Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Term paper Software Development and Innovation UMB School Of Business And Economics by Rune Haugestad  2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Term paper Software Development and Innovation UMB School Of Business And Economics by Rune Haugestad 2013

2,354
views

Published on

The software world is evolving fast from a knowledge-based economy into an economy based on creative disruption and high pace innovation. …

The software world is evolving fast from a knowledge-based economy into an economy based on creative disruption and high pace innovation.

Research objectives and purpose
Why are some company’s able to create hot “blockbuster” software products/services and others not?

What’s their approach to creative thinking and innovation during their software development and project scope? I have identified the following seven areas to research in
this paper:

· Software product/service strategy
· Creativity processes
· Nature of the innovation
· Software innovation & leadership
· Software Team
· Project Management and methodology
· Commercialization of Software Innovation

Research question: “How to empower software development with creative thinking and innovation?”

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,354
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 1 | P a g e Title: How to empower software development with creative thinking and innovation? Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation (M-EI) Subject code: M25FRIE-HH (25ECTS) - 15.06.2013. Rune Haugestad Entrepreneurship & Innovation- 2nd term UMB – School of Business & Economics My empirical qualitative survey: Appendix A: Paper Copy of the Questionnaire. Web Survey with www.Enalyzer.com
  • 2. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 2 | P a g e Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Research objectives and purpose.................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Chosen theory and curriculum...................................................................................................... 7 1.3.2 Questionnaire........................................................................................................................... 12 1.3.3 Planning validity ....................................................................................................................... 13 2. (Theory chapter) New paradigms within Software development and innovation ............... 14 2.1 Software development & Innovation – Definitions and context ................................................ 15 2.2. If you do not share ideas, they are wasted!............................................................................... 18 2.3 Innovation Management............................................................................................................. 21 2.3.1 KPIs - You can't manage what you don't measure!.................................................................. 23 2.3.2 Software solutions for smartest possible Innovation Management........................................ 25 2.4 Software Innovation Strategy...................................................................................................... 28 2.4.1 Software Innovation Strategy Design....................................................................................... 28 2.5 Creativity is a process not an accident!....................................................................................... 30 2.5.1 Creative thinking with Six Thinking Hats.................................................................................. 30 2.5.2 Lateral Thinking business case: Motorola................................................................................ 33 2.5.3 Other creativity techniques...................................................................................................... 35 2.6 Software innovation & Leadership.............................................................................................. 36 2.6.1 How to Collaborate to Foster Innovation................................................................................. 36 2.6.2 New generations – A new breed of leaders............................................................................. 39 2.7 Software team............................................................................................................................. 40 2.7.1 Learning capabilities................................................................................................................. 42 2.7.2 Software team practices........................................................................................................... 44 2.8 Project Management................................................................................................................... 45 2.8.2 Agile Delivers a Higher Success Rate........................................................................................ 46
  • 3. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 3 | P a g e 2.8.3 Do agile methods promote innovation? .................................................................................. 46 2.8.4 Visual control of the project with kanban board ..................................................................... 47 2.9 Commercialization of Software Innovation................................................................................. 56 2.9.1 First-mover or follower strategy? ............................................................................................ 56 2.9.2 Software innovation case example: Angry Birds.................................................................. 57 2.9.3 Software innovation case example: World of Warcraft....................................................... 58 2.9.4 Software innovation case example: Facebook..................................................................... 58 2.9.5 Innovation Adoption Curve .................................................................................................. 61 2.9.6 Creative disruption............................................................................................................... 63 2.9.7 Creating disruptive forces .................................................................................................... 64 3 Analyzing my survey....................................................................................................................... 65 3.1 Limitations of the research...................................................................................................... 65 3.2 Testing Validity ........................................................................................................................ 66 3.3 Confirmability.......................................................................................................................... 66 3.4 Themes and key research findings .......................................................................................... 67 3.4.1 Research findings.................................................................................................................. 67 4. Summary and conclusion..............................................................................................................................98 4.1 Summary.................................................................................................................................. 98 4.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 99 5 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 101 Appendix A – Copy of the Questionnaire .....................................................................................................103
  • 4. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 4 | P a g e 1. Introduction The software world is evolving fast from a knowledge-based economy into an economy based on creative disruption and high pace innovation. One thrilling example to illustrate this paradigm is that today up to 70% of the turnover of companies is generated by products (or product features) that didn’t exist 5 years ago (Pikkarainen, Codenie, Boucart & Heredia 2011). My choice of theme within; “Software development and innovation” is based on my interests in software, web technology and mobile app products and services. As a Commodore 64 Gen (I belong to Gen X for the record) I started to play around with Basic programming in an age of ten. Not very innovative coding though! But we played around with the technology and made some simple lines of code. That sizzling moment was the spark that started my interest in software. As an adult I have worked with several software and web products and companies such as Microsoft, Netscape, Linux, Apache, EPiServer, TYPO3, WordPress, Oracle and Opera Software. In addition have I worked as Consultant Manager for data warehouse solutions in a Danish company and as technical project manager on both highly innovative and creative Web and app development projects inside Creuna AS (Oslo), a “Full Service Digital Bureau”, earlier ranked among the top 5 digital bureaus in Europe by Forrester Research. I wanted to combine this experience with new discoveries and learning’s from my Entrepreneurship and Innovation Master study. Through 15 years of experience from the IT, Web and digital communication branch, I have worked with project management of CRM, Web solutions, mobile apps and consulting about business, marketing and digital strategies. This (open theme) paper was therefore a good opportunity to learn more about the roles of creative thinking and innovation management in software development projects.
  • 5. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 5 | P a g e 1.2 Research objectives and purpose Why are some company’s able to create hot “blockbuster” software products/services and others not? What’s their approach to creative thinking and innovation during their software development and project scope? I have identified the following seven areas to research in this paper: • Software product/service strategy • Creativity processes • Nature of the innovation • Software innovation & leadership • Software Team • Project Management and methodology • Commercialization of Software Innovation Does many or few really discuss, identify and define their vision, goal and objectives before they start their respective projects? Do they always focus on both business and marketing strategies together with innovation strategies? Can a company succeed with one creative “hero”, or is an important success factor team creativity and creativity put in system? What pros and cons are there with first-mover or follower strategy and tactics within the software industry? What kind of business models succeed within the software industry today? Can using the wrong or lack of project management methodology and project tools destroy all good ideas? Is it more important to deliver real user value than radical innovations from a market perspective? What is most important of the seven areas above to succeed? Can one function without the others? Is it such a thing like: One eureka success factor? Because of these thoughts and sub questions I decided on the following main research question: “How to empower software development with creative thinking and innovation?” I will discuss insights due to these questions mentioned above based on the selected curriculum books and from my own survey based on my designed in-depth questionnaire. I will look more deeply into creativity and innovation management processes and leadership and team mechanisms related to innovation within software development. There are lots of techniques and frameworks within creative thinking i.e. Six Thinking Hats, Concept Fan, DO
  • 6. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 6 | P a g e IT and Min Basadur's Simplex to mention a few. I have decided to investigate the following frameworks from Edward De Bono; The Six Thinking Hats program and his Lateral Thinking program. Original were also two other parameters planned to analyze and were included in the survey questionnaire; Budget and time aspects. But I decided to exclude them to make more room to investigate the other seven areas and aspects. My main purpose are to learn more about creative thinking and innovation management related to software development, not to research software development or project methodology as standalone topics (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003). My study objectives are to: 1. Identify: Existing knowledge about the identified topics 2. Explore: With own qualitative research with web survey/questionnaire 3. Describe: Findings from survey 4. Explain: Findings from survey 5. Assess/Evaluate: Deductive research match findings related to existing research Qualitative research approach In an ideal world, the process of scientific qualitative research follows a funnel pattern, starting off with broader and more general types of questioning and moving to more specific and structured types of questioning. As such, the early stages of research are likely to be exploratory, and the selection of data collection methods and the development of my questionnaire should reflect this. The early stages in the overall research process are where qualitative methods are often (though not always!) employed. The primary reason for using less structured forms of inquiry in the incipient stages of research is to improve internal validity; that is, to make sure that we’re asking the right questions and in the right way (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003). Hopefully have I managed to ask enough quality questions to get interesting analysis and that they are helpful regarding my research purpose. To do my own research have I chosen qualitative methodology, and more specifically, a web based questionnaire to gather my empirical data to this educational research. I have chosen
  • 7. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 7 | P a g e qualitative deductive research, because I wanted to coordinate findings and insights from the curriculum authors with my own survey. I wanted to do this because of the importance of connections of my discoveries to insights, theory and theses in my curriculum. Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln define qualitative methodology like this: “Qualitative research is multimethod in its focus, involving an interpretive naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researches study things in their natural settings. Attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003 p. 24). I further designed six scale dimensions for sentiment based feedback status; strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree and Don’t know. . I have tried to get the questions and statements as easy to understand as possible to avoid participants doing their own interpretation. To test the survey flow and level of difficulty, I did performed several test surveys on a test group. I did some minor adjustments in phrases and deleted other questions. My questionnaire aim to explore; insights from current and past software projects, within different software companies and consultant companies, and with people in roles with hands on practice. Data is collected via the Web survey tool (SaaS) Enalyzer and stored inside the Enalyzer database safe in the cloud. 1.3 Chosen theory and curriculum Theoretical basecamp within the curriculum is about innovation, software innovation, creative thinking, innovation management, technology disruption, project methodology, software innovation and leadership, and software innovation and team collaboration. I have used two main books within the topic software innovation as core sources: “Software Innovation, Eight work-style heuristics for creative system developers” by Jeremy Rose (2010), “The Art of Software Innovation: Eight Practice Areas to Inspire your Business” by Pikkarainen, Codenie, Boucart & Heredia (2011). In addition have I added several other business books so my research can include areas such as business & marketing strategy, innovation strategy and product & service strategy all important areas when creating software products or services from start to launch and to user adoption and diffusion.
  • 8. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 8 | P a g e Selection of respondents My criteria’s for the respondents to participate were the following aspects: • Experience from current or past software development projects • Function in roles like: Team leader, Poject Manager, mid-level manager, leader or consultant Among the respondents are in-house projects the majority but also some customer projects included from consulting businesses. Among the selection are there variations of small/ medium and a few bigger companies included. I used my network via LinkedIn to get these respondents. About 10 targeted people agreed in advance to participate to the survey. I managed to get 8 respondents to fulfill the web survey. Company and industry overview: Company A: Career counseling web tool Industry: Web services: SaaS. Product/Service: Work Interest Explorer (WIE). Number of employees: 1-4. Role/position: CMO. In-house project: Yes. Company B: Consulting Company Industry: Consulting - Adserving. Product/Service: Consulting. Number of employees: 5-10. Role/position: Director/Consultant. In-house project: No. Company C: Collaborative Consumption Company Industry: Web service/SaaS. Product/Service: Collaborative Consumption. Number of employees: 5-10. Role/position: Co-Founder. In-house project: Yes. Company D: TV/Media Company Industry: Customer service. Product/Service: Avaya Softphone. Number of employees: 100+ Role/position: Infrastructure Administrator. In-house project: No. Company E: Game Production Company Industry: Gaming. Product/Service: Computer/Online Games. Number of employees: 100+ Role/position: General Manager. In-house project: Yes.
