strategy+businessFOrtHCOMinG in issue 65 WINTER 2011THE GLOBAL INNOVATION 1000Why Culture Is KeyBooz & Company’s annual st...
features innovation                      1
THE GLOBAL INNOVATION 1000                                           Why Culture                                          ...
Barry Jaruzelski                  John Loehr                        Richard Holman                    Also contributing to...
Exhibit 1: The Alignment AdvantageOnly 44 percent of companies surveyed have both highly aligned culturesand highly aligne...
Profiling the                                              Exhibit A: R&D and Sales                                       ...
Exhibit B: Change in R&D                                       percent of the total. With 2010 rev-          Exhibit C: 20...
Exhibit D: The Innovation Top 20                      Roche Holding claimed the number one spot among the top 20 spenders ...
(continued from page 6)                  Exhibit E: Change in R&D                           the rest of the world — contin...
SUCCESSFUL TECH DRIVERS MUST                                         STRIKE THE PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN                    ...
can be seen clearly at HP Labs, the company’s central                         agenda is very basic research looking 10 yea...
The 10                                    Exhibit F: The 10 Most Innovative                    19 percent of respondents i...
four most innovative companies, and       Exhibit G: Top 10 Innovators vs.                                 Exhibit H: Need...
The Silicon                               ers is almost exactly the same as in                                            ...
ALTHOUGH THEIR INNOVATION STRATEGIES                                        MAY DIFFER, COMPANIES LIKE AGILENT,           ...
Booz co global-innovation-1000-2011-culture-key
Booz co global-innovation-1000-2011-culture-key
Booz co global-innovation-1000-2011-culture-key
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Booz co global-innovation-1000-2011-culture-key


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Booz co global-innovation-1000-2011-culture-key

  1. 1. strategy+businessFOrtHCOMinG in issue 65 WINTER 2011THE GLOBAL INNOVATION 1000Why Culture Is KeyBooz & Company’s annual study shows thatspending more on R&D won’t drive results.The most crucial factors are strategic alignmentand a culture that supports baRRy jaRuzElskI, johN loEhR,aNd RIchaRd holmaNpreprint 11404
  2. 2. features innovation 1
  3. 3. THE GLOBAL INNOVATION 1000 Why Culture Is Key BOOZ & COMPANY’S features innovation ANNUAL STUDY SHOWS THAT SPENDING MORE ON R&D WON’T DRIVE RESULTS. THE MOST CRUCIAL FACTORS ARE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT BY AND A CULTURE BARRY JARUZELSKI, THAT SUPPORTS JOHN LOEHR, AND RICHARD HOLMAN INNOVATION. 2 The elements that make up a truly innovative com- panies with unsupportive cultures and poor strategic pany are many: a focused innovation strategy, a win- alignment significantly underperform their competi- ning overall business strategy, deep customer insight, tors. Moreover, most executives understand what’s at great talent, and the right set of capabilities to achieve stake and what matters, even if their companies don’t successful execution. More important than any of the always seem to get it right. Across the board, for ex- individual elements, however, is the role played by cor- ample, respondents identified “superior product per- porate culture — the organization’s self-sustaining pat- formance” and “superior product quality” as their top terns of behaving, feeling, thinking, and believing — in strategic goals. And they asserted that their two mostIllustration by Leandro Castelao tying them all together. Yet according to the results of important cultural attributes were “strong identification this year’s Global Innovation 1000 study, only about with the consumer/customer experience” and a “pas- half of all companies say their corporate culture robustly sion/pride in products.” supports their innovation strategy. Moreover, about the These assertions were confirmed by innovation ex- same proportion say their innovation strategy is inad- ecutives we interviewed for the study. Fred Palensky, ex- equately aligned with their overall corporate strategy. ecutive vice president of research and development and This disconnect, as the saying goes, is both a prob- chief technology officer (CTO) at innovation leader 3M lem and an opportunity. Our data shows that com- Company, for example, puts it this way: “Our goal is to
  4. 4. Barry Jaruzelski John Loehr Richard Holman Also contributing to this article were s+b contributing editor is a partner with Booz & is a Booz & Company partner is a principal with Booz & Edward H. Baker and Booz Company in Florham Park, based in the firm’s Chicago Company based in Florham & Company senior associate N.J., and is the global leader office. He specializes in help- Park, N.J. He is a leader of Marc Johnson. of the firm’s innovation prac- ing automotive, industrial, and the firm’s innovation practice, tice and its engineered prod- aerospace companies reach a specializing in fields with ucts and services business. He position of product and market highly engineered products, works with high-tech and leadership through a combina- such as aerospace, industrial, industrial clients on corporate tion of product strategy and and high tech. and product strategy, product functional restructuring. development efficiency and effectiveness, and the trans- formation of core innovation processes. include the voice of the customer at the basic research the ways R&D managers and corporate decision mak- level and throughout the product development cycle, ers think about their