Category Archives: Strategy

Business Models Supporting Circular Principles

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In today’s rapidly evolving economic landscape, the concept of circular business models is gaining heightened attention. The traditional linear business model—take, make, dispose—is increasingly unsustainable given the finite nature of resources and environmental degradation. Adopting circular principles not only benefits the planet but also opens new avenues for growth and innovation. In this article, we delve deep into circular business models and explore two inspiring case studies illustrating successful implementation.

Understanding Circular Business Models

Circular business models are designed to maximize resource efficiency by creating closed-loop systems where waste is minimized, and materials are reused and recycled. They focus on various key principles such as designing for longevity, encouraging sharing, and promoting recycling and renewability.

Design for Longevity: Creating products that are durable, repairable, and timeless reduces waste and environmental impact.
Encourage Sharing: Sharing models aim to increase product utilization rates—think car-sharing or tool libraries.
Promote Recycling and Renewability: Incorporating recycled materials and ensuring products can be disassembled encourages a lifecycle-focused approach.

Case Study 1: Patagonia

Patagonia, the outdoor clothing company, exemplifies how circular principles can be integrated into a business model. With a mission to create sustainable apparel, Patagonia has implemented several initiatives:

Worn Wear Program: This program focuses on repairing old gear, reselling used products, and recycling materials.
Recycled Materials: A significant portion of Patagonia’s products uses recycled materials, minimizing dependency on virgin resources.
Product Lifespan: By offering repairs for their products, Patagonia extends their lifespan and reduces waste.

Through these practices, Patagonia not only reduces its ecological footprint but also builds brand loyalty and engages with environmentally conscious consumers.

Case Study 2: Caterpillar’s Remanufacturing

Caterpillar, the heavy machinery giant, has embraced circular principles through its extensive remanufacturing operations:

Core Collection & Remanufacturing: Caterpillar collects end-of-life components, transforms them into like-new products, and sells them at a fraction of the cost.
Cost Efficiency: Remanufactured products are cheaper for consumers and preserve raw materials.
Environmental Impact: This process reduces landfill waste and lowers energy consumption associated with new manufacturing.

By investing in remanufacturing, Caterpillar enhances sustainability while maintaining product quality and competitiveness in the marketplace.

Expanding Circular Opportunities

Businesses across various sectors can benefit from embracing circular principles. To explore these opportunities, consider the following strategies:

Collaborate with Stakeholders: Effective implementation often requires collaboration with suppliers, consumers, and even competitors to establish a common vision for sustainability.
Innovate in Design: Rethink product design from the ground up to enhance modularity, repairability, and recyclability.
Educate and Engage Consumers: Building awareness and educating consumers about the benefits of circular products can drive demand and foster a movement towards sustainability.

Conclusion

Transitioning to circular business models is not just an ethical responsibility but a strategic imperative. As Patagonia and Caterpillar demonstrate, integrating circular principles leads to sustainable innovation, economic resilience, and a stronger brand reputation. Embracing this paradigm shift offers businesses the chance to lead in an ever-changing environment, driven by the imperative to safeguard our planet for future generations.

By 2030, it is anticipated that businesses that integrate circular principles will significantly outperform their linear counterparts. The journey to a circular economy is paved with challenges, but the rewards—in terms of business growth, environmental conservation, and societal impact—are well worth the pursuit.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

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

The Resilience Conundrum

Leave a reply

From the Webb Space Telescope to Dishwashing Liquids

The Resilience Conundrum

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

Many of us have been watching the spectacular photos coming from Webb Space Telescope this week. It is a breathtaking example of innovation in action. But what grabbed my attention almost as much as the photos was the challenge of deploying it at the L2 Lagrange point. That not only required extraordinary innovation of core technologies, but also building unprecedented resilience into the design. Deploying a technology a million miles from Earth leaves little room for mistakes, or the opportunity for the kind of repairs that rescued the Hubble mission. Obviously the Webb team were acutely aware of this, and were painstaking in identifying and pre-empting 344 single points of failure, any one of which had the potential to derail it. The result is a triumph. But it is not without cost. Anticipating and protecting against those potential failures played a significant part in taking Webb billions over budget, and years behind it’s original schedule.

Efficiency versus Adaptability: Most of us will never face quite such an amazing but daunting challenge, or have the corresponding time and budget flexibility. But as an innovation community, and a planet, we are entering a phase of very rapid change as we try to quickly address really big issues, such as climate change and AI. And the speed, scope and interconnected complexity of that change make it increasingly difficult to build resilience into our innovations. This is compounded because a need for speed and efficiency often drives us towards narrow focus and increased specialization. That focus can help us move quickly, but we know from nature that the first species to go extinct in the face of environmental change are often the specialists, who are less able to adapt with their changing world. Efficiency often reduces resilience, it’s another conundrum.

Complexity, Systems Effects and Collateral Damage. To pile on the challenges a little, the more breakthrough an innovation is, the less we understand about how interacts at a systems level, or secondary effects it may trigger. And secondary failures can be catastrophic. Takata airbags, or the batteries in Samsung Galaxy phones were enabling, not core technologies, but they certainly derailed the core innovations.

Designed Resiliency. One answer to this is to be more systematic about designing resilience into innovation, as the Webb team were. We may not be able to reach the equivalent of 344 points of failure, but we can be systematic about scenario planning, anticipating failure, and investing up front in buffering ourselves against risk. There are a number of approaches we can adopt to achieve this, which I’ll discuss in detail later.

The Resiliency Conundrum. But first let’s talk just a little more about the Resilience conundrum. For virtually any innovation, time and money are tight. Conversely, taking time to anticipate potential failures is often time consuming and expensive. Worse, it rarely adds direct, or at least marketable value. And when it does work, we often don’t see the issues it prevents, we only notice them when resiliency fails. It’s a classic trade off, and one we face at all levels of innovation. For example, when I worked on dishwashing liquids at P&G, a slightly less glamorous field than space exploration, an enormous amount of effort went into maintaining product performance and stability under extreme conditions. Product could be transported in freezing or hot temperatures, and had to work extreme water hardness or softness. These conditions weren’t typical, but they were possible. But the cost of protecting these outliers was often disproportionately high.