  • 9. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 9 | P a g e Company F: Digital Communication bureau Industry: Digital Communication bureau. Product/Service: Digital consulting. Number of employee: 21-30. Role/position: Project Manager/Consultant. In-house project: No. Company G: Consulting Company Industry: Consulting. Product/Service: Digital consulting. Number of employee: 1-4. Role/position: Team Manager – Web development. In-house project: No. Focus group and respective company information – anonymously verification:
  • 10. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 10 | P a g e E-Mail distribution of the web survey My survey invitations included five key components: • Introduced the survey objectives • Explained why it's important to participate • Brief overview of the survey topic • Estimated the length of the survey to balance expectations
  • 11. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 11 | P a g e Multi-gadget access to the web survey The web survey tool Enalyzer is built with responsive design (Figure 1) to fit all kinds of gadgets; PC, MAC, SmartPhones and Tablets. This should increase the response speed, with the ease of use and “in hand” possibility. Figure 1. Survey start-screenshot. Email Reminders Email survey reminders have been proven to boost response rates. Using a system (Enalyzer) that will automatically send reminders to individuals who have not yet completed my survey is a huge time saver. I sent two reminders and managed to get a few more participants for my survey.
  • 12. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 12 | P a g e 1.3.2 Questionnaire The design of the questionnaire used combinations of statements, questions, opens fields and aimed at drawing out individual experiences and perceptions (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003). I decided on to build an in-depth questionnaire with a target focus group which are ideal method for collecting phenomenological data (ibid). The survey was designed in ten parts/steps, with a visual progress bar (Figure 2). Figure 2. Survey screenshot. You find the original questions and statements in appendix A as documentation and verification.
  • 13. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 13 | P a g e 1.3.3 Planning validity In its purest sense, this refers to how well a scientific test or piece of research actually measures what it sets out to, or how well it reflects the reality it claims to represent. Like reliability (Higher relevancy metric in quantitative research), validity in this sense is a concept drawn from the positivist scientific tradition and needs specific interpretation and usage in the context of qualitative research (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003). Content validity Content validity occurs when the research provides adequate coverage of the subject being studied. This includes measuring the right things as well as having an adequate sample. Samples should be both large enough and be taken for appropriate target groups. The perfect range of question gives a complete measure of all aspects of what is being investigated. Content validity is related very closely to good research design. A high content validity question covers more of what is sought. A trick with the questions is to ensure that the entire research purpose are covered (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003). Internal validity Internal validity occurs when it can be concluded that there is a causal relationship between the variables being studied. A danger is that changes might be caused by other factors. It is related to the design of the experiment (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003). Threats to validity The following identified threats to validity in my research are (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003): • Inappropriate selection of constructs • Insufficient data collected to make valid conclusions • Measurement done in too few contexts • Inadequate selection of target subjects • Complex interaction across constructs • Respondents giving biased answers or trying to guess what they should say
  • 14. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 14 | P a g e Objectivity In its purest sense, the idea of objectivity assumes that a truth or independent reality exists outside of any investigation or observation. The researcher's task in this model is to uncover this reality without contaminating it in any way. In qualitative research, a realistic aim is for the researcher to remain impartial; that is, to be impartial to the outcome of the research, to acknowledge their own preconceptions and to operate in as unbiased and value-free way as possible (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003). 2. (Theory chapter) New paradigms within Software development and innovation To quote Peter Stuer from the company Spikes NV (Pikkarainen, Codenie, Boucart & Heredia 2011): “Ever-accelerating technological change has moved innovation in the software sector past mere opportunity in the heart of the business strategy. We used to be amaze that young start-ups could challenge and unseat global IT giants in just a few years. Now we measure such shifts in mere months and speculate on how the current crop will stand up to next quarter’s challengers. Innovation in software is about more than planning the next product release or service methodology update. We need to embrace perpetual agile business ecosystem incubation and adaptation to increase value creation.” But there is not only software, applications or mobile apps related to the topic software and innovation. Regarding Pikkarainen, Codenie, Boucart & Heredia (2011) a whole new market entry have occurred; the market of software tools to support innovation: “In the 1990s, entrepreneurs spotted this opportunity and founded companies that developed software tools to support different parts of the innovation process. Up until that time, the available innovation theories were mainly spread in the world through books and by consultants with slide shows. Software had a disruptive effect on this market. Suddenly, it became possible to create all kinds of supportive tools for the various innovation theories that were out there. Today, this market of software innovation services has matured and several players are active in it.” (ibid). Welcome to the era of software innovations & disruptive creative companies.
  • 15. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 15 | P a g e 2.1 Software development & Innovation – Definitions and context What is the definition of innovation? And what lies in the phrase “software development & Innovation”? What are the types of innovation? What are the context and limitations for the research in this paper? Software innovation in this paper is understood as a development process which leads to a software artefact; a program, application (App), embedded software (I.e. Inside a car), an operation system, algorithm or code. In principle, the process, the product, or both can be innovative. Software is built by developers/programmers working in teams, so it’s appropriate to study both how individual developers/programmers are creative, and how teams function in an innovative way. The definitions of related words and phrases (Smith 2006, Schilling 2010) are: Invention An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process (not necessary launched or commercialized). Innovation The practical implementation of an idea into a new device or process; included commercialization (Product/service) or usage (Process innovation). Commercialization of an invention Regarding Rose (2010 p. 16) innovation sometimes is described like the following formula: “(Innovation = Invention + Exploitation + Diffusion) Where innovation is composed of the invention (new idea or artefact) itself, its commercial development and exploitation, and its adoption in a wider community of users. Thus the result of successful innovation is experienced as change in the way people work, the way business is carried out, people’s choice of entertainment, their communication habits and interaction, the governance of communities, and in many other aspects of social life. Innovation is itself, as we shall later discover, social – usually the work of many people, rather than a single idea generator.”
  • 16. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 16 | P a g e Three main steps in innovation processes (Smith 2006): • Invention (Idea creation, brainstorming, Lateral Thinking, R&D) • Commercialization (Design, prototyping, choice of business model, choice of coding/tech, pilot, beta, launch) • Diffusion The idea step includes (Smith 2006): • Association • Adaption • Analogy • Serendipity Three main types of innovation processes (Smith 2006) • Individual • Closed • Open Product and service innovations can be categorized in a number of different ways (Smith 2006, Schilling 2010). With Henderson and Clark’s framework (Smith 2010 p. 32) for categorizing innovation into radical, architectural, modular and incremental innovation types, I will try to adapt this framework into the software development industry. With Henderson and Clark’s the core part of the product belongs to architectural innovation. To quote Henderson and Clark; “the essence of an architectural innovation is the reconfiguration of an established system to link together existing (In this case: software/coding) components in a new way” (Smith 2010 p. 37).
  • 17. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 17 | P a g e Innovation types & styles Different innovation styles can be used to create an innovation: • Modifying • Exploring • Experimenting • Visioning Types of software innovation (Radical, Modular, Incremental, Architectural) There are four main innovation types within the innovation theory (Smith 2006, Schilling 2010): • Radical innovation: (New: Totally new tech or concept. Not built on existing tech. High degree of novelty) • Modular innovation: (New: Built on existing building blocks and/or tech) • Incremental innovation: (Improved: Small steps of optimizing features of existing tech or service) • Architectural innovation: (Improved: Reconfigure existing systems in a new way) To innovate successfully with software products or services, companies must (Pikkarainen, Codenie, Boucart & Heredia 2011): • Understand the product innovations they want to realize with software in their products or services (I.e.: What features will we offer?) • Master the processes to realize these product or service innovations (I.e.: How will we realize the product innovations?) • In some cases deploy new business models to bring the product or service innovations to market.
  • 18. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 18 | P a g e 2.2. If you do not share ideas, they are wasted! “If you do not share ideas, they are wasted!”says Max Mckeown (2010). Sure, the absolute first stage of any invention or innovation journey is to start sharing your ideas with others. People with their ideas need others internal and external view, perspective and constructive criticism to get qualified feedback. To get an idea to really fly, you need others believe, enthusiasm and motivation to succeed as well. The idea owner need to team up with complementary brainware and not to rare: funding to be able to commercialize. But many fails to kick start their idea and fail very early in the process. The following common failures are gathered by Liedtka and Ogilvie (2011 p. 175). The failure modes that many companies did not capitalizing on their promising ideas such as the following scenarios: • Failure to connect the concept to an unmet customer need • Failure to get it prioritized amid the sea of ideas • Failure to prototype or visualize it so others understand it • Failure to get live customers (Beta users) involved in shaping it There are three top ideation ways of modern software innovation; • Company-driven software innovation • (Public) Crowdsourced - Open-driven software innovation • (Private) Crowdsourced - Closed community-driven software innovation Crowdsourced (Open) software innovation is the de facto ground-breaking user-driven innovation process inside today’s software scene.
  • 19. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 19 | P a g e Keep your radar ON for new ideas “McDonald`s hamburgers are the same as Burger Kings hamburgers – only different. Knowing that innovators make new ideas from old ideas means you won’t try to start from nothing. You can’t anyway. All your ideas come from something you already know. Not trying to start from nothing saves time. Working with existing knowledge helps you to build something better. Recombining what already exist increases the practicality of your ideas. You know its components already work. And it boosts the chances that people will accept it because it’s the same – only different!” (Mckeown 2008). The journey from the birth of a software idea to release (launch) and to market diffusion can be fast or it can be painful. The most important thing regarding the innovation aspect is to keep your radar always on for new ideas. In addition you need people around you; team, organization and culture to nurture your ideas and evaluate them. “Two important, but separate, processes are needed for innovation” (Kourdi 2009 p. 123): • Idea building, where people propose ideas and then develop and nurture them • Idea analysis, where these ideas are tested and evaluated “Innovations need connectors, people who can combine things, either conceptually or in practice, and make things happen. For this reason, innovation flourishes where collaboration is encouraged” (ibid). The software innovation canvas below (figure 3), from The Art of Software Innovation (2011) provides an overview of the activities that software companies can consider when innovating their respective software products or services. It is also possible to use the canvas as a kind of compass to help companies to find the right direction for their Innovation Management process towards their radical or incremental software innovation.
  • 20. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 20 | P a g e Figure 3. The Software Innovation Canvas. The Art of Software Innovation (2011) .
  • 21. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 21 | P a g e 2.3 Innovation Management Depending on the nature and scope of the software innovation project, the main question to ask is: How systematically should the innovation process be organized? Innovation Management is the task including everything from start to launch. Successful innovation management is only possible, if the individual steps are thought-out, structured and planned. The single steps must therefore be checked critically. A holistic innovation management therefore comprises three levels (Rose 2010, Pikkarainen, Codenie, Boucart & Heredia 2011, Liedka & Ogilvie 2011): • Normative level: vision, mission, goal and objectives, success criterrias , models • Strategic level: resources, technologies, know-how, competencies of team, markets, customers, suppliers, competitors • Operative level: design and guidance of the innovation process, performance, quality, budgets/costs and time, team collaboration, leadership, project management & methodology, project software tools, innovation management software tools The Art of Software Innovation (Pikkarainen, Codenie, Boucart & Heredia 2011) identifies the following four innovation management areas to master: The Art of Idea Valuation Valuating radical ideas can be even more challenging than valuating incremental ideas. This is because decision-making difficulty is associated with an increase in the degree of uncertainty and ambiguity in the decision- making context. Decision about radical idea launching can change the whole future of the software company. The Art of Openness The Art of Openness practice area provides companies with activities for enhancing competitiveness using external knowledge. In the case of radical innovation the utilizing of external experts is often even more important than in the case of incremental innovation. Thus, being successful with incubation can require some of the activities in the Art of Openness practice area to be addressed.