new products and services — and to enable our technical people to actually see how their how they feel about intangibles such as risk, creativity,features innovation technologies work in various market conditions.” openness, and collaboration — are critical for success. If more companies could gain traction in closing As part of this year’s study, we surveyed almost 600 in- both the strategic alignment and culture gaps to better novation leaders in companies around the world, large realize these goals and attributes, not only would their and small, in every major industry sector. As noted, al- financial performance improve, but the data suggests most half of the companies reported inadequate strate- that the potential gains might be large enough to im- gic alignment and poor cultural support for their inno- prove the overall growth rate of the global economy. vation strategies. Possibly even more surprising, nearly To that end, we continue to emphasize the key 20 percent of companies said they didn’t have a well- finding that our Global Innovation 1000 study of the defined innovation strategy at all. world’s biggest spenders on research and development Understanding these issues is particularly impor- has reaffirmed in each of the past seven years: There is tant now that innovation spending is on the rise again. no statistically significant relationship between financial After last year’s 3.5 percent drop in global innovation performance and innovation spending, in terms of either spending, the first-ever decline shown in the data we total R&D dollars or R&D as a percentage of revenues. have tracked for more than a decade, R&D outlays 32 3 Many companies — notably, Apple — consistently un- have recovered. Spending among the Global Innovation derspend their peers on R&D investments while out- 1000 surged 9.3 percent in 2010, thanks in great part to performing them on a broad range of measures of cor- the perception of a worldwide economic recovery. (See porate success, such as revenue growth, profit growth, “Profiling the Global Innovation 1000,” page 5.) margins, and total shareholder return. Meanwhile, en- tire industries, such as pharmaceuticals, continue to de- The Alignment Gap vote relatively large shares of their resources to innova- Issues of culture have long been of great concern to tion, yet end up with much less to show for it than they corporate executives and management theorists alike, — and their shareholders — might hope for. whether they apply to companies as a whole or to se- Last year, we looked at the innovation capability lected areas such as innovation. The reason is obvious: sets companies put together, how they vary by innova- Culture matters, enormously. Studies have shown again tion strategy, and which groups of capabilities can best and again that there may be no more critical source of strategy+business issue 65 enable companies to outperform their peers. This year, business success or failure than a company’s culture — we took a different vantage point, analyzing the ways it trumps strategy and leadership. That isn’t to say that that critical organizational systems and cultural attri- strategy doesn’t matter, but rather that the particular butes support those capability sets that are most likely strategy a company employs will succeed only if it is sup- to promote innovation success. The results suggest that ported by the appropriate cultural attributes. So when
  5. 5. Exhibit 1: The Alignment AdvantageOnly 44 percent of companies surveyed have both highly aligned culturesand highly aligned innovation strategies, and it pays off in performance:They outperform on growth in both profits and enterprise value. Innovation Strategy and Cultural Alignment Matrix HIGH 9% Cultural Support for Innovation Strategy 44% we approached the topic of culture in the context of in- novation for this year’s study, our primary goals were MODERATE HIGH to determine which cultural attributes were most criti- features title of the article features innovation ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT cal to underpinning the focused capability sets required for each distinct innovation strategy that we have previ- ously identified. 27% 20% The results are clear — and may explain why many companies have difficulty making their substantial LOW MODERATE R&D investments pay off. Overall, 36 percent of all re- LOW ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT spondents to our survey admitted that their innovation LOW Alignment of Business Strategy to Innovation Strategy HIGH strategy is not well aligned to their company’s overall strategy, and 47 percent said their company’s culture does not support their innovation strategy. Not surpris- Gross Profit Enterprise Value Indexed mean of normalized Indexed mean of normalized ingly, companies saddled with both poor alignment and 5-year CAGR 5-year CAGR poor cultural support perform at a much lower level 56 AVERAGE ACROSS ALL than well-aligned companies. In fact, companies with COMPANIES AVERAGE ACROSS ALL 48 51 both highly aligned cultures and highly aligned innova- COMPANIES 49 33 4 45 tion strategies have 30 percent higher enterprise value 44 growth and 17 percent higher profit growth than com- 42 43 panies with low degrees of alignment. (See Exhibit 1.) On the other hand, companies whose strategic goals are clear, and whose cultures strongly support those goals, possess a huge advantage. 3M is a case in point. Palensky articulates his company’s innovation strategy clearly: “We call it ‘customer-inspired inno- vation.’ Connect with the customer, find out their ar- ticulated and unarticulated needs, and then determine the capability at 3M that can be developed across the company that could solve that customer’s problem in a unique, proprietary, and sustainable way.” Culture plays a critical role in this strategy, says LOW MODERATE HIGH LOW MODERATE HIGH Palensky. “For over 100 years, 3M has had a culture ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT of interdependence, collaboration, even codependence.Source: Booz & Company Our businesses are all interdependent and collaborative-