And there again lies the trade off. Design in too much resiliency, and we are become inefficient and/or uncompetitive. But too little, and we risk a catastrophic failure like the Takata airbags. We need to find a sweet spot. And finding it is still further complicated because we are entering an era of innovation and disruption where we are making rapid changes to multiple systems in parallel. Climate change is driving major structural change in energy, transport and agriculture, and advances in computing are changing how those systems are managed. With dishwashing, we made changes to the formula, but the conditions of use remained fairly constant, meaning we were pretty good at extrapolating what the product would have to navigate. The same applies with the Webb telescope, where conditions at the Lagrange point have not changed during the lifetime of the project. We typically have a more complex, moving target.

Low Carbon Energy. Much of the core innovation we are pursuing today is interdependent. As an example, consider energy. Simply replacing hydrocarbons with, for example, solar, is far more complex than simply swapping one source of energy for another. It impacts the whole energy supply system. Where and how it links into our grid, how we store it, unpredictable power generation based on weather, how much we can store, maintenance protocols, and how quickly we can turn up or down the supply are just a few examples. We also create new feedback loops, as variables such as weather can impact both power generation and power usage concurrently. But we are not just pursuing solar, but multiple alternatives, all of which have different challenges. And concurrent to changing our power source, we are also trying to switch automobiles and transport in general from hydrocarbons to electric power, sourced from the same solar energy. This means attempting significant change in both supply and a key usage vector, changing two interdependent variables in parallel. Simply predicting the weather is tricky, but adding it to this complex set of interdependent variables makes surprises inevitable, and hence dialing in the right degree of resilience pretty challenging.

The Grass is Always Greener: And even if we anticipate all of that complexity, I strongly suspect, we’ll see more, rather than less surprises than we expect. One lesson I’ve learned and re-learned in innovation is that the grass is always greener. We don’t know what we don’t know, in part because we cannot see the weeds from a distance. The devil often really is in the details, and there is nothing like moving from theory to practice, or from small to large scale to ferret out all of the nasty little problems that plague nearly every innovation, but that are often unfathomable when we begin. Finding and solving these is an inherent part of virtually any innovation process, but it usually adds time and cost to the process. There are reasons why more innovations take longer than expected than are delivered ahead of schedule!

It’s an exciting, but also perilous time to be innovating. But ultimately this is all manageable. We have a lot of smart people working on these problems, and so most of the obvious challenges will have contingencies. We don’t have the relative time and budget of the Webb Space Telescope, and so we’ll inevitably hit a few unanticipated bumps, and we’ll never get everything right. But there are some things we can do to tip the odds in our favor, and help us find those sweet spots.

Plan for over capacity during transitions. If possible, don’t shut down old supply chins until the new ones are fully established. If that is not possible, stockpile heavily as a buffer during the transition. This sounds obvious, but it’s often a hard sell, as it can be a significant expense. Building inventory or capacity of an old product we don’t really want to sell, and leaving it in place as we launch doesn’t excite anybody, but the cost of not having a buffer can be catastrophic.
In complex systems, know the weakest link, and focus resilience planning on it. Whether it’s a shortage of refills for a new device, packaging for a new product, or charging stations for an EV, innovation is only as good as its weakest link. This sounds obvious, but our bias is to focus on the difficult, core and most interesting parts of innovation, and pay less attention to peripherals. I’ve known a major consumer project be held up for months because of a problem with a small plastic bottle cap, a tiny part of a much bigger project. This means looking at resilience across the whole innovation, the system it operates in and beyond. It goes without saying that the network of compatible charging stations needs to precede any major EV rollout. But never forget, the weakest link may not be within our direct control. We recently had a bunch of EV’s stranded in Vegas because a huge group of left an event at a time when it was really hot. The large group overwhelmed our charging stations, and the high temperatures meant AC use limited the EV’s range, requiring more charging. It’s a classic multivariable issue where two apparently unassociated triggers occur at once. And that is a case where the weakest link is visible. If we are not fully vertically integrated, resilience may require multiple sources or suppliers to protect against potential failure points we are not aware of, just to protect us against things we cannot control.
Avoid over optimization too early. It’s always tempting to squeeze as much cost out of innovation prior to launch. But innovation by its very nature disrupts a market, and creates a moving target. It triggers competitive responses, changes in consumer behavior, supply chain, and raw material demand. If we’ve optimized to the point of removing flexibility, this can mean trouble. Of course, some optimization is always needed as part of the innovation process, but nailing it down too tightly and too early is often a mistake. I’ve lost count of the number of initiatives I’ve seen that had to re-tool or change capacity post launch at a much higher cost than if they’d left some early flexibility and fine-tuned once the initial dust had settled.
Design for the future, not the now. Again this sounds obvious, but we often forget that innovation takes time, and that, depending upon our cycle-time, the world may be quite different when we are ready to roll out than it was when we started. Again, Webb has an advantage here, as the Lagrange point won’t have changed much even in the years the project has been active. But our complex, interconnected world is moving very quickly, especially at a systems level, and so we have to build in enough flexibility to account for that.
Run test markets or real world experiments if at all possible. Again comes with trade offs, but no simulation or lab test beats real world experience. Whether its software, a personal care product, or a solar panel array, the real world will throw challenges at us we didn’t anticipate. Some will matter, some may not, but without real world experience we will nearly always miss something. And the bigger our innovation, generally the more we miss. Sometimes we need to slow down to move fast, and avoid having to back track.
Engage devils advocates. The more interesting or challenging an innovation is, the easier it is to slip into narrow focus, and miss the big picture. Nobody loves having people from ‘outside’ poke holes in the idea they’ve been nurturing for months or years, but that external objectiveness is hugely valuable, together with different expertise, perspectives and goals. And cast the net as wide as possible. Try to include people from competing technologies, with different goals, or from the broad surrounding system. There’s nothing like a fierce competitor, or people we disagree with to find our weaknesses and sharpen an idea. Welcome the naysayers, and listen to them. Just because they may have a different agenda doesn’t mean the issues they see don’t exist.

Of course, this is all a trade off. I started this with the brilliant Webb Space telescope, which is amazing innovation with extraordinary resilience, enabled by an enormous budget and a great deal or time and resource. As we move through the coming years we are going to be attempting innovation of at least comparable complexity on many fronts, on a far more planetary scale, and with far greater implications if we get it wrong. Resiliency was a critical part of the Webb Telescopes success. But with stakes as high as they are with much of today’s innovation, I passionately believe we need to learn from that. And a lot of us can contribute to building that resiliency. It’s easy to think of Carbon neutral energy, EV’s, or AI as big, isolated innovations. But in reality they comprise and interface with many, many sub-projects. That’s a lot of innovation, a lot of complexity, a lot of touch-points, a lot of innovators, and a lot of potential for surprises. A lot of us will be involved in some way, and we can all contribute. Resiliency is certainly not a new concept for innovation, but given the scale, stakes and implications of what we are attempting, we need it more than ever.