  • 22. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 22 | P a g e The Art of Innovation Stimulation Innovation stimulation is an important way of supporting company innovativeness, increase the opportunities of the companies for radical innovation creation. Incubation projects need to be stimulated in a particular way. The Art of Optimizing the Impact of Critical Experts In the case of radical innovation, the companies need an ability to reconfigure resources to match to the needs of the new situations. Each radical innovation is different. Each time when the radical innovation is valuated, there is need for the different competences from inside and outside of the software company. In addition will strong leadership capacity and team collaboration with shared vision support these four important areas and aspects. These notions point out the necessity of software innovation put into system and the importance of Innovation Management, discussed in the next chapter. In the book Designing for Growth, Jeanne Liedtka and Tim Ogilvie (2011) presents how a modern framework with design thinking can help practitioners more effectively, faster and smarter to step up the innovation process for product and service development (Figure 4): Figure 4. Source: Designing for Growth by Jeanne Liedtka and Tim Ogilvie (2011).
  • 23. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 23 | P a g e 2.3.1 KPIs - You can't manage what you don't measure! Where on road against launch are you? Are you hitting the success criteria’s? If you can’t measure it, it doesn’t count; moreover to steer on a measure, it has to be clear what the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is exactly indicating and which process one has to measure. That is why you have to remember the following rule while you are defining a KPI: keep your KPI SMART! SMART is an abbreviation for the five conditions of a good KPI: Specific - It has to be clear what the KPI exactly measures. There has to be one widely-accepted definition of the KPI to make sure the different users interpret it the same way and, as a result, come to the same and right conclusions which they can act on. Measurable - The KPI has to be measurable to define a standard, budget or norm, to make it possible to measure the actual value and to make the actual value comparable to the budgeted value. Achievable - Every KPI has to be measurable to define a standard value for it. It is really important for the acceptance of KPIs and Performance Management in general within the organization that this norm is achievable. Nothing is more discouraging than striving for a goal that you will never obtain. Relevant - The KPI must give more insight in the performance of the organization in obtaining its strategy. If a KPI is not measuring a part of the strategy, acting on it doesn’t affect the organizations’ performance. Therefore an irrelevant KPI is useless. Timely - It is important to express the value of the KPI in time. Every KPI only has a meaning if one knows the time dimension in which it is realized. The realization and standardization of the KPI therefore has to be time phased. KPIs are valued business tools to measure your innovation project progress. Indicators identifiable and marked as possible candidates for KPIs can be summarized into the following sub-categories (Wikipedia ❶):
  • 24. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 24 | P a g e Categorization of indicators • Quantitative indicators which can be presented with a number. • Qualitative indicators which can't be presented as a number. • Leading indicators which can predict the future outcome of a process • Lagging indicators which present the success or failure post hoc • Input indicators which measure the amount of resources consumed during the generation of the outcome • Process indicators which represent the efficiency or the productivity of the process • Output indicators which reflect the outcome or results of the process activities • Practical indicators that interface with existing company processes. • Directional indicators specifying whether an organization is getting better or not. • Actionable indicators are sufficiently in an organization's control to affect change. • Financial indicators used in performance measurement and when looking at an operating index. Key performance indicators, in practical terms and for strategic development, are objectives to be targeted that will add the most value to the business. These are also referred to as 'key success indicators'. Examples of Innovation Management KPIs: Source: http://www.smartkpis.com/kpi/functional-areas/knowledge-and-innovation/innovation/
  • 25. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 25 | P a g e 2.3.2 Software solutions for smartest possible Innovation Management Today you find several software and SaaS solutions for modern Innovation Management. Company-driven and public or private community-driven (Crowdsourced) software innovation. Below you will find a shortlist of some SaaS providers to enhance ideation and collaboration to foster new innovations; faster and more agile than ever before. See examples below (Figure 5 ,6, 7 and 8). Figure 5. Public or private Innovation community with Hunchbuzz. Source: http://hunchbuzz.com/
  • 26. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 26 | P a g e Figure 6. Software Innovation with Brightidea. Source: http://www.brightidea.com/customers-software.bix Figure 7. Source: http://www.quirky.com/
  • 27. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 27 | P a g e Figure 8. Company Wide Innovation SaaS solution - Qmarkets. Source: http://www.qmarkets.net/home Innovation Management is the top leadership’s responsibility. The scope of duties of Innovation Management include minimum: • Compilation and evaluation of innovative ideas within and outside of the company. • Development and maintenance of the company-internal innovation potential • If wanted: acquisition of Open Innovations and their implementation in the company • Planning, supervision, implementation and controlling of the company’s innovation activities and progress • Determination of the time for innovation to enter the market • Planning and realisation of possibilities to protect innovative developments (IPR: patents, licensing, trademarks) • Innovation Risk Management, Marketing research, Innovation Assessment, Economic Analysis - ROI
  • 28. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 28 | P a g e 2.4 Software Innovation Strategy There is no such thing as the perfect business, product, service or software idea… Therefor we need to think before we act. We need; strategic thinking. We need to create a written innovation strategy. The innovation strategy must be anchored and coordinated with existing business and marketing strategies. But first; why bother develop a written strategy? An important purpose with a written strategy document is to pinpoint all issues and opportunities to support business goals and objectives (Kourdi 2009). A strategy is a tool to help moving from an existing situation to a wanted future situation. A strategy plan shall work as a business tool to achieve goals in a given time schedule and to support organizational vision. A written strategy should work as a quality tool to ease and support a short term or long term action plan or campaign (ibid). Rose (2010) points out the following observations and analysis with two particular directions: 1. Software innovation is dependent on a lot more than programming skill and development method – traditional engineering skills 2. Many of the situational factors in user communities and societal technology trends can be understood and analyzed. The situational factors we have considered here are: • Technology trends and trajectories • Convergence and digitalization • Social and technical infrastructure development • User (market) demand • Timing and innovation windows 2.4.1 Software Innovation Strategy Design Match your software innovation strategy to the nature of your software product or service and the type of target users and markets (I.e.: B2C or B2B, mass or niche market etc.). Strategy making within software innovation is iterative; it has to be, because there are so many interconnected pieces and players. Software Innovation Strategy should minimum includes the following parameters (figure 9) for process overview:
  • 29. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 29 | P a g e • Identifying and defining clear vision, goal and objectives • Identifying and defining success factors and criteria’s • Identifying and defining KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) • Setup of Innovation Management program and project scope • How shall the product or service help the customer/user solve their problem or challenge? • Analyzing the target market and user • Analyzing competing software product or service • Business model and Marketing SWOT analysis • Software product or service SWOT analysis • Identifying and defining clear value creation and value capturing • Identifying and defining the value proposition and USPs • Where, when and how to compete (Defining tactics) Strategy pyramid Figure 9. Strategy pyramid – Model for strategy development
  • 30. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 30 | P a g e 2.5 Creativity is a process not an accident! “Creativity is a process not an accident!” says Max Mckeown (2008), and in that statement lays lots of understanding and insight. Edward De Bono (1999) explains further: “Creativity is a messy and confusing subject. Much of the difficulty arises directly from the words “creative” and “creativity” At the simplest level “creative” means bringing into being something that was not there before. Understanding the need for creativity in business and industry today is the easy part. Everyone is face with the need to create a new product or service, solve a problem or have the leading edge over the competitors. Understanding the process of creativity and how individuals can learn skills to be creative is what causes confusion. This creation requires a special skill. The Lateral Thinking program teaches individuals creativity and the skill of generating ideas while using their knowledge and experience.” Edward De Bono has two programs/frameworks designed: The Six Thinking Hats and The Lateral Thinking program. His Lateral Thinking program teaches individuals creativity and the skill of generating ideas while using their own existing knowledge and experience. De Bono (1999) presents the following definitions of Lateral Thinking (ibid): 1. “You cannot dig a hole in a different place by digging the same hole deeper.” 2. “Lateral Thinking is for changing concepts and perceptions instead of trying with the same concepts and perceptions.” 3. In self-organizing information systems, asymmetric patterns are formed. Lateral Thinking is a method for cutting across from one pattern to another.” 2.5.1 Creative thinking with Six Thinking Hats The core idea behind Six Thinking Hats is about looking at an idea, suggestion or decision from all angles and points of view. Six Thinking Hats by Edward De Bono (1999) is an important and powerful technique. It is used to look at decisions from a number of important perspectives (Figure 10). This forces you to move outside your habitual thinking style, and helps you to get a more rounded view of a situation.
  • 31. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 31 | P a g e Figure 10. Six Thinking Hats. Source: By Paul Foreman at www.inspiration.moonfruit.com This tool was created by Edward de Bono in his book Six Thinking Hats (1999). Many successful people think from a very rational, positive viewpoint. This is part of the reason that they are successful. Often, though, they may fail to look at a problem from an emotional, intuitive, creative or negative viewpoint. This can mean that they underestimate resistance to plans, fail to make creative leaps and do not make essential contingency plans. Similarly, pessimists may be excessively defensive, and more emotional people may fail to look at decisions calmly and rationally. If you look at a problem with the Six Thinking Hats technique, then you will solve it using all approaches. Your decisions and plans will mix ambition, skill in execution, public sensitivity, creativity and good contingency planning. How to Use the Tool You can use Six Thinking Hats in meetings or on your own. In meetings it has the benefit of blocking the confrontations that happen when people with different thinking styles discuss the same problem. Each Thinking Hat is a different style of thinking. These are explained below (de Bono 1999): White Hat (Facts) With this thinking hat you focus on the data available. Look at the information you have, and see what you can learn from it. Look for gaps in your knowledge, and either try to fill them
  • 32. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 32 | P a g e or take account of them. This is where you analyze past trends, and try to extrapolate from historical data. Red Hat (Emotions) Wearing the red hat, you look at problems using intuition, gut reaction, and emotion. Also try to think how other people will react emotionally. Try to understand the responses of people who do not fully know your reasoning. Black Hat (Caution) Using black hat thinking, you look at all the bad points of the decision. Look at it cautiously and defensively. Try to see why it might not work. This is important because it highlights the weak points in a plan. It allows you to eliminate them, alter them, or prepare contingency plans to counter them. Black Hat thinking helps to make your plans tougher and more resilient. It can also help you to spot fatal flaws and risks before you embark on a course of action. Black Hat thinking is one of the real benefits of this technique, as many successful people get so used to thinking positively that often they cannot see problems in advance. This leaves them under-prepared for difficulties. Yellow Hat (Logical & positive) The yellow Hat helps you to think positively. It is the optimistic viewpoint that helps you to see all the benefits of the decision and the value in it. Yellow Hat thinking helps you to keep going when everything looks gloomy and difficult. Green Hat (Ideas) The Green Hat stands for creativity. This is where you can develop creative solutions to a problem. It is a freewheeling way of thinking, in which there is little criticism of ideas. Blue Hat (Control) The Blue Hat stands for process control. This is the hat worn by people chairing meetings. When running into difficulties because ideas are running dry, they may direct activity into
  • 33. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 33 | P a g e Green Hat thinking. When contingency plans are needed, they will ask for Black Hat thinking, etc. A variant of this technique is to look at problems from the point of view of different professionals (i.e. CEO, team leaders, project managers, R&D Managers, sales & Marketing directors, Product Managers and Innovation Managers etc.) or different customers. Case examples with Lateral Thinking (Source: www.debonoforbusiness.com) 2.5.2 Lateral Thinking business case: Motorola “In 2002, Motorola wanted to create a “product for the future.” The company planned a three-day event for its product managers with the focus of developing a new high-tech, hand-held device for people who want cutting edge technology, but don’t want to spend more than $800. To ensure that the event went as smoothly as possible, Motorola decided to enlist the help of Master Trainer Jay Wenberg. On the first day, consumer profiles, based on exhaustive research, were constructed for each existing product. Product presentation and framing with regional perspective was offered to the group. The goal of the first day was for product managers to gain detailed understanding of each product’s target market. They discussed every aspect of the consumers’ traits, including age, income, educational background, cultural beliefs and daily habits. This gave the managers a detailed picture of Motorola’s customers. The second day began with a “technology soak,” which defined the capabilities and limitations of existing technology. Then Jay gave an overview of the Six Thinking Hats and Lateral Thinking. He led the group through a Green Hat session in order to generate ideas for the “product for the future.” During the Green Hat session, the group used the Lateral Thinking technique of Reverse Provocation to challenge the physical limitations of technology. Jay handed out trinkets from a dime store to assist in a Random Objects exercise. After all Green Hat ideas had been offered, each one was evaluated using Yellow and Black Hat thinking. Finally, the group used Red Hat thinking to prioritize the best ideas. The final result of the Green Hat session was a technologically advanced product called the Accompli. The device functioned as a mobile business tool or “virtual office” complete with a full keyboard. Its wireless network connection provided fast Internet access across the globe. In addition, consumers could install additional business applications on the Accompli and even play an assortment of games.