  6. 6. Profiling the Exhibit A: R&D and Sales R&D spending rose 9.3 percent in 2010, increase in R&D spending in 2010, especially in certain industries and Global Innovation returning to its long-term trajectory after 2009’s recession-induced decline. among larger companies, confirms these companies’ continued willing- 1000 1997 base year = 1.0 3.0 ness to invest in new and improved R&D Spending products and services to respond W 2.5 orldwide R&D spending to ever more competitive markets Sales among the Global Inno- 2.0 around the world. Fully 68 percent vation 1000 rose at an annual rate 1.5 of companies increased spending in of 9.3 percent to US$550 billion in 2010, compared with just 41 percent 1.0 2010, rebounding strongly from its R&D Spending in 2009. as a % of Sales recession-induced decline in 2009 0.5 R&D spending grew in all nine — which had been the first fall in the sectors we track, but the comput- more than 10 years of data we have 2000 ’05 ’10 ing and electronics, healthcare, and studied. This year’s total spend- automotive sectors contributed the Source: Booz & Company ing was also 5.6 percent above the vast majority of the increase — 77 pre-recession total of $521 billion in crease in corporate revenues, but percent, or $36.1 billion — of thefeatures innovation 2008, marking a return to the long- this difference was logical, given total increase of $46.8 billion. (See term growth trajectory for innova- that most companies had not cut Exhibit B.) The biggest absolute in- tion spending. (See Exhibit A.) innovation spending in 2009 to the crease in R&D spending was in the The 2010 increase in R&D same extent that they suffered de- computing and electronics sector, spending was less than the Global creases in revenues and cut other which remained the top spender Innovation 1000’s 15 percent in- expense areas that year. Thus, the among all industries, making up 28 ly connected to each other, across geographies, across companies strongly agree on the strategic goals that businesses, and across industries. The key is culture.” matter most in achieving innovation success: “Superior Despite their differences in performance, most product performance” and “superior product quality” were ranked number one or two by a plurality of more Exhibit 2: Top Innovation Goals than 40 percent of all respondents. Other goals, such as Superior product performance and product quality were seen as the most “developing low-cost products” and “speed-to-market,” 34 5 important goals by a plurality of innovators, with much less priority for were given much lower priority. (See Exhibit 2.) other goals, such as the success rate of new products. Similarly, companies agree strongly on the cultural Perceived Importance of Common Innovation Goals/Outcomes attributes that are most prevalent at their companies. Superior product performance More than 60 percent cited “strong identification with the customer” as among the top two, and 50 percent Superior product quality chose “passion for and pride in products.” The lowest Products customized to local markets and geographies ranked was “tolerance for failure in the innovation pro- Advantaged products and services cess.” (See Exhibit 3.) This finding, which contradicts Developing low-cost products some of the academic research on the subject, raises se- Products developed for multiple markets rious questions about companies’ real appetite for risk Speed-to-market of product taking in their innovation practices. developmentand introduction In general, companies also continue to show a strategy+business issue 65 Number of breakthrough products range of significant gaps in how their strategic goals and Success rate of new-product introductions cultural attributes contribute to performance and sup- MEAN RANKING OF IMPORTANCE 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 port their innovation. Companies that underperform their peers have much to gain if they can close these Source: Booz & Company gaps and achieve much higher degrees of cultural and
  7. 7. Exhibit B: Change in R&D percent of the total. With 2010 rev- Exhibit C: 2010 SpendingSpending by Industry, 2009–2010 enues up 14.2 percent, the industry by IndustryThe strong growth in 2010 R&D spending was increased spending on innovation Computing and electronics, healthcare, anddominated by gains in computing and auto continue to dominate R&D spending —electronics, healthcare, and auto. by 6.1 percent — to $16.9 billion. For making up 65 percent of the total. the first time in the years we have $US billions Computing and Electronics 28% studied, however, no high-technolo- Healthcare 22% gy company was among the world’s Computing top three spenders on R&D. Other 1% and Electronics $16.9 In healthcare, R&D expendi- tures increased $10.4 billion, or 9 Auto 15% NET SPENDING percent. This was the fastest rate Telecom INCREASE 2% $46.8 among the top three industries in Industrials 10% Consumer Chemicals and Energy 7% 2010, in line with its 9 percent in- 3% Software and Internet 8% Healthcare $10.4 crease in revenues. That kept health- Aerospace and Defense 4% Auto $8.8 care in second place among all in- Industrials $4.5 dustries in terms of its share of total R&D spending, at 22 percent. (See features title of the article features innovation Source: Booz & Company Chemicals and Energy $2.3 Exhibit C.) And thanks to that high Software and Internet $2.2 growth rate, healthcare companies 