Image Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, and STScl

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

Innovative Strategies for Crisis Management

Leave a reply

Innovative Strategies for Crisis Management

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In today’s rapidly changing landscape, organizations must be equipped with effective strategies for crisis management. The ability to navigate a crisis not only determines the survival of a company but can also set the foundation for future success. Innovative thinking becomes crucial here. Let’s explore some key strategies and real-world examples of organizations that have excelled in crisis management.

Strategy 1: Embrace Agility

An agile approach allows organizations to respond quickly and efficiently to crises. This involves having flexible processes and empowering teams to make swift decisions. A culture of agility encourages constant evaluation and immediate action, which can significantly reduce the impact of unforeseen challenges.

Case Study: Airbnb’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Airbnb experienced a major crisis as travel restrictions meant a significant drop in bookings. Instead of succumbing to the challenges, Airbnb embraced agility by pivoting their business model:

They introduced online experiences as a way to engage their community and support hosts. This strategic move not only provided a new revenue stream but also strengthened their brand by showing resilience and adaptability.

Strategy 2: Foster Transparent Communication

During a crisis, transparent and consistent communication is vital to maintaining trust among stakeholders. Organizations should aim to provide accurate information and manage expectations effectively. Clear communication minimizes panic and keeps all parties aligned.

Case Study: Johnson & Johnson’s Handling of the 1982 Tylenol Crisis

In 1982, Johnson & Johnson faced a severe crisis when their Tylenol products were tampered with, leading to consumer deaths. Their handling of the situation stands as a textbook example of crisis management:

They immediately launched a massive communications campaign to inform the public and recalled 31 million bottles of Tylenol, prioritizing customer safety above all. The bold and transparent approach not only mitigated the crisis but also restored public trust.

Strategy 3: Leverage Technology

Utilizing technology can offer innovative solutions during a crisis. Technology can facilitate real-time data analysis, communication, and the automation of processes—allowing organizations to respond swiftly and effectively.

Build a Resilient Community

Involving and supporting the community around your organization can serve as a strong foundation during a crisis. A resilient community stands together, helping not only the organization recover but also supporting each other through challenges.

Conclusion

Crisis management requires a balance of agility, communication, and technological innovation. By studying successful case studies like Airbnb and Johnson & Johnson, we learn the value of proactive strategies that prioritize flexibility, transparency, and community engagement. These elements are crucial to overcoming crises and setting a course for sustainable success.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Strategies for Boosting Employee Engagement

Leave a reply

Strategies for Boosting Employee Engagement

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, employee engagement is more critical than ever. Engaged employees are not just happier, but they are also more productive, more innovative, and more loyal. Yet, fostering genuine engagement is a challenge that requires deliberate strategies and effort.

Understanding Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is not merely about job satisfaction. It’s about creating an emotional commitment to the organization and its goals. Engaged employees understand their role in the bigger picture, feel valued, and are inspired to contribute to organizational success.

Key Strategies for Boosting Engagement

Below are actionable strategies designed to bolster employee engagement within organizations:

Foster Open Communication: Encourage a culture of transparency where employees feel safe to express ideas and concerns. Regularly update teams on company goals and achievements.
Offer Professional Growth Opportunities: Invest in training, mentorship, and development programs. A clear path for advancement engages employees and reduces turnover.
Recognize and Reward Contributions: Create a recognition program to celebrate achievements and show appreciation. Tailor rewards to individual preferences wherever possible.
Cultivate a Positive Work Environment: Ensure a healthy work-life balance, create comfortable workspaces, and promote a supportive and inclusive culture.
Empower Employees: Encourage autonomy and resourcefulness by giving employees ownership of their projects and trusting their judgement.

Case Study 1: Tech Innovators Inc.

At Tech Innovators Inc., a software development company, employee engagement was at an all-time low. High turnover and plummeting morale prompted leadership to take action.

Strategy Implementation:

Open Communication: Introduced bi-weekly town hall meetings and an anonymous digital suggestion box.
Growth Opportunities: Launched a comprehensive skills-building program and clear career progression plans.

Results: Within six months, the company saw a 30% increase in employee satisfaction scores and a significant reduction in turnover. Employees felt heard and valued, driving a surge in innovative project proposals.

Case Study 2: Green Horizon Solutions

Green Horizon Solutions, an environmental consulting firm, struggled with engagement as employees felt their efforts went unnoticed.

Strategy Implementation:

Recognition and Rewards: Developed a ‘Horizon Heroes’ monthly recognition program, where peer-nominated employees receive awards.
Positive Work Environment: Improved workspaces with ergonomic furniture and introduced wellness sessions, including yoga and mindfulness practices.

Results: The firm achieved an impressive 40% improvement in employee engagement metrics. The newfound positive atmosphere led to increased collaboration and creative solutions, driving business success.

Conclusion

Boosting employee engagement is a multifaceted endeavor that requires commitment from leadership and strategic action. By implementing the aforementioned strategies and adapting them to your organization’s unique culture, you can initiate transformative change that benefits both employees and the organization at large. Remember, engagement is an ongoing journey, and maintaining it demands continuous and conscious effort.

With these strategies, businesses can cultivate an engaged, motivated workforce, ultimately fostering a thriving organizational environment.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Surfacing Your Hidden Assumptions

Leave a reply

Successful strategy and innovation are about how fast you can become aware of your assumptions.

Surfacing Your Hidden Assumptions

GUEST POST from Soren Kaplan

When it comes to strategy and innovation, success depends on how fast you become aware of your assumptions and then modify them. But it’s a paradox: You can’t see your most fundamental assumptions until you overcome them. This means that you can only understand your mindsets that were barriers retrospectively.

Let’s look at how this works. I have a quick story for you, then a question.

A bus driver was heading down Van Ness Avenue in my hometown of San Francisco. He went through a stop sign without even slowing down, then turned onto a one-way street going the opposite direction as the rest of the traffic. A police officer saw the whole thing but he didn’t stop him or issue a ticket because no laws had been broken. The question for you is this: How can this scenario be possible?