  • 34. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 34 | P a g e The group then took the White Hat information gathered from the consumer profiles to practice a “day in the life” of an Accompli owner. They discussed how consumers might use the new device from the time they woke up to the time they went to bed. The team noted all the additional features the Accompli might need to make the user’s life easier. For instance, could it have an alarm? Could it play MP3 music files? What should the greeting sound like? The group dissected the consumer’s day hour by hour to ensure that the Accompli was the idea product for the target market. At the end of the event, the product managers were excited about the outcome of their hard work, and even people who didn’t attend the event heard about its success. Shortly thereafter, Motorola introduced the Accompli in North America, Europe and Asia. Challenge: Create an ultra high-tech device with the price tag of less than $800 Methods: Use Concept Generation, Concept Extraction, Reverse Provocation, Random Object and Six Thinking Hats to develop the ideal product Results: • Motorola develops and markets the Accompli 009 Personal Communicator” Source: http://www.debonoforbusiness.com/asp/case_studies.asp Key Points Six Thinking Hats is a good technique for looking at the effects of a decision from a number of different points of view. It allows necessary emotion and scepticism to be brought into what would otherwise be purely rational decisions. It opens up the opportunity for creativity within decision making. The technique also helps, for example, persistently pessimistic people to be positive and creative. Innovation plans developed using the Six Thinking Hats technique will be sounder and more resilient than would otherwise be the case.
  • 35. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 35 | P a g e 2.5.3 Other creativity techniques Creativity can be enhanced and there are many other techniques out there which can be used to stimulate it. Here is a list of some of the best known (Rose 2010): • Assumption Surfacing • Brainstorming • Card Story Boards • Causal Mapping • Crawford Slip Writing • Dialectical Approaches • Five Ws and H • Mind Mapping • Nominal Group Technique • TRIZ
  • 36. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 36 | P a g e 2.6 Software innovation & Leadership Software innovation needs modern management and leadership. Managing software developers and programmers with outdated leadership practices will not work. “Engaged employees are more creative and more willing to accept innovative ideas from others. Most CEOs value creativity and employees who are allowed to be creative are more engaged with their current positions. A company’s culture can either foster or stifle innovation. Fortunately, business leaders are able to shape a more creative work environment if they follow a few basic guidelines” (Rose 2010): • Maintain an open dialogue between employees and upper management • Organize brainstorming sessions • Give your employees regular opportunities to bounce ideas off each other. • Do not force people to be innovative • Engage employees by encouraging them to share creative ideas • Do not limit creativity to special occasions. • Remain flexible and forgiving • Keep track of company innovations (I.e. with Innovation Management software) 2.6.1 How to Collaborate to Foster Innovation “Establishing a creative environment takes more than just turning your employees loose and giving them free reign in the hope they’ll hit on something valuable. As with any other system, the process of creativity requires the proper framework to operate effectively, which also enables management to evaluate the profitability of the results” (Rose 2010). There are many team or project configurations which offer different approaches and benefits to foster innovation management. Here is a overview of the main types of collaborative innovation types explained in figure 11 by Board of Innovation:
  • 37. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 37 | P a g e Figure 11. Model: Fronteer Strategy. Source: http://www.boardofinnovation.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/08/Benchmark_misemo_cocreation.pdf Two different leadership mindsets (Figure 12) exemplified by Jeanne Liedtka & Tim Ogilvie (2011): Figure 12. Source: Designing for Growth (2011).
  • 38. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 38 | P a g e Clear leadership is important within software development. “The five practices and ten commitments of exemplary leadership” (Kouzes & Posner 2012) points out the following core values (Figure 13): Figure 13. Source: The leadership Challenge p. 29. “Many leaders in upper management lose interest in supporting creativity and innovation because they do not bother to keep track of past innovations. Knowing how many employee innovations have been implemented and how successful they are, presents a clear picture of the financial benefits of employee creativity. Keeping track of innovations will also indicate whether any alterations need to be made to recently implemented programs or the company culture” (Rose 2010).
  • 39. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 39 | P a g e 2.6.2 New generations – A new breed of leaders What about the culture within software companies? There are lots of young people, both as developers and programmers AND younger leaders than inside other industries. What expectations do Gen X and Y have to leadership today? Many think that these generational differences are important for managers in the workplace to pay attention to. Teck and Hennessy look into changes within leadership and new generation (Teck & Hennessy 2011). They have ranked Top 10 expectations of leaders by generation (ranked based on frequency), see figure 14 for details. Figure 14. Source: http://www.cscollege.gov.sg/Knowledge/Pages/Generations-and-Leadership.aspx Finding the optimal tactics are the leader’s responsibility. Here are some useful questions for the leaders to ask to setup your innovation process and team (Rose 2010): • Which people do you want in your innovative team? • Which roles should be filled in an innovative team process? • How structured should the team process be (tools and techniques versus free interaction)? • What is the creativity environment for your team and how can you improve it? • What are the innovative work habits (patterns) of your teams? • How does the team promote team learning and dialogue? • How does the team develop a shared purpose and overview? • What kind of automated tool support does an innovative team need?
  • 40. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 40 | P a g e 2.7 Software team Here is a short version of the different software roles you maybe need to pick to your software development project: Software Architect This is your go-to team member at the very start of the project who constructs the “big picture”. He or she creates and delivers blueprints, specs and analyse the user experience demands to actually develop the application. This is typically the team member who will command the highest salary. However, if they do their job right you don’t need them on staff forever. You may want to hire an independent contractor in this role. Software Designer This team member would be responsible for designing the individual modules or components of a software application. Basically, if you break down the overall architecture into smaller pieces, this is the where the design comes in. The skills of a software architect and a software designer may overlap. You may be able to hire one person to fill both roles – especially for small business projects.
  • 41. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 41 | P a g e Software or System Analyst An analyst plays a supportive role for both the architect and the designer. This team member is responsible for collecting or developing the information needed to determine the project specifications and requirements. The analyst is the link between the software team and the business team, someone who’s good at understanding the purpose of the application from a business perspective. This is an important role to fill if you want to make sure your application delivers value for your company or customer. Software Engineer An engineer is a software developer who actually creates code. However, the engineer is usually a high level programmer and may take on the role of project manager for your team rather than doing the “grunt work”. This is the person who typically understands the whole development process from requirements, UX, design to development, testing and implementation. An experienced software build engineer will command a much higher salary than a mid-level software developer. Software Developer This is a catch-all term that may include any of the following team members who create your application step by step: • Programmer • Coder • Tester (Q/A) Developers are often distinguished by titles like “Senior”, “Junior” or “Entry Level”. Your software engineer or project manager is the person to talk to when you need to find out how many and what kind of developers to hire for a specific job. Keeping your team small (4- 9 people) is a good idea if you want to use agile development techniques. Whether you hire temporary or permanent team members, be sure the project is appropriately documented both the design brief and all the tech specifications. That way, you have all the information you need for further development, integration, testing and trouble-shooting later!
  • 42. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 42 | P a g e 2.7.1 Learning capabilities Jeremy Rose (2010) identifies the following areas for team members to understand during the software development project. Here are the major components: • The software has a particular user community, and the characteristics of that community are understood • The software is novel – it does something that other software cannot for its user community • The software has a particular utility for the community, the form of which can be understood • When the software is in use in the user community their behaviour will be different in certain ways (social change) and it is understood how • The user community can be understood as a market in an economic sense, and the software has an economic value, price and cost which is understood • The software is technically innovative, perhaps displaying digitalization or convergence, in the context of a particular technology trajectory • The necessary infrastructure for the user community to use the product is in place, or will be when the product is released, and is understood. Individuals and organizations need to constantly gather new sources of information in order to expand their knowledge and grow. Because the world is changing at an ever-accelerated pace, today’s great idea will be tomorrow’s passing fad, and the day after’s history lesson. The learning roles described below will help keep your team from becoming smug about what you know; instead, these roles will keep you questioning your own views and remain open to new insights. By adopting one or more of the roles, your team can explore a different point of view and create a broader range of innovative solutions. Kelley organized the ten roles into three categories: learning, organizing and building. Here are the 10 roles conceptualized by Tom Kelley (2005): • The Anthropologist brings new learning and insights into the organization by observing human behaviour and developing a deep understanding of how people interact physically and emotionally with products, services, and spaces. • The Experimenter prototypes new ideas continuously, learning by a process of enlightened trial and error. The Experimenter takes calculated risks to achieve success through a state of “experimentation as implementation.”