20. (See Exhibit D, page 7.) For the Telecom $1.3 Aerospace — primarily pharmaceutical firms second year in a row, Roche Hold- and Defense $1.1 — captured four of the top five spots ing Ltd. headed the list, spending Consumer –$0.3 on the overall list of the Global Inno- $9.6 billion of its $45.7 billion in 2010 Other –$0.4 vation 1000, and eight out of the top (continued on page 8)Source: Booz & Companystrategic alignment. We believe the way to do so lies in butes that any given company needs to foster, given itsgaining a greater understanding of the cultural attri- particular innovation strategy. Soma Somasundaram, executive vice president of the Fluid Management seg-Exhibit 3: Top Cultural Attributes ment at the Dover Corporation, describes the challengeCompanies agreed strongly on the two most important cultural this way: “Poor innovation performance is usually notattributes. There was less unanimity on the importance of otherattributes, with very few citing tolerance for failure in innovation caused by a lack of ideas or lack of aspirations. Whatas essential. 35 6 some companies lack is the structure needed to effec- Perceived Importance of Cultural Attributes tively dedicate resources to innovation. It’s the lack of will to develop a strategy that can balance today’s need Strong identification with the customer and an overall orientation toward the customer versus tomorrow’s.” experience Passion for and pride in the products and services offered Three Strategies Reverence and respect for technical talent and knowledge As in previous years, this year we classified the compa- nies that responded to our survey into the three core in- Openness to new ideas from customers, suppliers, competitors, and other industries novation strategies via our online Innovation Strategy Culture of collaboration across functions Profiler. The profiler characterizes a company’s innova- and geographies tion strategy based on its approach to incremental versus Sense of personal accountability for any and all contributions to the innovation and breakthrough innovation and the role that end custom- product development process ers play in defining future product needs. Tolerance for failure in the innovation process • Need Seekers actively and directly engage both MEAN RANKING OF IMPORTANCE 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 current and potential customers to help shape new prod- ucts and services based on superior end-user understand-Source: Booz & Company ing. These companies often address unarticulated needs
  8. 8. Exhibit D: The Innovation Top 20 Roche Holding claimed the number one spot among the top 20 spenders for the second year running, and, for the first time, four of the top five slots were held by pharmaceutical firms. Rank Company R&D Spending Headquarters Industry Location 2010, $US Change As a % 2010 2009 Millions from 2009 of Sales 1 1 Roche Holding $9,646 1.5% 21.1% Europe Healthcare 2 5 Pfizer $9,413 20.0% 13.9% North America Healthcare 3 6 Novartis $9,070 21.4% 17.9% Europe Healthcare 4 2 Microsoft $8,714 –3.3% 14.0% North America Software and Internet 5 14 Merck $8,591 53.0% 18.7% North America Healthcare 6 4 Toyota $8,546 0.7% 3.9% Asia Auto 7 10 Samsung $7,873 23.2% 5.9% Asia Computing and Electronics 8 3 Nokia $7,778 –0.8% 13.8% Europe Computing and Electronics 9 11 General Motors $6,962 16.0% 5.1% North America Auto 10 7 Johnson & Johnson $6,844 –2.0% 11.1% North America Healthcarefeatures innovation 11 13 Intel $6,576 16.3% 15.1% North America Computing and Electronics 12 18 Panasonic $6,176 10.7% 6.1% Asia Computing and Electronics 13 9 GlaxoSmithKline $6,127 0.3% 14.0% Europe Healthcare 14 15 Volkswagen $6,089 19.4% 3.6% Europe Auto 15 12 IBM $6,026 3.5% 6.0% North America Computing and Electronics 16 8 Sanofi-Aventis $5,838 –4.0% 14.5% Europe Healthcare 17 19 Honda $5,704 5.2% 5.5% Asia Auto 18 22 AstraZeneca $5,318 20.6% 16.0% Europe Healthcare 19 17 Cisco Systems $5,273 1.3% 13.2% North America Computing and Electronics 20 16 Siemens $5,217 –1.4% 5.1% Europe Industrials TOP 20 TOTAL: $141,781 10.1% 11.2% Avg. Avg. Source: Bloomberg data, Booz & Company 36 7 and then work to be first to market with the resulting egy it follows. A closer look at the survey results, how- new products and services. ever, does suggest that companies perfecting one strat- • Market Readers closely monitor both their cus- egy — the Need Seekers — are relatively advantaged. tomers and competitors, but they maintain a more cau- They consistently demonstrate better achievement on a tious approach. They focus largely on creating value number of strategic and cultural variables. Additionally, through incremental innovations to their products and Need Seekers are more likely to financially outperform being “fast followers” in the marketplace. their rivals than companies following one of the other • Technology Drivers follow the direction suggested two strategies. by their technological capabilities, leveraging their sus- Overall, for example, Need Seekers are more than tained investments in R&D to drive both breakthrough three times as likely to report that their innovation innovation and incremental change. They often seek to strategy is strongly aligned with their business strategy strategy+business issue 65 solve the unarticulated needs of their customers through as other companies. And Need Seekers perceived their leading-edge new technology. performance in carrying out the two most critical in- Just as companies following any of these three strat- novation goals — “superior product performance” and egies can succeed, so any company can manifest strong “superior product quality” — to be much higher than strategic and cultural alignment, no matter which strat- did companies using either of the other two strategies.