If you answered that the bus driver was walking down the street, you are correct. This is a very simple example to illustrate how we all make assumptions. Most people just assume that a bus driver is always driving a bus. But of course, that’s not the case. The most important part of this exercise isn’t to point out that an assumption may have been made in the first place – it’s only natural to do so. It’s to show that most of us only recognize that we’ve made an assumption after we’ve discovered that our thinking was invalid or that it led us astray. And by then, it can often be “too late.”

Let’s go back to the bus driver for a moment. What if I had framed things up in the scenario a little differently and included another statement up front that said “In San Francisco, people use cars, take the bus, or walk down the street to get where they’re going.” How would this have impacted your assumptions? For most people, the idea that it’s possible the bus driver could be walking down the street would have been planted in their brains as they read the rest of the scenario – and they would have more easily overcome their limiting assumption that bus drivers only drive buses. The goal is to continually broaden your perspective so that you can overcome your assumptions before they limit your options or slow you down.

Here are a couple of tried and true approaches I’ve used to challenge and expand mindsets.

Identify Areas of Intrigue

When it comes to developing your strategy or innovating, get clear on what you need to know and learn. List up to 4-5 topics. Examples might include things like board games children like most, the healthiest yet best tasting desserts, or the most successful social media influencers. For each topic, create a list of guiding questions that, if answered, would really give you a solid understanding of the area. For instance, using the board games children like mostexample, you could come up with questions like: What are the most popular children’s board games? How long do the best games take to play? Do adults usually play with the children? What does it take to win? This exercise will help you better understand what’s most important to further explore so you can broaden your perspective.

Adapt a Business Model

Find a company completely outside of your industry or market and look at what makes them different and what they do really well. Then adapt their model to your cause. Use the format “I want to be the ____________ of ____________” by putting a company name into the first blank and the area of your target market or innovation area into the second blank. For example, if you want to transform the fashion industry, you might try “I want to be the Netflix of fashion”, which could lead you down the path of high-end evening gown rental services like Rent the Runway. Consider companies like Starbucks, Twitter, Domino’s, NIKE, Home Depot, or any other innovative company you can think of.

Your mindsets naturally constrain your ability to consider alternatives and possibilities that go beyond the boundaries of your thinking. Your limiting assumptions can be about personal skills, team knowledge and abilities, organizational capabilities, market needs, technology, financial limitations, partnership possibilities, competition, or just about anything else. The goal is to recognize you hold assumptions and then act to surface them.

As the writer John Seely Brown once said, the harder you fight to hold on to specific assumptions, the more likely there’s gold in letting go of them.

Image credit: Pexels

This article was originally published on Inc.com and has been syndicated for this blog.

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

Strategies for Successfully Communicating Change

Leave a reply

Strategies for Successfully Communicating Change

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Change is a constant in today’s rapidly evolving world. Organizations that thrive are those that effectively communicate change initiatives, ensuring clarity, alignment, and engagement among their stakeholders. As a thought leader in human-centered change and innovation, I aim to equip you with actionable strategies that enhance communication during change initiatives.

Understanding the Importance of Communication in Change

Communication is the lifeline of any successful change initiative. Without it, uncertainty, resistance, and confusion can erode even the best-laid plans. Crafting a compelling narrative around why the change is happening, who it impacts, and what the benefits are is essential to gaining buy-in and reducing resistance.

Strategy 1: Building a Clear and Unified Message

A unified message serves as the foundation of any successful change communication strategy. It’s crucial that everyone from leadership to front-line employees shares the same understanding of the change.

“A unified message creates a clear vision, fosters trust, and drives engagement across all levels of an organization.”

Consider Case Study: Fortune 500 Tech Corporation. When the company decided to pivot its product line to include more cloud-based solutions, they knew a clear message was key. They developed a communication framework that outlined the “why,” “what,” and “how” – why the change was needed, what the new direction entailed, and how it would be implemented. This message was communicated consistently across all teams, through town halls, newsletters, and dedicated intranet hubs. This strategic communication plan ensured everyone was on the same page and minimized confusion and disruption.

Strategy 2: Leveraging Storytelling for Emotional Connection

Studies have shown that humans are hardwired to respond to stories. Communicating change through storytelling helps create a relatable context, making the change more personal and impactful.

In Case Study: Global Retail Chain, when the company began a digital transformation journey, they employed storytelling to connect with employees emotionally. Leaders shared personal stories about how digital tools positively impacted their work-life balance and productivity. By aligning the transformation with real-life benefits, employees became more receptive and enthusiastic about embracing new technologies.

Strategy 3: Engaging Stakeholders Early and Often

Engagement isn’t a one-time activity. Successful change communication thrives on continuous dialogue. Invite feedback, address concerns, and provide regular updates to maintain momentum and build trust.

For instance, the retail chain from our case study conducted monthly feedback sessions, allowing employees to voice concerns and suggest improvements. This continuous engagement built a sense of community and ownership, further smoothing the change process.

Strategy 4: Utilizing Multiple Communication Channels

Diversifying communication methods ensures that messages reach everyone, respecting different preferences and schedules. Use a mix of emails, face-to-face meetings, video updates, and social media to cater to diverse audiences.

In the tech corporation case study, by employing various channels, the company ensured no one was left out. Employees could access information at their convenience, an approach that was particularly beneficial given remote work dynamics.

Strategy 5: Training and Support

Change can be intimidating. Providing adequate training and support empowers employees to adapt more readily and performing effectively in the new environment.

The retail chain implemented comprehensive training sessions focusing on new digital tools, pairing them with ongoing support and mentorship programs. This not only eased the transition but also equipped employees with new skill sets, transforming apprehension into opportunity.

Conclusion

Effective communication isn’t about what you say, but how you make others feel during a change. It’s about creating understanding, reducing fear, and fostering inspiration. By building clear messages, employing storytelling, engaging stakeholders, utilizing diverse channels, and offering support, organizations can transform change from a challenge into an opportunity.

As we’ve seen in the case studies of the Fortune 500 Tech Corporation and the Global Retail Chain, tailored strategies can lead to successful change communications, ultimately leading to sustained growth and innovation.

Let us embrace change not as a disruption, but as an avenue for growth. Stay innovative, stay connected, and continue to propel forward.