  • 43. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 43 | P a g e • The Cross-Pollinator explores other industries and cultures, and then translates those findings and revelations to fit the unique needs of your own organization. The organizing roles are played by individuals who are savvy about the often counter intuitive process of how organizations move ideas forward. Kelly found that ideas could not speak for themselves; instead, even the best ideas must continuously compete for time, attention, and resources. It’s not just office politics or red tape; it’s a complex game of chess, and the Organizing Personas play to win. • The Hurdler knows the path to innovation is strewn with obstacles and develops a knack for overcoming or outsmarting those roadblocks. • The Collaborator helps bring eclectic groups together and often leads from the middle of the pack to create new combinations and multidisciplinary solutions. • The Director not only gathers together a talented cast and crew but also helps spark their creative talents. The four remaining personas are building roles that apply insights from the learning roles and channel the empowerment from the organizing roles to make innovation happen. When people adopt the building personas, they stamp their mark on your organization. People in these roles are highly visible, so you’ll often find them right at the heart of the action. • The Experience Architect is that person relentlessly focused on creating remarkable individual experiences. This person facilitates positive encounters with your organization through products, services, digital interactions, spaces, or events. Whether an architect or a sushi chef, the Experience Architect maps out how to turn something ordinary into something distinctive —even delightful— every chance they get. • The Set Designer looks at every day as a chance to liven up their workspace. They promote energetic, inspired cultures by creating work environments that celebrate the individual and stimulate creativity. To keep up with shifting needs and foster continuous innovation, the Set Designer makes adjustments to a physical space to balance private and collaborative work opportunities. In doing so, this person makes space itself one of an organization’s most versatile and powerful tools. • The Storyteller captures our imagination with compelling narratives of initiative, hard work, and innovation. This person goes beyond oral tradition to work in whatever medium best fits their skills and message: video, narrative, animation, even comic strips. By rooting their stories in authenticity,
  • 44. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 44 | P a g e the Storyteller can spark emotion and action, transmit values and objectives, foster collaboration, create heroes, and lead people and organizations into the future. • The Caregiver is the foundation of human-powered innovation. Through empathy, they work to understand each individual customer and create a relationship. Whether a nurse in a hospital, a salesperson in a retail shop, or a teller at an international financial institution, the Caregiver guides the client through the process to provide them with a comfortable, human-centered experience. 2.7.2 Software team practices Routines, communication, collaboration and leadership culture results in team practices. Coplien’s research (Figure 15) within software development companies resulted in his top ten software practices (Rose 2010): Figure 15. Coplien’s top ten software practices.
  • 45. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 45 | P a g e 2.8 Project Management 2.8.1 Project Methodology and scope Project management is the management necessary to get a project to a certain result: • in a certain way • in a certain time • with certain resources Content-wise a project is marked by a clear vision/goal definition and described success criteria’s. Orders are clearly described and must be fulfilled within the framework of a closed task. There are clear definitions in regard to performance (result orientation), which must be fulfilled in the project’s framework. Time-wise the project is marked by a defined starting and end point, which are most of the time fixed and rarely flexible. Organizational there are clear restrictions in regard to time, budgets and human resources, within which a project must be carried out and the project goals must be reached. Structurally a project can be isolated from other plans and temporarily suspends the existing organizational structure. In the constellation of the project employees that complement each other due to their competencies are brought together in a onetime team line-up. Project management can be divided into the following phases: • Phase 1: definition phase • Phase 2: planning phase • Phase 3: implementation phase • Phase 4: final phase The most common software project methodology today are agile: “Agile methods (Adaptive Software Development, eXtreme Programming, SCRUM, MSF) focus on practical development tasks, programming, prototyping and customer contact - usually in an iterative or incremental process which is better at handling change” (Rose 2010).
  • 46. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 46 | P a g e 2.8.2 Agile Delivers a Higher Success Rate Agile projects are successful three times more often than Waterfall projects, according to the 2012 CHAOS Manifesto (Figure 16) from the Standish Group: Figure 16. Source: Mountaingoatsoftware.com 2.8.3 Do agile methods promote innovation? “Many developers may suspect that agile methods offer a software process that is more conducive to innovation. It’s clear that the introduction of agile methods to a traditionally- oriented software firm can be a process innovation. There are also some theoretical reasons to believe that they should be helpful for innovation. Flexibility helps deal with the uncertainties of working with leading edge software technologies, bureaucracy (avoided in agile methods) is a known creativity barrier, and interaction with customers develops domain knowledge. However agile methods were developed in response to the perceived need for more effective, programmer-friendly development methods - not in order to further innovation. There are few studies or evidence which supports the idea that agile methods lead to more innovative software products than traditional methods. Furious development in response to rather un-reflected use cases and feature backlogs may actually hinder innovation by removing the incentive and opportunity for idea generation. It’s possible to argue that some elements of agility are necessary for an innovative development process, but an agile process will hardly be sufficient” (Rose 2010).
  • 47. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 47 | P a g e 2.8.4 Visual control of the project with kanban board Kanban boards (Figure 17) are very popular visualization tool for software development companies. The word kanban is Japanese. Roughly translated, it means kan=”visual” and ban=”card or board”). Kanban itself is very simple. As its name implies, it involves visually mapping your workflow on a board.Key benefits with kanban boards are: • Visualize your workflow See what is going on at a glance: How many tasks there are in each phase, and who is working on what. • Focus on the work at hand Working on everything simultaneously slows you down with too many tasks in various states of completion. Finish more in less time with Work In Progress limits. • Accurate estimates By using automatic time tracking, flow measures your progress and makes estimates for you based on your past performance. • Minimal upfront planning Big plans can quickly become obsolete in a constantly changing environment • Less need for estimates kanban tracks your progress, which is a reliable indicator of your future performance • Just-in-time production Don't work harder, work smarter. Get advantage of emergent opportunities by limiting work in progress. • Customer Value It creates opportunities to ensure that the team is always working on a feature that has the highest customer (user) value. Source: http://www.agilesoc.com/articles/agile-ic-development-with-kanban/
  • 48. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 48 | P a g e Kanban board with software development example: Figure 17. Source: http://agileconsulting.blogspot.no/2010/05/kanban-overview-created-on-my-ipad.html A to-do list is a simple way to manage a project. On a to-do list, a task is either done or not. In reality, things are rarely that simple. What happens in between is completely missing from the picture. To-do lists do not have kanban's Work In Progress (WIP) limits. When there is no limit on the number of tasks that can be worked on simultaneously, your team loses focus, and everything gets longer to complete. WIP limits allow you to discover the optimal throughput for your team. With the right WIP limits, you can avoid tasks piling up, and balance demand against your team's capacity. There is no reliable way to measure the time spent on each task in the absence of kanban's multiple phases and WIP limits. Screen Shot source: http://www.atlassian.com/software/greenhopper/overview/kanban
  • 49. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 49 | P a g e Due-date estimates are also problematic because of the tendency to add "safety buffers". Eventually these buffers add up, and everything gets longer and longer to complete. SCRUM addresses some of the shortcomings of to-do lists. It supports multiple phases, and instills a sense of urgency with its sprint concept, but it falls short in a number of areas. In SCRUM, a number of tasks are chosen for each sprint, and the team makes estimates for each task beforehand. Once a sprint is in progress, no changes are allowed. In reality, that does not work quite well. Since estimates are after all just educated guesses, you have to work extra when you are behind, and you waste time when you are ahead. There are no WIP limits in SCRUM. There is nothing to prevent a team to work on everything simultaneously, leading to many tasks in different states of completion. Figure 18. Screen Shot source: http://www.atlassian.com/software/greenhopper/overview/kanban Kanban solves the problems inherent in to-do lists and SCRUM by introducing WIP limits (Figure 18), and eliminating estimates and rigid timeboxes. The result is a smoothly flowing system that is both flexible and robust.
  • 50. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 50 | P a g e Project Management software tools - Examples Axosoft: http://www.ontimenow.com/scrum Source: Axosoft - http://www.ontimenow.com/scrum/dashboard Figure 19. Source: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
  • 51. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 51 | P a g e Source: http://www.atlassian.com/software/greenhopper/overview/kanban Agile Software - JIRA - Case Story - KIXEYE (http://www.KIXEYE.com/) “KIXEYE makes competitive online combat strategy games for the mid-to-hardcore gaming crowd, releasing feature updates on a weekly basis to its passionate community of over five million. KIXEYE's flagship titles include Backyard Monsters, Battle Pirates, and War Commander. Nowadays, a whopping 90 percent of KIXEYE uses JIRA (Figure 19) on a daily basis. Most departments, software development-related or not, use it to bring transparency and metrics to all their project tracking. Kenn White, the project manager for a “top-secret” new game at KIXEYE, says JIRA has helped his team of developers become 30 percent more accurate with their time estimates. “We're hitting 70 percent of our goals more often. We're getting faster and more accurate with each sprint”. “Managing a live product means balancing lots of priorities,” said Sarah Levantine, senior product manager for KIXEYE. “You’ve got live bugs you have to address as soon as possible, long-term roadmap items, and all the while, you have to keep your players interested all the time.” (Source: http://www.atlassian.com/company/customers/case-studies/KIXEYE)
  • 52. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 52 | P a g e Source: https://icon.spigit.com/welcome Source: http://www.spigit.com/products/icon/
  • 53. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 53 | P a g e Test automation software - Example Test automation and making test automation collaborative are one of the important areas to do as fast as possible but with high quality. “TestArchitect uses keyword-driven actions to enable team members to create and update tests without programming scripts. Multi- application architecture makes it possible to create just one set of tests that can be used for multiple applications. As a result, you can increase test coverage, decrease testing time, and rapidly release your software with confidence” Source: http://www.logigear.com/testarchitect/ User testing services - Examples Internal testing is a must do, but as always is objectivity good. External eyes can give high valuable feedbacks, fast and for reasonable prices. Userlytics (http://www.userlytics.com/) and UserTesting.com is two of the leading international providers (figure 20).
