an innovation capability. Are you up to the challenge?

You can read ahead by getting the book or downloading the sample chapter, or by checking out the other parts here:

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.