Image credit: Pexels

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

A Strategic Approach to Evaluating Innovation Portfolios

Leave a reply

A Strategic Approach to Evaluating Innovation Portfolios

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Innovation is not just about fostering creativity; it is about steering that creativity into a focused, strategic direction. Evaluating innovation portfolios requires a thoughtful balance of risk and strategic alignment to ensure long-term success. In this article, we’ll explore how organizations can effectively manage and evaluate their innovation portfolios to drive sustainable growth. We’ll examine real-world examples to illustrate successful strategies in action.

The Importance of a Balanced Innovation Portfolio

An innovation portfolio should reflect strategic priorities and strike a balance between different types of innovation, such as incremental, adjacent, and disruptive. By doing so, organizations can safeguard their present while investing in their future.

Key Considerations for Evaluating Innovation Portfolios

Evaluating an innovation portfolio goes beyond simply measuring returns; it requires a deeper understanding of alignment with strategic goals, market potential, and resource allocation. Here are some critical factors to consider:

Strategic Alignment: Evaluate how each innovation aligns with overarching business objectives.
Risk and Reward: Assess the balance between high-risk, high-reward projects and safer, incremental innovations.
Resource Allocation: Ensure resources are being effectively deployed across the portfolio.
Stage-Gate Processes: Utilize stage-gate processes to manage project progression and investment decisions.

Case Study 1: 3M’s Diversified Innovation Strategy

3M is a global innovation leader known for its diversified portfolio of over 55,000 products. The company employs a strategic approach to innovation by encouraging a culture of collaboration and cross-pollination between divisions. This strategic alignment allows 3M to balance its portfolio across various sectors, from healthcare to consumer goods.

3M’s stage-gate system is key to its success. It ensures that resources are allocated according to the potential impact and strategic value of each project. By embracing both incremental and breakthrough innovations, 3M has maintained a robust and resilient portfolio capable of driving sustainable growth.

Case Study 2: Google’s Ambitious Moonshot Projects

Google’s innovation strategy includes a focus on ambitious “moonshot” projects through its division, X (formerly Google X). These projects, such as Waymo (self-driving cars) and Loon (internet balloons), exemplify Google’s commitment to high-risk, high-reward innovation.

Google evaluates its portfolio by assessing potential social impact and alignment with its mission to organize the world’s information. While many projects may not succeed, the ones that do often create substantial market shifts. Google’s willingness to take significant risks ensures that its portfolio remains dynamic and capable of redefining entire industries.

Conclusion: A Strategic Framework for Success

Evaluating innovation portfolios is not a one-size-fits-all process. It requires a strategic approach tailored to the organization’s unique goals and constraints. By incorporating elements such as strategic alignment, balanced risk, and effective resource allocation, organizations can build robust innovation portfolios that drive sustainable success.

Both 3M and Google illustrate the power of strategic innovation management. Whether through diversification or moonshot endeavors, their commitment to strategic alignment, risk management, and cultural support for innovation provides a blueprint for others seeking success.

In today’s rapidly changing world, an agile and well-evaluated innovation portfolio is more critical than ever. By adopting a strategic approach, organizations can ensure that they not only survive but thrive in the face of disruption.

Image credit: Freepik

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

Chance to Help Make Futurism and Foresight Accessible

Leave a reply

I’ve been hard at work building all kinds of tools to help innovation, change, transformation and design thinking practitioners be more successful in their jobs.

The number of human-centered tools in the Change Planning Toolkit v13 from the initial fifty (50) to more than SEVENTY.

I also introduced lots of inexpensive tools like the:

$9.99 – Problem Finding Canvas
FREE – Innovation Maturity Assessment
FREE – Visual Project Charter™
FREE – Experiment Canvas™
FREE – ACMP Standard for Change Management® Visualization

And the core of the forthcoming Human-Centered Innovation Toolkit is well underway.

But I’ve also been exploring the very obtuse realm of futurism and foresight and pondering how to make it more accessible to us ordinary humans, and I think I’ve done it!

Chance to Help Make Futurism Accessible

I’ve created a set of TWENTY (20) simple but powerful foresight and futurism tools to power my FutureHacking™ methodology.

To spread them farther and faster I’m looking to partner with a forward-thinking organization to bring them to market.

Does your organization view itself as leading its customers into the future?

Are you looking for an amazing marketing opportunity?

One that would empower thousands of innovation and strategy professionals to do their own foresight and futurism work?

If so, then contact me here and we’ll build a launch plan together that connects your brand to a powerful new FutureHacking™ movement!

FutureHacking Tools Collection

Benefits to you will include, but will not be limited to:

Joint promotion of your brand via my site, social media, email newsletters, etc.
Presence of your logo as a sponsor on the tools and educational assets
Access to the tools for your employees
Other ideas you suggest!

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

Innovation Dashboards Create Real-Time Insights for Strategy

Leave a reply

Innovation Dashboards Create Real-Time Insights for Strategy

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, staying ahead of the competition often boils down to an organization’s ability to innovate better and faster. While numerous tools and strategies are employed in this quest, innovation dashboards have emerged as a critical component for companies aiming to gain real-time insights into their innovation strategy. These dashboards provide a visual representation of key metrics that guide decision-makers in anchoring their ongoing innovation efforts to market demands, internal capabilities, and strategic goals.

Understanding Innovation Dashboards

At its core, an innovation dashboard is a management tool that collates relevant data from various organizational processes, translating them into a consolidated view that highlights the company’s innovation health. These dashboards often include key performance indicators (KPIs) such as idea generation rates, time-to-market statistics, R&D investment effectiveness, portfolio balance, and customer feedback loops.

The primary value of an innovation dashboard is in its ability to present complex data in an easily digestible format. It serves as a navigational tool, not only for innovation managers but for all stakeholders, to track progress, identify bottlenecks, and uncover new opportunities in real-time. Moreover, when used effectively, these dashboards cultivate a culture of transparency and data-driven decision-making, empowering teams to operate at their optimum capacity.

Key Features of an Effective Innovation Dashboard

Real-Time Data Integration: Today’s business decisions demand access to real-time data. An effective innovation dashboard collects data from multiple sources, updating it continuously. This real-time integration allows teams to react swiftly to changing market conditions and internal project developments.
Customizable and Scalable: Every organization is unique with varying strategic goals and industry challenges. Therefore, a dashboard should be adaptable, offering customization to fit different parameters relevant to diverse teams and scalable to grow alongside the organization.
Predictive Analytics: Beyond just presenting historical data, powerful innovation dashboards leverage predictive analytics to forecast trends, identify potential new markets or areas for innovation, and optimize resource allocation.
Intuitive User Interface: An intuitive and user-friendly interface encourages widespread adoption across the organization. The easier it is to interpret the information, the more likely it is that team members will utilize the dashboard in their daily decision-making.