  • 54. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 54 | P a g e Figure 20. Source: http://www.usertesting.com/mobile Design brief Every software project should have a design brief to get a flying start. Liedka and Ogilvie (2011p. 46) points of the following content for optimal design brief: • Project Description • Intent/Scope • Exploration Questions • Target users • Personas • Research Plan • Creative Plan • Innovation Plan • Expected Outcomes • Success Metrics • Project Planning
  • 55. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 55 | P a g e User Experience (UX) – Framework Example – (Figure 21) UX should always be analyzed early on in the planning phase of any software project. Figure 21. Quality Management To ensure high quality in software innovation projects, Quality Management should be deployed as an important part of the Innovation Management. Some main areas should always be considered (Turner 2006): • Internal testing (IU, UX, module and integration tests) • Test sign off • Acceptance sign off • Launch sign off • Project documentation • User manual or tips
  • 56. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 56 | P a g e 2.9 Commercialization of Software Innovation The job is unfortunately not done after launch. Now starts using all the early adoption and diffusion tactics, which should be noted and think through in the innovation strategy document. An innovation strategy should be worked out after that the business and marketing strategies are in place. 2.9.1 First-mover or follower strategy? There are two main strategies for commercialization of your software product or service. Either you manage to create a radical innovation and deploy a first-mover strategy, or you decide to create an incremental innovation and deploy a follower strategy. What does first- mover strategy mean? To quote Smith (2010 p. 163): “The first-mover strategy, as its name implies, is about being first to market with a new product or service.” What does follower strategy mean? Follower strategy described by Smith (ibid) “…a follower or latecomer or sometimes even an imitator strategy, this involves taking a “wait-and-see” approach, rather than perceiving innovation as a race in which being first to market is critical” (ibid). The follower often analyses the first-movers innovation, software & tech, product or service, and how the market adapt to the innovation. This is also explained by the theory of punctuated equilibrium, quoting Smith (2010) “…the theory of punctuated equilibrium which predicts that periods of relative stability will be broken by technological breakthroughs that lead to disequilibrium with many competing design” (Smith 2010 p. 164). Therefor is it often the market situation and status quo which gives the answer to deploy a first-mover (Lead) or follower strategy see more details below (Figure 22):
  • 57. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 57 | P a g e Figure 22. Factors to consider between the First-mover or Follower strategies. Source: http://infochachkie.com/fast-follower-iii/ Smith (2010) points out; “When it becomes clear that there is a high level of consumer acceptance in the market or the number of competing designs begin to show signs of diminishing, then and only then does the latecomer (follower) enter the market.” One important radical innovation strategy is to build dominant design into your software product or service. Product innovation is based on the combination of dominant design and absorptive capacity (Smith 2010 p. 68-69). I will look into both first-mover and follower strategy advantages and disadvantages in the case examples below: 2.9.2 Software innovation case example: Angry Birds Do you know Angry Birds from Rovio Entertainment? I guess so. Either you love it or hate it. Rovio’s product innovation is based on the combination of dominant design and absorptive capacity (Smith 2010 p. 68-69). According to Nordström and Biström, a dominant design or product configuration that comprises “the one that wins the allegiance of the marketplace, the one that competitors and innovators must adhere to if they hope to command a significant market following” (Smith 2010 p. 74). Angry Bird does have a new, unique and dominant game design and usability. Dominant design; first by their consumer preferences and its package of features (Funny, simplified cartoons, addictive storyline) and market power (Smith 2010 p. 76). In addition must game producers like Rovio have a high absorptive capacity to drive new innovations; both by internal learning and internal communication and sharing skills, and to learn from external environment to build knowledge about new gaming
  • 58. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 58 | P a g e trends, development software and coding processes to stay sharp in their field (Smith 2010, p. 78). Rovio rapid reinvented Angry Birds into three new products/games to create new markets; Angry Birds seasons, Angry Birds Rio and Angry Birds Space. Rovio still reinvent their self, and continue to develop and launch new games. 2.9.3 Software innovation case example: World of Warcraft “As our example for this type of innovation we can take the extremely popular massive multi-player on-line game WoW. Here the technical innovations are concerned with 3D programming of the virtual world, graphics, and handling multiple players over the net. Other aspects of the game (role playing, questing, guilds, levels of skill acquisition, rewards and the fantasy world background) are familiar from the stand-alone game world” (Rose 2010). Blizzard the maker of World of Warcraft is using successfully a follower strategy. 2.9.4 Software innovation case example: Facebook “Facebook is far from being the first social networking software to become popular, but has achieved (at the time of writing) levels of use which far outstrip its rivals, at least in certain parts of Europe and the US. It supports social networking activities such as. It has an open API, and anyone is allowed to develop applications for it, within its editorial guidelines. In common with many web 2.0 applications it has massive utility for many users, but not the kind of utility that they will necessarily pay for – so basic use of the service is free and the revenue model is primarily based on advertising – which is attractive because of the many users and access to segmented socio-economic groups” (Rose 2010). Facebook do have a modern Freemium business model, with the the biggest revenue stream from ads (See figure 23 for details in the business model). Facebook is also successfully using a follower strategy.
  • 59. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 59 | P a g e Facebook Business Model: Figure 23. Business Model Fiddle. Source: http://bmfiddle.com/ Business model analysis - KIXEYE The business model used by KIXEYE is called Free-to-Play games and is increasingly moving out of the shadows. This kind of business model and Free price strategy increases within many digital businesses. This really turns traditional economics and business models upside down. Chris Anderson (2009) shares tons of insights about how to use Free as an innovation and market differentiator in his book “The future of a Radical Price”. Usually with a Free product a business get revenue from their Premium products after the Freemium model (Anderson 2009), but this is not the case here: KIXEYE offer gamers access to the game and the gaming itself for free, but making its revenue on micro-transaction; small purchases from
  • 60. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 60 | P a g e a small segment of the overall audience. "Consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business." It's making a lot of money in the process. Revenues in 2012 were above $100 million – and CEO Will Harbin says he expects to double or triple that figure this year. Average revenue per daily active user, he added, was 20 times higher than Zynga (reported them to be 5.1 cents per day in the fourth quarter of 2012). KIXEYE isn't alone in the free-to- play core gaming market. Riot Games with the game "League of Legends" boasts 32 million active players each month. And Wargaming.net's with their game "World of Tanks" has 50 million registered users in 200 countries, who make an average of 3.5 million item purchases each day. As for Will Harbin, he said he's not too worried about the EAs and other traditional publishers taking a bite out of KIXEYE's user base. "These guys are too slow," Harbin said. "They're leaving themselves exposed for someone (Followers with radical new business model) to come in and steal their thunder. They're their own worst enemy." Source CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100502237 Usually there are 3 models (Figure 24) of using Free (Anderson 2009): Figure 24. Picture source: http://alstonroadgroup.com/tag/free-the-future-of-a-radical-price/ But in the case of KIXEYE; A few people (Really are millions!) people subsidize free gamers with their in-game micro-transactions; this is a radical new business model, innovated both in the core and the edges (Waldman 2010). And they keep up their startup pace and innovations with eight new games in 2013. (Source: http://blog.games.com/2013/03/29/KIXEYE-tome- immortal-aren/).
  • 61. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 61 | P a g e Successfully follower strategies Angry Birds? (Rovio) Not the first (angry bird or) mobile game. World of Warcraft? (Blizzard Entertainment) Not the first MMORPG. KIXEYE? Not the first MMORTS game. Facebook? Not the first social network. Google? Not the first search engine. Groupon? Not the first deal site. Amazon? Not the first online bookseller. Instagram? Not the first photo-processing App. Still, Rovio Entertainment, Blizzard Entertainment and Facebook, as followers thrives, focusing on continually creating new software products and services and continue to reinvent itself both at the core and the edges. 2.9.5 Innovation Adoption Curve The innovation adoption curve (Figure 25) of Rogers (Smith 2006) is a model that classifies adopters of innovations into various categories, based on the idea that certain individuals are inevitably more open to adoption than others. Figure 25. Roger’s Innovation Adoption Curve.
  • 62. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 62 | P a g e Rogers adopters characteristics are important because: • A person's innovation adoption characteristic affects the rate of uptake of an innovation over time • Different adopter groups buy into innovation for different reasons and have different expectations • People who are innovators and early adopters are easier to convince to innovate • Mainstream adopters (early and late majority) who make up 64 % of any population and these adopters determine whether an innovative practice is embedded • Mainstream adopters need different support structure from early adopters in terms of support, different emphasis on technology and teaching practice. • Innovators may require looser and less tightly controlled conditions, while mainstream adopters may require more stability and support. Innovators and early adopters make up only a small proportion of any population (2.5% are innovators and early adopters about 13%) and there are not enough of them to have an impact on embedding innovation in an organization (ibid). To cross the chasm between the early adopters to the early majority can be difficult. Geoffrey A. Moore (Byers, Dorf & Nelson 2011 p. 270) argued that there is a gap that exists between the early adopters of any technology and the mass market. He explained that many technologies initially get pulled into the market by enthusiasts, but later fail to get wider adoption. One modern way of jumping over the chasm is with usage of Freemium business model or free price tactics or to create a passion brand such as KIXEYE, Angry Birds, World of Warcraft and Facebook.
  • 63. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 63 | P a g e 2.9.6 Creative disruption Simon Waldman (2010) points out in his book “Creative Disruption” some tactics of how to “shake up your business in a digital world”. The term “creative disruption” is a hybrid of Joseph Schumpeter’s notion of “creative destruction” and Clayton Christensen’s work on “disruptive innovation”. The defining characteristics by Waldman (2010) of his term “creative disruption” is the emergence of new businesses either providing something completely new for consumers (E.g. Google), or something traditional but in a radically improved or more efficient way (E.g. Amazon or Skype). Waldman identifies four forces built on Internet and digitalization that cause creative disruption (Waldman 2010 p.11): • Entrepreneurs and new entrants • Consumers needs and desires • The proliferation of connected devices • Economic volatility A disrupted business has to do three things if it is to successfully reinvent itself and stay sharp regarding competition: The first thing to do is to transform the core business. The real challenge is to stick to what you do, but reinvent HOW you do it in a digital age. “This means continuous innovation and efficiency seeking” (Waldman 2010 p. 12). Secondly; find big adjacencies. Real resilience comes from using your company’s capabilities to find new business areas that can offer secure growth (ibid). Third; innovate at the edges. “Everyone loves to innovate, but in the context of a disrupted business, innovation – whether it is organic or through corporate venturing and taking small stakes in innovative start-ups – needs a clear focus. Its aim is pure and simple; either it is a way of creating the products, series and processes that will allow you to transform yours core business, or it is a way of finding your footing as yo search for a big adjacency. If it doesn’t fit any of those criteria, you shouldn’t be doing it. The biggest flaw a company can make, is thinking that edge innovations alone will be enough” (Waldman 2010 p. 13).
  • 64. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 64 | P a g e 2.9.7 Creating disruptive forces If you succeed as a first-mover, you can earn good money. If you fail as a first-mover, you probably lose even more. If you succeed as a follower, you often earn money faster, but often for a shorter period. If you fail as a follower, chances to adapt from disruption or crisis and handle change can be easier than for the first-mover. First-movers have managed to break away from the competition. With few or no competitors, they have an opportunity to capture market share in a new region or for a new product, establish a brand, build brand loyalty and ensure that their brand becomes synonymous with the product. Hence digital businesses, this in turn can form the basis for a sustainable short or long term competitive advantage or temporary monopoly. Followers on the other hand, can look at the first-mover’s position, then choose from a variety of strategic options i.e.; price, quality, placement, user needs and behavior, distribution platforms, and then develop their own strategy for eroding the first-movers advantage. A sound innovation strategy will usually succeed, and a weak one will usually fail, no matter who moves first. In my opinion; it doesn’t matter where you come in the line of digital movers – the successful ones are the best at what they do in sum of: innovation and marketing. Either you are a first-mover or follower leading the pack; you also need to find out how you are going to stay ahead. “If an entrepreneur is going to make a disruptive launch against an incumbent, they can normally count on the fact that they’ll have two or three years to build their business up, before the incumbent will be willing to cannibalize itself and compete. This is a double whammy for the incumbent. First, you have to say goodbye to the barriers to entry that have protected you for so long. Next, you are letting the new entrant create barriers to entry around themselves, because they know you can’t compete with them head on for fear of cannibalization” (Waldman 2011 p. 109).
  • 65. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 65 | P a g e 3 Analyzing my survey 3.1 Limitations of the research I am observant of the limitations of the research in this paper. Firstly, as I highlighted in the introduction; the objectives of this research was to do deductive research coordinating findings and insights in the curriculum with my qualitative research. The research survey was meant only to identify some core themes not creating big data sets as with quantitative research. The selection of the participant respondents were not quite optimal; I wanted original to target only i.e. Software Product Managers, Software Team and Project Managers, Software consultants, Chief Developers and Marketing Managers. Participants covered almost all of these roles. More time to market my survey on LinkedIn would perhaps had found even more target respondents with more diverse software innovation roles. I created approximately 80 questions/statements ( distributed by 10 steps/parts, mapping each to the defined research areas) combined with some open questions to add more value in my web survey because I wanted to perform in-depth analysis around my seven identified areas within “Software development and Innovation”. Some questions/statements are excluded after some further thinking, they were not good enough designed regarding the purpose of the research. I have therefor picked only the most relevant questions/statements in addition to pick some good open answers with useful insights, and excluded the badly constructed or they with no relevancy to the research purpose after adjusting the research content. I have used i.e. Survey Monkey and Survey Gizmo before, but I wanted to include learning’s about a new tool to this research. Therefor it was my first time using Enalyzer as survey tool, and I think the user interface was difficult to learn the first time and the user experience did not get full score from me. But after using time and effort to learn it I managed to invite respondents in 2-3 rounds. One of the questions data entries was corrupted. Enalyzer is built around 3 main setup functions: Questionnaire– Launch – Analysis. The tool has good functions for sending reminders. The questionnaireand Launch was medium hard to setup, and the Analysis part of the tool medium to hard to understand. The positive ignition was that Enalyzer offered good flexibility to build many customized reports each for the seven areas I designed, but when I added more respondents later on via re-launch for new survey respondents, the system changed the order of the data entries.