  9. 9. (continued from page 6) Exhibit E: Change in R&D the rest of the world — continued torevenues on innovation. That works Spending by Region, 2009–2010 boom, albeit from a small base. Af-out to an R&D intensity rate of more China and India, although they account for a ter having increased spending more small share of total R&D spending, had by farthan 21 percent, 11 percentage points the fastest growth rate. than 40 percent the year before, In-above the industry average. Automo- dian and Chinese companies almosttive companies were also absent 38.5% matched that rate again in 2010, up-from the top-spender slots: Toyota, ping their investments in R&D morewhich had been number one in R&D than 38 percent. And companiesspending for several years before from other regions around the worldthe recession, fell to sixth place in increased their spending almost 142010, having increased its spend- percent. (See Exhibit E.)ing less than 1 percent in 2010, after 13.9% AVERAGE GROWTH The downturn in innovationcutting it almost 20 percent in 2009. 10.5% 9.3% spending in 2009 was a clear indica-Overall, however, the auto sector 5.8% tion of just how difficult the econom- 1.8%boosted spending by $8.8 billion, or ic environment had been for many India/ Rest of North Europe Japan8 percent, in 2010, after having cut China World America companies; it was both surprisingR&D outlays by 14 percent in 2009. and encouraging that R&D spending features title of the article features innovation Source: Bloomberg data, Booz & CompanyThat kept it in third place among fell as little as it did. Similarly, theall industries in terms of total R&D — all cut back. The turnaround was healthy increase in 2010 shows justspending. Revenues for the automo- cautious in both Europe and Ja- how determined companies are totive sector in 2010 were up 16.5 per- pan, which increased spending at keep competing for market share. Ifcent over 2009. rates significantly below the aver- there is a note of caution in this year’s The geographical distribution of age of 9.3 percent. North American data, it is an entirely justifiable one,innovation spending tells an equally companies, however, which had cut given the all-too-gradual pace of re-varied story. Every region increased R&D spending by almost 4 percent covery in some regional markets andR&D spending in 2010, a significant in 2009, increased their spending in general uncertainty about the globalturnaround from the previous year, 2010 by more than 10 percent. economy, which calls into questionwhen the three regions that make Innovation spending by compa- whether this pace of R&D investmentup the lion’s share of innovators — nies headquartered in China and In- growth will continue in 2011.North America, Europe, and Japan dia — and to a lesser extent those in — B.J., J.L., and R.H. 37 8As for innovation culture, more than 41 percent of formers had an overlapping set of capabilities critical toNeed Seekers said theirs strongly supported their inno- success no matter which strategy they followed, thosevation strategy, compared with just 7 percent of Market top performers also had developed a unique, focused setReaders and 14 percent of Tech Drivers. (See Exhibit 4, of capabilities essential to their strategy. In this year’spage 9.) study, we viewed those strategic models through a dif- These important distinctions were borne out in ferent lens: which strategic goals and cultural attributesother ways as well. But the most notable was financial led to the greatest success within a given strategy, andperformance. Overall, Need Seekers were 30 percent how those goals and attributes contributed to the capa-more likely to report their overall financial performance bilities needed to achieve that being superior to that of their peers than the other Thus, for instance, whereas companies followingtwo models, and, on average, they appear to have a any of the three strategic models have a common setmuch better chance of outperforming the competition of strategic goals and cultural attributes, Need Seekersthan either of the other innovation models. ranked as their highest innovation goal the creation of Our previous studies have consistently shown that “advantaged products and services,” and their num-companies using any one of these strategies can regu- ber one cultural attribute as “openness to ideas fromlarly outperform their peers, and that, although top per- external sources.” These characteristics clearly lead to
  10. 10. SUCCESSFUL TECH DRIVERS MUST STRIKE THE PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE PURE R&D THAT IN THE PAST LED TO HIGH-TECH BREAKTHROUGH INNOVATIONS, AND MORE MARKET- ORIENTED ACTIVITIES. Exhibit 4: Alignment by Strategy Model strategy has been the most frequently employed around Companies following the Need Seeker model are more aligned the globe and across industries. And this year it contin- than others, with 30 percent reporting high alignment of ues to be the most common model among the world’s 10features innovation innovation and business strategy, and 41 percent saying their culture strongly supports innovation. largest spenders on innovation. How Closely Is Your Innovation How Well Does Your Company Successful Tech Drivers can no longer depend solely Strategy Aligned with Your Culture Support Your Business Strategy? Innovation Strategy? on the ability of their researchers to develop ingenious HIGHLY STRONGLY products that consumers are dying to have. Now, in or- ALIGNED 8% 8% 7% 14% SUPPORTS der to succeed, Tech Drivers must strike the proper bal- 30% 41% ance between the pure R&D efforts that in the past led 34% 33% 31% 29% to high-tech breakthrough innovations, and the more market-oriented activities of their less tech-centered brethren. That’s why the most successful Tech Drivers, like Google, have developed both the capabilities shared 51% 39% by all outperforming innovators, such as the ability to 35% 38% 34% 34% translate consumer and customer needs into product development and engagement with customers, and the capabilities specific to their own strategy: a deep un- 38 9 20% 17% derstanding of emerging technologies and trends, and 15% 16% 21% 18% NOT DOES NOT the capacity to manage the life cycle of their products 7% 6% ALIGNED 4% 3% 4% 4% SUPPORT and projects. NEED MARKET TECH NEED MARKET TECH SEEKER READER DRIVER SEEKER READER DRIVER Few companies exemplify both the long history of Note: Sums may not total 100 due to rounding. technology innovation and the new, more customer-cen- Source: Booz & Company tric demands better than Hewlett-Packard Company. creating truly differentiated products by leveraging all Famed for its critical role in the founding of Silicon Val- potential sources of good ideas. Each of the other two ley and its long history as a pioneer in a variety of tech- models has its own corresponding distinct innovation nologies, HP has made a conscious effort to integrate its goals and cultural attributes. (See Exhibit 5.) How do innovation efforts more tightly with the business, and to those key goals and attributes aid and abet the efforts ensure that both its strategic goals and the innovation of companies in each strategy to develop the capabilities culture that supports those goals are aligned with that strategy+business issue 65 they need to succeed? overall strategy. And although the company’s overall strategy may change as a result of the recent arrival of Driving Technology Meg Whitman as chief executive officer, the tight link Over the four years since we began our analysis of the with the innovation culture is likely to continue. three models of innovation, the Technology Drivers The close alignment of innovation with the business