Case Study 1: Tech Innovator Amplifies R&D with Dashboards

Consider a leading technology innovator, TechNova Inc., which faced challenges correlating its R&D efforts with market success. It found itself tangled in intricate, siloed research projects with little visibility into overall portfolio performance. By implementing an innovation dashboard customized to their particular needs, they embarked on an insightful transformation.

Implementation Highlights:

Data Transparency: By incorporating data from their R&D labs, customer feedback platforms, and market intelligence sources, the innovation dashboard enabled cross-functional teams to view consistent data sets. This data transparency encouraged collaboration and coherence across departments.
Balanced Portfolio Management: The dashboard’s real-time insights allowed TechNova to maintain an appropriate balance between incremental innovations and disruptive technologies. The visuals made it easier for executives to spot gaps or overinvestment in particular areas.
Improved Time-to-Market: With clearer oversight, TechNova trimmed average project times significantly by identifying bottlenecks early in the process. This agility in product development translated into timely market entries and higher product success rates.

Outcome: TechNova saw a 30% increase in successful product launches and positioned itself as a market leader, delivering what customers didn’t even know they needed. The dashboard became a key component of TechNova’s strategic playbook, fostering a culture of continuous innovation.

Case Study 2: Retail Leader Revitalizes Customer-Centric Innovation

On the other hand, let’s look at RetailMax, a global retail chain renowned for its rapid-response supply chain strategy. Despite its success, RetailMax struggled to translate customer insights into groundbreaking innovations. They resorted to an innovation dashboard tailored to focus on customer feedback and market trend analytics.

Implementation Highlights:

Customer Insight Integration: RetailMax used their dashboard to amalgamate customer interactions, reviews, and feedback from both in-store experiences and e-commerce channels. Real-time sentiment analysis helped the company stay attuned to customer expectations.
Trend Identification and Action: RetailMax employed the dashboard’s predictive analytics to unveil latent market trends before they fully materialized. This predictive capability empowered them to shape consumer behavior through targeted innovative offerings.
Operational Streamlining: The dashboard’s ‘idea funnel’ visualization helped RetailMax streamline its innovation process from concept to delivery, allowing them to focus resources on high-potential ideas that aligned with emerging customer needs.

Outcome: As a result of the strategic insights provided by the dashboard, RetailMax launched a series of successful customer-centric initiatives. Their ability to quickly tailor offerings to evolving consumer preferences solidified their place as a top choice for trend-savvy shoppers, boosting their market share and customer loyalty.

Conclusion

Innovation dashboards are not just technical tools; they are transformational catalysts. By leveraging these dashboards, organizations, irrespective of their size or industry sector, can foster a more informed, agile approach to innovation. They bring together disparate data points into a cohesive narrative, guiding strategic decisions that can propel a company toward sustained value creation and competitive advantage.

In a world where the pace of change is relentless, an innovation dashboard stands as a beacon for forward-thinking companies, illuminating the path to meaningful innovation. By investing in these real-time insight platforms, organizations position themselves to not only keep up with the rapid pace of market changes but to lead with confidence and foresight in the unfolding future.

Image credit: Pexels

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

A Guide to Organizing Innovation

2 Replies

A Guide to Organizing Innovation

GUEST POST from Jesse Nieminen

I recently read a couple of excellent articles by Nick Skillicorn, and Prof. Rita McGrath where both discuss the challenges and intricacies involved in structuring and governing innovation within a large organization.

This is a classic topic that every corporate innovator has without a doubt come across, and it’s also one where “the right approach” is often quite elusive.

Inspired by those articles, we’ll present the most common archetypes and then dig a little deeper on the topic and share our thoughts and experiences to help you figure out how innovation should be structured within your organization.

Why organizing innovation is challenging

Before we dive into the different models for governing and organizing innovation, it’s important to understand why this is such a challenging topic to begin with.

That’s of course quite a lengthy and nuanced topic, but in short, there is no such thing as a perfect organizational structure or governance model. The bottom line is that a large organization is simply such a complex entity that structuring everything perfectly so that there aren’t any kind of bottlenecks, misaligned incentives, or any duplication of work just isn’t very realistic. If you’ve ever worked in large organization, you’ve certainly come across some of these challenges.

Now, most of these challenges are likely to be worse with innovation than with “business as usual” as, by definition, innovation means introducing changes. And most organizations simply aren’t designed for constant change.

What’s more, businesses are naturally very different from one another. A structure that works for a single product software company probably isn’t ideal for a CPG manufacturer or a house of brands because not only are their industries different, so are the innovations they are going after. So, what works well for some organization probably won’t be ideal for you.

This means that benchmarking and then applying “best practices” likely won’t work too well. Unfortunately, there just isn’t a single correct way to organize innovation.

Exploring the organizational archetypes for innovation

Having said that, there are a handful of common approaches, which we like to call archetypes, that most organizations use as the foundation for their efforts to organize and govern innovation.

Both McGrath and Skillicorn have done an excellent job in presenting many of these approaches, so a lot of credit for the following descriptions goes to them and I’d warmly recommend you read their takes too. Regardless, we’ve summarized their main points and combined them with our own experiences to create the following archetypes.

We’ll next explain each of these briefly, along with a quick summary of the key strengths and weaknesses for each.

External Innovation Organizational Model

No in-house innovation

The first and simplest way to organize innovation is to not do it, or to completely outsource it. Perhaps the most common method here is to simply keep tabs on promising startups and then acquire them, or to have tight collaboration with universities and other research institutions.

While this obviously keeps things simple organization-wise and minimizes fixed costs, it also means that you no longer have control over your own destiny, and are instead reliant on third parties, which puts you in a very vulnerable position long term. Furthermore, in the last decade, we’ve seen a huge inflow of capital to fund startups, which means that valuations for promising startups have skyrocketed and acquiring them on the cheap is simply no longer a very feasible strategy.

Suffice to say, if you want to build an organization that thrives in the long run, I wouldn’t recommend this approach.