  • 66. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 66 | P a g e 3.2 Testing Validity Internal validity Analyzing the respondent’s answers verifies that a high degree of internal validity is accomplished. Some of my original questions and statements are excluded in the data analysis, because after second thoughts they didn’t support the research purpose, internal validity or content validity (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003). Content validity Analyzing the respondent’s answers verifies that the research provides adequate coverage of the research purpose and subjects being studied. The following threat factors may have reduced the quality of the content validity regarding my generalization of the findings (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003): • Insufficient data collected to make valid conclusions • Measurement done in too few contexts • Complex interaction across constructs • Respondents giving biased answers or trying to guess what they should say Objectivity I have pursued to be impartial to the outcome of my research, and to acknowledge the respondents own preconceptions and to operate in as unbiased and value-free way as possible. When I have written my interpretations, this is not mixed with the research findings (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003). 3.3 Confirmability The data set after the survey are stored in the cloud (http://www.enalyzer.no/), so it is possible for others to conduct a data audit that examines the data collection and investigate the research analysis procedures, assumptions, findings and generalizations and make judgments about the potential for biasing or distortion (Gall, Gall & Borg 2003).
  • 67. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 67 | P a g e 3.4 Themes and key research findings You will find all the questions and statements and open questions in the copy of the survey questionnairein Appendix A. I have only isolated the core themes and key research findings into this chapter. 3.4.1 Research findings I will present the themes and key findings related to my research purpose. Findings from my focus group study add support to the general view of the importance of setting clear visions, goals and objectives. 76% (Figure 26) of the respondents did define their vision, 88% (Figure 27) defined their goal, and 80% (Figure 28) defined several other objectives for their software project. This supports the view of Rose (2010), Turner (2006), and Smith (2006) for increasing the success rate of software innovations. Software product/service strategy Figure 26.
  • 68. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 68 | P a g e Figure 27. Figure 28. Only 56% (Figure 29) of the respondents answers that they defined KPIs for their development project. Using KPIs simplifies measuring where you are on the road to meet the success criteria’s for any project, KPIs are very helpful setting metrics for the innovation management, business and marketing criteria’s (Kourdi 2009).
  • 69. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 69 | P a g e Figure 29. User and market oriented software innovation and development seems also to be the standard among the user group with 77% (Figure 30) (Liedka & Ogilvie 2011). Figure 30. More surprising is it that only 33% (Figure 31) in the focus group not always calculate the ROI before they start on projects.
  • 70. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 70 | P a g e Figure 31. The mix between First-mover and Follower software innovation strategy are pretty close in the focus group with 44% First-movers and 56% Followers (Figure 32). It is no surprise that there are more followers with incremental innovations than First-movers with radical innovations (Smith 2006). Figure 32. One interesting finding is that none (Figure 33) of the respondents was familiar about a FTO analysis was performed to avoid infringement. Maybe this is because the strategy is to build know-know with tacit knowledge and to create an competitive edge based on skills and
  • 71. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 71 | P a g e insights. And maybe FTO analyses are more actual for bigger companies such as Apple and Samsung with more focus in IPR and patents as important part of their market strategies. Figure 33. 55% of the focus group answer that they have performed a product/Innovation SWOT analysis (Figure 34). This number should maybe be higher, related to the much higher strategically focus on vision, goal and objectives among the focus group. SWOT analysis or similar assessment tools should be performed to play on own Strengths and the competitors Weaknesses (Kourdi 2009). Figure 34.
  • 72. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 72 | P a g e Creativity & Brainstorming processes The awareness and focus on creativity and brainstorming processes seems present, but creativity put in system seems lacking. 56% (Figure 35) of the focus group does not have creativity techniques to help the team move forward (de Bono 1999, Liedka & Ogilvie 2011). Figure 35. Time to focus on the creative aspects of the software project with help of the leaders is peaking with 67% answering YES (Figure 36). This shows that the leaders in the respective participated companies values and nurture creativity as a tool to optimize innovation (Rose 2010). Figure 36.
  • 73. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 73 | P a g e Usage of framework or programs for creativity and/or brainstorming are surprisingly lacking. Only one respondent answer that their company using “Six Thinking Hats” (De Bono 1999). Here are the related answers to the open question (Figure 37): Figure 37. Regarding tehchniques and practices used to stimulate the creativity of the team, only three open answers (Figure 38) indicated weak focus or deployment in the companies about this topic, when brainstorming and good communication are answered here. The best valid answer is “Hackathon’s”, and is probarly from the Game producer company. No surprise that they have strong focus on creativity processes and practices above the average. Answers to the open question: What techniques and practices were used to stimulate the creativity of the team? Figure 38.
  • 74. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 74 | P a g e The focus group are on the same page regarding that team creativity are more important within software innovation projects (Figure 39). Figure 39. Innovation types & styles To get an idea about the innovation types and styles of the software projects inside the focus groups respective companies the following questions was asked (Figure 40 and figure 41): Figure 40. Data entry corrupted!
  • 75. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 75 | P a g e Figure 41. What types of innovation styles and work process are used? The respondents responded: Top 3 software innovations styles (Figure 40) based on: 1. Visioning 2. Exploring and 3. Experimenting. This again is spread on the following types of software innovations (Figure 40): Radical (11%), modular (44%), incremental (44%) and architectural (44%). Data entry corrupted! Software innovation & leadership This part of the survey aimed to find insights about the leadership part of software innovation projects. The awareness and focus on strategically anchoring are totally in place within the focus group with a 100% result (Figure 42).
  • 76. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 76 | P a g e Figure 42. The following questions aimed to analyze correlations between new learning’s, concepts and skills to be able to complete or enhance the innovation project (Smith 2006, Rose 2010). Another purpose was to identify how much prior competence were used in current innovation projects. The focus group answered with only 33% involved fundamentally new concepts or principles for the leaders (Figure 43). Figure 43.
  • 77. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 77 | P a g e A little bit more of the respondents (44%) answered that their software project required news skills for the leaders that they did not posess (Figure 44). Figure 44. Regarding learning from completely new sources or in different ways for the leaders, 55% of the respondents agreed (Figure 45). This supports the theory that companies must have a high absorptive capacity to drive new innovations; both by internal learning and with excellent internal communication and sharing skills, and to learn from external environment to build knowledge about new development software and coding processes to stay sharp in their field (Smith 2010, p. 78 & Ancona, Bresman 2007). Figure 45.
  • 78. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 78 | P a g e If experience is a successfactor regaring software innovations, I wanted to look at the correlation between business, marketing, innovation strategy AND software skills for the leaders which all are important factors within Innovation Management (Byers, Dorf , Nelson 2011 & Schilling 2010) . The findings are: Prior business & marketing skills 80% agrees(Figure 46), Innovation strategy skills 55% agrees (Figure 47), software tech skills, 44 agrees (Figure 48). Not surprisingly points this out the importance of knowledge, focus and skills within both business and marketing, as success factors for innovation management and market adoption. Figure 46. Figure 47.
  • 79. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 79 | P a g e Figure 48. Another interesting finding is that 58% (Figure 49) of the respondents answer that their software innovation was built on known software know-how that existed widely external. This can be explained that approximately the half of the respondents are working inside companies with follower strategy based business models, and that these then are based on modular and/or incremental innovations. Figure 49.
  • 80. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 80 | P a g e That a big amount of the knowlege base also are built on internal tacit knowledge (Figure 50) are not necessary contrary to the result above. Succesful companies use both internal tacit knowledge and insights combined with external or open innovative procesess (Ancora, Bresman 2007 & Smith 2006). Figure 50. Software Team, learning capabilities and collaboration A well function team is no secret one of the things companies wants to accomplish. Today more and more companies use partly open or partly private communities to innovate. Ancona & Bresman (2007) urge the tactic of looking more outward and find ideas, know- how, technology or manpower from external sources. 44% of the focus group answer that they only use internal software team members, when 56% says no (Figure 51). And 56% says their company outsources parts of their software projects (Figure 52). Only 33% of the respondents answer that they have been looking outward creating innovative software features (Figure 53).
  • 81. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 81 | P a g e Figure 51. Figure 52. Figure 53.
  • 82. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 82 | P a g e Software development team are known to be a tech savvy crowd with great learning skills, and a huge motivation for learning new things. But here the respondents are spread in their observations both regarding new concepts or principles (Figure 54) and new skills involved in the software innovation. Figure 54. The focus group agrees with 55% (Figure 55) to the question about the software innovation require the team to learn from completely new sources or in different ways. This finding points in the directon of the research to Ancona & Bresman (2007). Figure 55.
  • 83. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 83 | P a g e About the usage of the team’s prior skills the focus group answer that; Business & Marketing skills 78% agrees (Figure 56), innovation strategy skills 33% agrees (Figure 57), software tech skills 89% agrees (Figure 58) to that the software innovatioin built a great deal on the teams prior skills within the topics. Software tech skills peaks clearly above the rest (Figure 56). Figure 56. Figure 57.
  • 84. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 84 | P a g e Figure 58. To know why the content of the specifiations are created, to now what developmente paths are decided on points back to the vision for the product or service. To share and distribute the vision from the top leaders, down to project managers and team leaders including the team members can help keeping the goal and objectives fresh in mind by the team members during the development (Turner 2006). 69% of the focus group agrees to that the team have a shared project/product vision (Figure 59), and 69% agree on that their team have effective internal communication (Figure 60). Figure 59.
  • 85. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 85 | P a g e Figure 60. Perhaps one of the most critical insights for the team (and team leader), are recognizing when it is not moving forward and does something differently. 69% agrees (Figure 61) to this aspect of projects (Rose 2010). Figure 61.
  • 86. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 86 | P a g e The ability to communicate and share experience across the team are important to build insights between the team members, but also so the company can increase the shared knowledge base both for know-how and tacit knowledge (Smith 2006 & Schilling 2011). A real spike of 89% agrees (Figure 62) to that the team do communicate its experience and expertise and are fast learners. Figure 62. How does your team share new insights and skills? How the team share new insights and skills are a mix of common practice. The respondents answers to this open question are (Figure 63). Answers to the open question: Figure 63.
  • 87. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 87 | P a g e To be able to accommodate divergent thinking are indeed important within software development. This is especially the team manager’s responsibility (Turner 2006). Idea bank, by working in strike teams, discussions and workshop are the open answers. This question is maybe unclear phrased! (Figure 64) Answers to the open question: Figure 64. Looking outward can be rewarding and increase the value in the software innovation process (Ancona & Bresman (2007). Only 36% in the focus group stated that the did so (Figure 65). Figure 65.