  11. 11. can be seen clearly at HP Labs, the company’s central agenda is very basic research looking 10 years into theresearch organization. Prith Banerjee is HP’s senior vice future. Another third is tied to current products, so itpresident of research and director of HP Labs, which looks maybe six to 18 months into the future. And thehas seven locations around the world. In this capacity, remaining third is in the middle — what we call appliedhe both oversees the company’s researchers and works research — which looks two to five years into the futurewith its five major business units — each of which has and is tied to some applications, but not products.”its own R&D unit — to ensure the transfer of ideas and That is entirely in keeping with the strategic goalsinnovations into products and services. “[The] mission of Tech Drivers: to ensure superior product performanceof HP Labs,” says Banerjee, “is fourfold. One is to cre- and quality, at the lowest cost possible. And it goes with-ate absolutely breakthrough technologies. The second out saying that the entire effort must be imbued with aone is around creating new business opportunities for stronger spirit of respect for technical talent and knowl-HP. The third one is to advance the state of the art in edge, as well as openness to ideas from external sources, features title of the article features innovationwhatever we do. And the fourth one is to engage with including academic researchers from universities aroundcustomers and partners.” the world. HP Labs makes a concerted effort to involve To that end, says Banerjee, “We take a portfo- the company’s customers: It invites more than 500 cus-lio approach within HP Labs: A third of our research tomers a year in to see what its researchers are working Exhibit 5: Top Goals and Attributes by StrategyAll companies following any of the three innovation models share some of the most important innovation goals and cultural attributes.Each model, however, also has distinct goals and attributes. Top Innovation Goals and Cultural Attributes MARKET READERS Distinct innovation goal • Products customized to local markets and geographies 10 39 Distinct cultural attribute • Culture of collaboration across functions and geographies NEED SEEKERS ALL THREE STRATEGIES Distinct innovation goal Common innovation goals • Advantaged products • Superior product performance and services • Superior product quality Distinct cultural attribute Common cultural attributes • Openness to new ideas from • Strong identification with the customer and customers, suppliers, overall orientation toward the customer experience competitors, and other • Passion for and pride in the products industries and services offered TECHNOLOGY DRIVERS Distinct innovation goal • Developing low-cost products Distinct cultural attribute • Reverence and respect for technical talent and knowledge Source: Booz & Company
  12. 12. The 10 Exhibit F: The 10 Most Innovative 19 percent of respondents includ- Companies ing them among the top three, re- Most Innovative Innovation executives we surveyed again chose spectively. (See Exhibit F.) This year, Apple as most innovative. Facebook edged onto Facebook entered the list for the first Companies the list at number 10. time, suggesting the growing power Company R&D Spending of social media as a rich source of T 2010 as % of Sales his year, we again asked our $US Mil. Rank (intensity) innovation on the Internet. (Because survey respondents to choose 1 Apple $1,782 70 2.7% Facebook is still private, however, the companies they thought were the 2 Google $3,762 34 12.8% reliable financial data is not avail- most innovative. And again, Apple Inc. 3 3M $1,434 86 5.4% able.) Altogether, the 10 most inno- came out on top. Seventy percent of 4 GE $3,939 32 2.6% vative companies boasted signifi- respondents named it one of the three 5 Microsoft $8,714 4 14.0% cantly better financial results over the most innovative companies, and more 6 IBM $6,026 15 6.0% past five years than did the top 10 than half voted it number one — no 7 Samsung $7,873 7 5.9% spenders on R&D, especially when surprise, given the company’s strong 8 P&G $1,950 61 2.5% results are considered in terms of performance this year. The iPad con- 9 Toyota $8,546 6 3.9% earnings as a percentage of revenues. tinues to define the market for tablet (See Exhibit G.)features innovation Not Not 10 Facebook reported n/a reported computers, and Apple has been vying This year, we also looked at the Source: Bloomberg data, Booz & Company with the Exxon Mobil Corporation as innovation strategies followed by the most valuable company in the U.S. by Chairman and CEO Steve Jobs. top innovators. The results are strik- market capitalization — a testament Following Apple, again, were ing, especially in comparison with to the innovative vision of the late Google and 3M, with 44 percent and the results of the top spenders. The on, and works directly with some customers on “cus- world’s leading car manufacturers. Its business depends tomer co-innovation” projects at the farthest reaches of heavily on working with its customers to determine ex- its research vision. actly what they need and then building those products This structure inevitably causes some tension with as cost-effectively as possible. the business units — indeed, it’s designed that way. “We That puts Visteon squarely in the camp of the are intentionally trying to create trouble for our business Market Readers, those companies that carefully moni- units,” says Banerjee. “The businesses are looking in the tor markets and listen to their customers in order to 11 40 short term for the next six months, next year. That’s gauge what the market is looking for, and then work why a third of our activity involves assisting them with closely with suppliers and partners to provide it. As Tim their current problems. But two-thirds of our activity is Yerdon, Visteon’s global director of innovation and de- to create disruptive technologies.” Because the business sign, says, “Most people think about innovation as just units continue to benefit from the short-term research, adding technology products. But it’s more than that. and are involved through the lab’s advisory board in What we’re doing is taking a step back, looking at our developing what Banerjee calls “the wacky, crazy industry, and asking ourselves, ‘How do we enhance ideas,” they continue to support those ideas as potential life on board the car?’ A lot of the innovation involved breakthroughs. in that is now being done in collaboration both with our supply base and with our customers.” Reading the Market This approach is in line with the innovation goals The automotive supplier sector, hard hit by the recession we have identified among Market Readers, including strategy+business issue 65 and the problems plaguing the auto industry in general, customizing products for markets and making sure has only recently begun to recover. Among the compa- those products have a clear advantage in the market, in nies at the center of the upswing is the Visteon Corpora- terms of both quality and cost. That, in turn, is sup- tion, which produces a variety of systems, including cli- ported at top-performing Market Readers by a culture mate electronics, interiors, and lighting solutions, for the that fosters collaboration across functions and geogra-
  13. 13. four most innovative companies, and Exhibit G: Top 10 Innovators vs. Exhibit H: Need Seekers insix of the top 10, all follow the Need Top 10 R&D Spenders the Top 10Seeker strategy (and Apple is the The top 10 innovators outperformed on all Companies following the Need Seeker model three performance measures, especially on accounted for six of the top 10 innovators slots,classic example). In comparison, only EBITDA as a percentage of revenues. but only two of the top 10 spenders.two of the top 10 spenders are NeedSeekers. (See Exhibit H.) We rather Performance of Top 10 Innovators vs. Proportion of Strategy Models Top 10 R&D Spenders Compared to Theirexpected these results, given our Industry Peers in the Global Innovation 1000 Need Seekers Othersfindings that companies pursuing a HIGHEST TOP 10 TOP 10 INNOVATORSNeed Seeker strategy have a greater POSSIBLE SCORE: 100 R&D SPENDERSlikelihood of success, thanks to their 60% 20%advantage at assembling the optimal 76 NORMALIZEDset of capabilities and creating the PERFORMANCE OF INDUSTRY PEERS: 50culture needed to achieve superior 51 54 52performance. 40 40 Source: Booz & Company It is also worth noting that al- INNOVATORSthough six of the top 10 spenders are SPENDERSpharmaceutical companies, not a features title of the article features innovation LOWEST POSSIBLE Revenue EBITDA Market Capsingle pharmaceutical company was SCORE: 0 Growth 5-Yr. CAGR as % of Revenue, Growth 5-Yr. CAGR results show, as we have been say- 5-Yr. Avg.voted onto the list of the most inno- ing for years now, that success invative. Indeed, only three companies Source: Booz & Company innovation isn’t about how much youappear on both top 10 lists: Microsoft, spend, but rather how you spend it.Toyota, and Samsung. Overall, the — B.J., J.L., and R.H.phies, and openness to external ideas. Together, these pability now that the various systems that make up carsgoals and cultural elements help sustain the set of capa- have become so integrated.bilities that enable these companies to succeed. These capabilities include not just a willingness to Seeking Needspay attention to the market and work with customers As successful as many Market Readers and Technol-but also to run a very tight product development ship, ogy Drivers are, there is something different aboutusing capabilities such as product platform and resource Need Seekers. It has to do with their strategy — work- 12 41requirement management. Says Yerdon, “In product ing closely with customers to develop products and getdevelopment, we have a phase-gate process that goes them to market first. It has to do with their innovationthrough four different gates to achieve what we feel is goals — ensuring that those products have a distinct ad-an appropriate level of robustness in products and tech- vantage in the market. And the best Need Seekers havenologies that are developed for sale to a customer. It’s put together a winning set of capabilities, including thevery highly governed and metricized.” judicious use of technology, a disciplined approach to But it is the effort to instill a culture of collabora- product development, and the ability to generate deeption that has most transformed Visteon’s innovation insights directly from regular contact with end-users ofefforts. Behind all the company’s innovation efforts their product.— whether they be concept prototypes or new climate But what really sets the best Need Seekers apart iscontrol systems — lies a big increase in the amount of their ability to execute on their strategy — to combinecollaboration that takes place, across functions, geogra- all these elements into a coherent whole. As we havephies, and joint-venture partners. It used to be, says Yer- seen, the innovation strategy that Need Seekers followdon, that groups would work in the same building and is significantly more aligned than either of the othernever talk to one another. But Visteon teams have been models, on average, and their culture is most likely toworking hard to change that aspect of their culture, in support their innovation efforts. Such companies arepart because collaboration has become a necessary ca- more profitable and boast higher enterprise value, and a
  14. 14. The Silicon ers is almost exactly the same as in the overall population. And they are Exhibit I: Strategy and Culture in Silicon Valley Valley Advantage almost three times as likely to say Silicon Valley companies are much more likely to have strong strategic alignment and by Barry Jaruzelski and their innovation strategies are tightly cultural support. Matthew Le Merle aligned with their overall corporate How Closely Is Your How Well Does Your business strategies — 54 percent, Innovation Strategy Company Culture compared with just 14 percent among Aligned with Your Support Your S Business Strategy? Innovation Strategy? ilicon Valley is famous for its all companies. When asked whether HIGHLY STRONGLY long history of leadership in their corporate cultures supported ALIGNED 14% SUPPORTS 19% computing, semiconductors, soft- their strategies, 46 percent of Silicon ware, biotech, and other innovation- Valley companies strongly agreed 46% based industries. But beyond its tal- that they did, compared with only 19 54% 38% ent base and access to capital, what percent of all companies, more than 32% makes Silicon Valley unique? What