Pros

Low fixed costs
Structurally simple

Cons

Lack of strategic control and ability to build the future of the organization
Lack of differentiation
Reliance on third parties for both execution and especially exploration
Acquisition of promising innovations has become expensive

Centralized Innovation Organizational Model

Centralized

Perhaps the most common way large organizations set up innovation is by creating a centralized department that serves the innovation needs of the entire organization including each business unit and support functions, such as IT or HR. This can be a subdivision within R&D, but these days it’s typically a separate cross-departmental unit serving the innovation needs of business units.

Either way, such a unit is quick and easy to set up, and the approach has some other obvious advantages too, such as innovation expertise being built and managed centrally, which speeds up learning, as well as management and reporting being easy to organize.

It’s these advantages that make centralization the obvious choice for many who are just starting out with innovation. This is also an especially common approach for large industrial companies that typically have a strong R&D tradition.

If all of the innovation has to go through a single team, that team will inevitably become a bottleneck for innovation, no matter how skilled or large it is.

However, in the long run, this approach is also one that is likely to significantly limit your innovation potential. The reason is simple: if all of the innovation has to go through a single team, that team will inevitably become a bottleneck for innovation. No matter how large or skilled the team, they’ll never have enough resources. What’s more, this will also disincentivize everyone else in the organization from innovating and that prevents you from creating a true culture of innovation.

Pros

Quick, easy, and cheap to set up
Dedicated resources for working on innovation
Easy to govern, manage, and report on the overall innovation portfolio
Centralization can speed up learning

Cons

Poor scalability as centralized team will inevitably become a bottleneck for innovation
Likely to be pulled into too many projects, which leads to poor execution
High risk of degenerating into a support function serving business unit requests instead of strategically building the future of the organization
Likely to disincentivize others in the organization from innovating
Conflicting interests between business units can make prioritization difficult
Typically lack authority to make important, hard decisions

Dedicated Innovation Organizational Model

Dedicated

Popularized by Clayton Christensen as a solution to the Innovators’s Dilemma, dedicated business units for innovation have become increasingly popular in large organizations that are looking for the next stage of their growth. Sometimes these units have proper P&L responsibility, and they might even report directly to the CEO or others in senior management, but at times they can also be innovation labs responsible primarily for testing and piloting new ideas before they are to be integrated into the core business.

Regardless of the particularities, these approaches have some specific strengths, but also clear weaknesses. The good thing is that because the unit is independent, it can usually avoid being held back by the restrictions of the business as usual and can build their talent and approaches from scratch.

If innovation is the job of a select few, it will be incredibly hard to build a pro-innovation culture.

The downside is that they also don’t necessarily play to the strengths that the organization has already built. Without strong and clear leadership, these kinds of innovation efforts are likely to have an equally poor success rate as your average startup – but without the asymmetric upside.

The reason is simple: if you already have hundreds of millions or billions in revenue, most new businesses just don’t move the needle enough – unless they can quickly grow to a massive size or be combined with the strengths and competitive advantages of the core business.

And just like with the centralized model, this model again limits innovation to one part of the organization. As before, that will likely prevent you from creating a true culture of innovation, and thus lead to the unit becoming a bottleneck down the road.

Pros

Freedom to operate independently from processes of existing business units, which is essential for trying new things and creating disruptive innovations
Ability to hire and organize specifically for innovation
If led well, ability to focus on the long-term instead of short-term performance
High profile innovation unit can also be used for marketing and employer branding purposes

Cons

Conflicts of interest and lack of cooperation between core business and innovation unit likely to lead to politics, tension, and other challenges in integrating innovations into core business
Independence and lack of communication between business units might hurt strategic alignment and prevent the innovation unit from benefiting from the existing strengths of the organization
Can easily degenerate into a cost center performing innovation theaterwithout a clear strategic focus, strong leadership, and evidence-based processes
Likely to disincentivize innovation in other parts of the organization and thus prevent the creation of an innovation culture
High initial investment with lots of uncertainty can make the business case for investing in innovation look bad

Embedded Innovation Organizational Model

Embedded

Many organizations have relatively independent business units or product and brand teams, and for them it can often make sense for innovation to be embedded within these units.

Traditional examples of such an approach are companies like P&G and other CPG companies with strong brands. These companies are working hard to keep up to date with evolving trends and consumer needs to innovate and create new products for the consumer. However, the same can also be true for many other kinds of businesses, such as software companies with multiple products.

Depending on the industry and organization, these units might have varying levels of control over their innovations once they are on the market. For example, in CPG companies manufacturing, logistics and many other functions would likely be managed by core business operations instead of this unit.

Pros

Better able to focus innovation on things that matter for each business, be they strategic projects or emerging customer needs
More control over innovation resources and ability to get talent that meets specific needs
Parallelization over different units can increase innovation throughput of the organization overall
Easier to align innovation with business needs and plans within the unit
The business case for investing in innovation is typically easy to make as you can start from low-hanging fruits that provide immediate value

Cons

Innovation likely to be biased towards more applied and incremental projects due to focus on immediate business needs
Some efforts may be duplicated between teams, especially if more long-term R&D work is being done
Can lead to a silo-effect, extra need to focus on facilitating knowledge transfer between units

Ambidextrous Innovation Organizational Model

Ambidextrous

Our fifth approach is usually referred to as the ambidextrous organization. We’ve also seen it be referred to as the Hybrid model, and it’s quite a natural evolution from the previous archetypes as it seeks to combine the best of both worlds.

In a nutshell, the idea is that innovation should happen across the organization with existing business units focused on exploiting their current position through incremental innovation, and a separate dedicated unit being responsible for exploring and building the future of the organization through more radical or disruptive innovation.

In the ambidextrous model, existing units use incremental innovation to exploit the current position and new units are set up to explore and build future.

In practice, a new P&L responsible division will be setup for new non-core businesses, and the more incremental innovation will then be organised either as Embedded or Centralized.

If an organization does successfully implement such an approach, it can lead to exceptional long-term performance, but that’s of course easier said than done. For most organizations, this is likely to require a significant transformation, and it can be challenging to get everyone onboard, build the right processes, as well as to align goals and incentives the right way across the organization.

Pros

Easier to build a balanced innovation portfolio with both strong short and long-term performance
Enables building an innovation-oriented culture across the organization
Enough resources for key projects across the organization
Makes it easier to communicate the innovation strategy with clear roles and responsibilities for each part of the organization
Can customize governance models to meet the needs of different types of innovation in different parts of the organization

Cons

Expensive and difficult to build, as well as to maintain
Requires clear leadership and a commitment to a transformation from the top
Can demotivate innovation-oriented employees that are in the core business
Usually requires extensive changes to processes and the re-skilling of managers and employees across the organization
While easier than with most other models on paper, prioritization and division of responsibilities can still be challenging in practice

Decentralized Innovation Organization

Decentralized

Our final model is the decentralized approach. If you look at any of the best innovators in the world, be it Apple, Tesla, SpaceX, or Amazon, this is closest to the model they use. None of these organizations has a centralized or dedicated team responsible for all innovation in the organization.

Instead, the organization decentralizes the responsibility for innovation to happen in individual teams (which are typically cross-functional and relatively small) across the organization. Each team is focused on figuring out how they could help the organization better reach their strategic goals, and innovation is just one of the key tools in that process.

If a team (or an individual leader or employee) comes across a big idea that shows promise but would require significant additional investments, they’ll apply for additional resources from management via a quick and streamlined process. If approved, that typically leads to another team being set up to pursue that idea.

This approach is sometimes called the permissionless model due to the significant freedom each team possesses to make decisions affecting their own work. The obvious advantages are that they usually know the problems intimately and have the resources, incentive, and know-how to solve them, and have fewer dependencies to other parts of the organization. That leads to an extremely high pace of innovation and innovation throughput for the organization, which together create a tremendous competitive advantage.

Loosely Coupled vs Tightly Coupled Organization

Having said that, this too isn’t exactly an easy model to implement for most organizations. Typically, this would require a fundamentally different mindset, leadership philosophy, and a significantly higher talent density. For the average organization, that means a full-blown transformation where most fundamentals in the organization would need to change, which of course isn’t feasible for many.

Pros

Extremely high throughput and pace of innovation
Ability to adapt, re-organize and meet changing demands quickly
Strong focus on execution and value creation
Clear roles and responsibilities

Cons

Would require a fundamental transformation for most organizations
Requires strong communication and strategic clarity from management
Active management involvement required to remove barriers and to organize teams so that the portfolio remains balanced
Requires high talent density across the organization, which can be very challenging to achieve in practice
Continuously evolving and rapidly changing landscape might be too intensive for some employees
Some work often initially duplicated across teams, but can be managed by creating horizontal support teams

Choosing the right approach for your organization

As you can see, every approach has their benefits, but also their disadvantages.

In our experience, the Hybrid and especially Decentralized are the likeliest approaches to lead to sustained levels of high innovation performance in the 21^stcentury but implementing either isn’t exactly a walk in the park for a large organization. If you have the luxury of meeting (or are close to meeting) the prerequisites, these are the models I’d personally go for.

However, for many, that just isn’t the reality. Even if you’re like most organizations and don’t quite have the talent, leadership, or other prerequisites needed for these approaches, I’d keep either the Hybrid or Decentralized approach as your eventual goal to build towards.

Move control and decision-making down in the organization to be able to move faster, make more informed decisions, respond to changes quicker, and to simply innovate more.

However, instead of a major overnight transformation, you should be prepared for a set of smaller, gradual steps that build your capabilities and culture towards that future while solving the current problems with your processes and structures.

Centralization vs Innovation Maturity

While not ideal in theory, in practice the journey towards becoming a mature top innovator typically first leads towards centralization for most incumbent organizations. They need to build their innovation strategy, knowledge and capabilities before they can successfully decentralize and move control and decision-making down in the organization to be able to move faster, make more informed decisions, respond to changes quicker, and to simply innovate more.

With that background, if such an approach is used, it’s crucial that this centralized innovation function understands and embraces their temporary role so that they are willing to relinquish control and power over innovation to others. All too often we see these leaders clinging on to the team, budget and power they’ve built long after it would’ve been in the organizations’ best interest to re-organize.

Best practices for organizing innovation

As we’ve discussed, if you’re planning to make changes to the way you organize innovation, most decisions will depend on your context. Still, there are a few things that are good to keep in mind regardless of the approach you end up choosing. Here’s my top three:

The best innovators continuously evolve

The first, and perhaps the most important point to remember is that the best innovators continuously evolve and improve the way they work. They don’t just pick one organizational structure and go with that forever. Instead, they are constantly looking for ways to re-organize their efforts so that they work on whatever is likely to best help them reach their goals. This is of course one of the fundamental strengths of the Decentralized model but applies to other approaches too.

This is also in line with how the most successful organizations approach re-organizations in general. They don’t just wait until the old structure is burning, they act proactively to position themselves for the future they want to create.

Clear roles and decision-making structures

It’s pretty obvious, but if people don’t know who can make a decision on an idea that they may have, or even who’s responsibility it would fall under, odds are that not a lot of innovation will happen.

The reality is that there will always be some ambiguity and overlap, especially in fast moving environments, but clear roles and decision-making structures are regardless important for an organization that wants to innovate.

If projects or decisions seem to get stuck, or turf battles seem to consistently pop up in your organization, unclear roles and ambiguous decision-making are likely to be the main culprits.

Organize according to strategy and plan for the execution

Again, it might sound obvious, but especially with innovation, the differences can be dramatic. Organization is the link between your strategy and your execution, so make sure it isn’t detached from the realities of what it will take to reach your goals with innovation.

To use a bit of a simplified example, if your strategy is focused on creating new business from emerging disruptive technologies, then the Embedded model probably won’t cut it as your innovators will be kept busy by the priorities from the core business.

How to organize innovation

Plan for the execution, on the other hand means that each team should have the resources and the freedom needed to reach your goals. If, using our previous example, you allocate just a few engineers to the team and then hope that sales will magically turn those technologies into booming businesses, odds are very much against you.

In other words, try to allocate resources so that the team has everything they need to reach their goals. While this sounds super basic, we still see these mistakes frequently when innovation is a bit of an afterthought for management.

Conclusion

As is probably evident by now, no structure or approach to governing innovation is ever going to be perfect, at least for long. As your goals change or your business and industry keep evolving, you will need to change and evolve too.

Even though organizing innovation doesn’t seem to get the same kind of attention as innovation strategy or culture, it’s extremely important, nevertheless. Get it wrong, and it will be almost impossible for your organization to succeed at innovation. Get it right, and you’ll at the very least have a realistic shot at that.

Hopefully this article has provided you with more thoughts on the topic, and some views on what to do and not-to-do.

This article was originally published in Viima’s blog.

Image credits: Unsplash, Viima, Nick Skillicorn

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