double the general population. (See exactly is the celebrated “West Coast Exhibit I.) culture of innovation”? In conjunc- It may come as something of a 29% 21% tion with this year’s Global Innovation surprise that Silicon Valley compa-features innovation 30% 29% 1000, we worked with the Bay Area nies are no more likely to follow a Council, a pro-business consortium Technology Driver innovation model 11% 11% 15% of more than 275 companies in the than other companies are. But that, 14% 7% NOT 14% DOES NOT San Francisco Bay area, to identify in our view, only strengthens our ar- ALIGNED 3% SUPPORT 5% 7% the strategic, cultural, and organiza- gument: Like many other top inno- ALL COMPANIES BAY ALL COMPANIES BAY AREA AREA tional attributes that have led to the vators, Silicon Valley companies not COMPANIES COMPANIES sustained success of this region. That only have found success in creating Note: Sums may not total 100 due to rounding. included segmenting the survey re- pathbreaking new technologies, but Source: Booz & Company sults we received from Silicon Valley are almost twice as likely as average value propositions that will win those companies in hopes of better under- companies to have developed capa- customers’ business. standing what cultural and organiza- bilities that provide a superior under- tional elements make them different. standing of the stated and unstated Matthew Le Merle Silicon Valley companies do in- needs of their end customers. It isn’t deed stand out. We determined that just about how many transistors you is a partner with Booz & Company 13 42 they are almost twice as likely to fol- can fit on a chip, but also about how based in San Francisco. He works low a Need Seeker innovation model, such advances can lead to products with leading technology, media, and compared to the general population and services that gain unprecedented consumer companies, focusing on of companies in our global survey traction in the marketplace through strategy, corporate development, — 46 percent versus 28 percent — superior insight into customers, as marketing and sales, organization, whereas the proportion of Tech Driv- well as the development of practical operations, and innovation. disproportionate number of these highly aligned com- as the function with the most influence in their com- panies are following the Need Seeker model. pany’s power structure. And Need Seekers even outper- Need Seekers are different in other ways as well. formed in terms of the management of the innovation Our study shows that significantly more of the techni- process: They rated their portfolio management pro- strategy+business issue 65 cal leads at companies classified as Need Seekers report cesses highest for both consistency and rigor. directly to the CEO, and that their innovation agendas The advantage of the Need Seeker model is evident are much more likely to be developed and clearly com- when the biggest R&D spenders are compared with municated from the top down. In the survey, they were the most innovative companies. Just two of the top 10 nearly twice as likely to point to product development spenders are Need Seekers, whereas six of the 10 most
  15. 15. ALTHOUGH THEIR INNOVATION STRATEGIES MAY DIFFER, COMPANIES LIKE AGILENT, HP, AND VISTEON UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TAKES TO EXCEL AT DEVELOPING NEW PRODUCTS THAT WILL SUCCEED IN THE MARKET.innovative are: Apple, Facebook, 3M, GE, IBM, and is evident in how the company gathers insights fromProcter & Gamble. (See “The 10 Most Innovative customers and outside innovators alike. Researchers atCompanies,” page 11.) Moreover, Silicon Valley com- the lab reach out regularly not just to academics, but features title of the article features innovationpanies are often viewed as Technology Drivers, but in also to customers like government labs, to help acquirefact almost half of the companies we surveyed that hail a better understanding of the future of technology andfrom the Bay Area are actually Need Seekers. (See “The its customers’ needs. Meanwhile, capturing insights onSilicon Valley Advantage,” page 13.) what customers need now is the responsibility of not Agilent Technologies Inc. is one of those Silicon just business unit researchers but all customer-facingValley Need Seekers. Formed as a spin-off from HP in employees.1999, the company concentrates on instrumentation When asked what holds all this activity together,and measurement solutions for the communications, Solomon turns the discussion to culture. “There’s aelectronics, life sciences, and chemical industries. CTO very strong innovation culture throughout the com-Darlene Solomon puts the distinction this way: “Agi- pany, and a culture of teamwork. Agilent really encour-lent definitely has the technology focus in our roots, ages that. Innovation is not just R&D in Agilent,” sheand we want to continue to be a technology leader, not says. “We’ve really tried to make clear that it’s about ev-a follower. But to succeed, you need to be balanced in erybody questioning the status quo and looking to doterms of focusing on the customer and understanding something better than what’s been done before. Each 14 43the market. There is a lot of great technology we can year, we recognize and reward innovation through thework on, and no shortage of technical challenges. But Agilent Innovates program, with innovation categorieswe need to choose the areas where, if we make a contri- ranging from customer satisfaction to employee- andbution, the customer and business value that can result market-centered contributions.”is clear.” In many ways, Agilent’s innovation culture stems The trick for Agilent, as for many other compa- from its history as part of HP, but Solomon notes thatnies, is to balance short-term R&D with long-term the company has defined its own values. Now, she says,thinking about the kinds of things that will need to “the cultural areas we’ve really tried to strengthen arebe measured in five or 10 years. Says Solomon: “It’s re- speed to opportunity, customer focus, and accountabil-ally about making sure that we’re at the leading edge ity. Innovation itself has always been a strength; but toof where our customers are going in the near term, and really address customer needs more swiftly and to focusmore than 90 percent of that work takes place in the on the things that matter most are where the culture ofbusinesses. In Agilent’s research laboratories, we have this company is today.”to make sure that we are placing the right bets now sothat we have the right technologies in the future, at the The Cultural Imperativeright time, when they’re needed.” Although their innovation strategies, and their rela- This is a balancing act at which Agilent excels. It tive performance, may differ, companies like Agilent,