  • 88. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 88 | P a g e Project Management and methodology Project management and choice of project methodology are important in every project but especially within software development. To have ONE project manager, one steering group and good routines for change management, risk assessment and reporting are some few important factors to increase the success of software projects (Turner 2006). Another important facet of software innovation projects is to have defined clear: vision, goal and objectives, success criteria’s and measurements (KPIs). But most important is to build good communication and culture for creativity, ideation and innovation across your team. To manage all that you need consistency and the right project manager skills and the rights methodology. Working lean and agile is the modern way of software development. 78% of the focus group agrees to that they have a well function steering group (Figure 66). More surprisingly says only 22% agree to that the team know about routines for change management (Figure 67). Figure 66.
  • 89. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 89 | P a g e Figure 67. Regarding routines for testing looks the situation better; 80% agrees to that the team know about routines for testing (Figure 68). This looks like the focus or deployment of routines regarding testing gets higher priority than change management. One explanation can be that change management commonly is the project managers responsibility or should be exactly that (Turner 2006). Figure 68.
  • 90. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 90 | P a g e Prior software project skills are useful. If the project manager do have experience from similar projects, this means that some mistakes can be avoided and hopefully contribute to good flow. 67% says yes to their project manager had worked on similar project before (Figure 69). It is not mainly the project managers role to spark creativity into the team, that should be the team leader. Nevertheless, 89% agrees to that this is the case (Figure 70) for the project manager and 89% agrees the same for the team leader (Figure 71). One answer to this can be that they have both project leaders and team leaders with some of the same work areas. Figure 69. Figure 70.
  • 91. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 91 | P a g e Figure 71. To get others eyes on the work and editions can be very smart (Ancona & Bresman 2007). More smart than to lock the team inside and keep all the features in total secrecy before the launch day. Using beta testers, and beta versions are good examples of how to get valuable external feedback to optimize the softare and to do faster bug fixing and evaluate UX. To use external user tesing companies can maybe be a smart option in addition, then you will get silent feedback without leaking information about bad versions or crappy visual design. 100% of the focus group agrees to that they use and get valuable external feedback (Figure 72). Figure 72.
  • 92. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 92 | P a g e Some milestones, sprints and deadlines are more important than others. From time to time it can be smart to import expertise outside the team. 80% of the focus group agrees to that the project manager do import necessary expertise when needed (Figure 73). Some times it is more important that the job is done rather than save all the proudness around. Figure 73. Agreement on the project scope are essential to succeed within time and budget. 100% of the focus group agrees (Figure 74) to that both the top level leader, project manager and team leader agreed on the project scope before start (Turner 2006). Figure 74.
  • 93. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 93 | P a g e What kind of project methodology/framework do the respondents use? They answer: Close to SCRUM, SCRUM/Agile and milestone/objective measures (Figure 75): Answers to the open question: Figure 75. Answers to the open question (Figure 76): Figure 76.
  • 94. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 94 | P a g e Answers to the open question (Figure 77): Figure 77. Commercialization of Software Innovation There’s no innovation without commercialization of the product or service (Smith 2006, Schilling 2010). 89% of the respondents companies have released their software product or service (Figure 78). Figure 78.
  • 95. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 95 | P a g e User-driven design of the software product or service are alfa and omega (Rose 2010, Liedka & Ogilvie 2011, Ancona & Bresman 2007). Meeting or overcome their expectations increase the chance for higher user adoption and market diffusion. 69% of the focus group says that they meet their customer/user expectations (Figure 79) and 55% meet their markets diffusion expectations (Figure 80). Figure 79. Figure 80.
  • 96. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 96 | P a g e Most people are creating their software to make money, and for them are the payoff and ROI important. 58% of the respondets agrees to that both their leaders and owners ROI expectations was accomplished (Figure 81). Figure 81. When times goes on, (S-curve theory, Smith 2006) often new entrants occur the market. Then it is important to continue to innovate and or reinvent. 55% of the focus group agree to that they have managed to stay ahead (Figure 82). Figure 82.
  • 97. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 97 | P a g e After the idea are born, either the innovation strategy, the business model or the prototype are created. Yes some qrazy people are making the prototype first, then start fundraising and then build the business model and strategy, to launch the startup in fastest way possible (Sanders & Sloly 2011). This diagramme (Figure 83) tells how the focus group ranked the different areas within innovation management: The top two areas are; 1. Business strategy and 2.Product and marketing strategy. Figure 83. Answers to the open question (Figure 84): Figure 84.
  • 98. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 98 | P a g e 4. Summary and conclusion 4.1 Summary Whether you’re in a new software market or a mature software industry, the competition in the software and mobile app industry is fierce. Staying ahead means continually innovating and differentiating your product; with valuable user-driven features, to stunning visual design, to modern mashup of technologies which ease our usage. Rather than take a blue- sky approach, or leave innovation only to upper management, establishing a smart process for systematic creativity and innovation. Every organization is different and therefore every process will be different, but the fundamentals within software innovation are the same. In this paper, I’ve covered some of those fundamentals; including building a team and leader culture of innovation, the creative and lateral thinking process to reveal real value, specific processes and tools for uncovering needs directly from users, and how to validate and prioritize genius ideas. New radical innovations also can be a threat cannibalizing your own existing revenue stream from existing products, so innovation and business strategy goes hand in hand to create successful market diffusion. Does many or few really discuss, identify and define their vision, goal and objectives before they start their respective projects? My research findings found support for this point of view. Do they always focus on both business and marketing strategies together with innovation strategies? My research findings indicate strong correlations between focus on all these important strategy areas of innovation management. Can a company succeed with one creative “hero”, or is an important success factor team creativity and creativity put in system? It is totally possible to be a millionaire as teenager to make a flashlight app for smartphones without proper strategies or business education, but for the rest of us, one success criteria lies within team collaboration, external co-operatives and team creativity put in system. Regarding business decisions choosing between first-mover or follower strategies and tactics within the software industry, the research findings correlate with business case examples and insights from the curriculum: Follower strategies can be very lucrative. What kind of business models succeed within the software industry today? Business cases in this paper shows a new paradigms with use of both Freemium models in several ways and totally new Free price business model concepts (I.e. KIXEYE Inc.). Combining both business model innovations (Core and edges) with product innovations increase the success rate. Can using the wrong or lack of project management
  • 99. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 99 | P a g e methodology and project tools destroy all good ideas? The research failed to answer that specific aspect, but we all read news, and there are good indications from the curriculum that software companies really stumble and fail in different ways, explained by poorly executed project management for topics like risk management, change management and test management or lack of well function project tools are some of reason behind failing commercialize those ideas. User driven testing and user driven innovations increases the chance to get highly likeable products and services. If test automation solutions or external testing can save you for time and money; please go and save your time and money! Is it more important to deliver real user value than radical innovations from a market perspective? We consumers like things we recognize, and very often we are exposed for new products or services which are real user-driven innovations and based on incremental innovations rather than totally radical innovations. It is more likely to cross the chasm with easily recognizable products or services than totally new ones. It seems difficult to create successful software innovations when only implementing a few of the seven factors researched within software innovation management. These points out the necessity of a strong and modern management team with business, marketing and innovation strategy and operational knowledge and skills. It is the leadership’s responsibility to create culture for innovation and processes which nurture both individual and team creativity. 4.2 Conclusion The conclusion to my research question: “How to empower software development with creative thinking and innovation?” are the following: Use creativity systematically! Incorporate time for creative thinking in every aspect of innovation projects. It is the leadership’s responsibility to create culture and routines to cover methods for ideation and brainstorming sessions. It is the leadership’s responsibility to foster and adopt modern solutions for Innovation Management. Including usage of modern software and online tools can help the team work smarter, lean and agile. Clear visions, goal and objectives should be worked out for any software innovation. KPIs should be defined to measure progress toward the goal. Success criteria’s should be discussed, defined and distributed between development team and the management team. Team leaders and project managers should learn to use agile and lean methodology to work not only fastest, but smartest possible.
  • 100. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 100 | P a g e Time to market is essential! Using the crowd to get feedback faster and using beta tactics and beta testers to create happy brand advocates, almost for free, is nothing less than smart. Calculate product innovation ROI, break-even and cash-flow analyses before start. Innovation won’t ever be completely predictable. Play the game systematically, and continue to reinvent your company and continue to release new innovative products or services. Is it such a thing like ONE eureka software innovation success factor? Unfortunately not! No one can control waves, so learn to surf!: Be adaptable to changes. They will come; new entrants with creative disruptive products or services or disruptive business models, or smarter branding and marketing. Build new markets or expand your market share versus head to head competition. Not every innovation has to be a blockbuster. In sufficient numbers and maybe with help of i.e. Freemium business models or with digital (Buzz/Viral) Word-Of- Mouth-Marketing to jumpstart your branding and reputation, both incremental innovations and follower strategies can be highly profitable and contribute to a sizzling taste of success. It is not always that radical innovations are the best strategically choice. Good luck with your innovation adventure, if you happen to be one of the software venture peoples out there! I really hope that your software innovation rocks…
  • 101. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 101 | P a g e 5 References Curriculum books Anderson, Chris (2009) The Future of a Radical Price. London: Random House Business Books. Ancona, Deborah Phd. & Bresnan, Henrik P.hd (2007). X-team: How to build teams that lead, innovate and succeed. US: Harvard business school Publishing Corporation. Bono, Edward De (1999). Lateral-thinking. US: De Bono Thinking Systems Inc. (e-book). Bono, Edward De (1999). Six Thinking Hats. London: Penguin Books Ltd. Byers, Dorf & Nelson (2011). Technology ventures: From idea to enterprise. Third edition. New York: McGraw- Hill. Kelley, Tom (2005). The Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO's Strategies for Defeating the Devil's Advocate and Driving Creativity Throughout Your Organization. US: Random House Inc. Kourdi, Jeremy (2009). Business strategy . A guide to taking your business forward. Second edition. London: The Economist in association with Profile Book Ltd. Kouzes, James M. & Posner, Barry Z. Phd. (2012). The leadership challenge. How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations. Fifth edition. CA: Jossey-Bass. Liedtka, Jeanne P.hd & Ogilvie, Tim (2011). Designing for growth – a design thinking tool kit for managers. NY: Columbia Business School Publishing. McKeown, Max (2008). The Truth about Innovation – A small book about big ideas. UK: Pearson Education Limited. Nordström, Kjell A. (2002). Funky Business – Talents makes capital dance. UK: Prentice Hall - Financial Times, Pearson Education Limited. Osterwald, Alexander & Pigneur, Yves (2010). Business Model Generation – A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. US: John Wiley & Son Inc. Pikkarainen, Minna & Codenie, Wim & Boucart, Nick & Heredia, Josè A. (2011). The Art of Software Innovation: Eight Practice Areas to Inspire your Business. London: Springer Media. Rose, Jeremy (2010). Software Innovation. Eight work-style heuristics for creative system developers. Aalborg University Department of Computer Science (e-Book). Sanders, Ian & Sloly, David (2011). Zoom!: The faster way to make your business idea happen. US: Prentice Hall.
  • 102. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 102 | P a g e Schilling , Melissa A. (2010). Strategic Management of Technological Innovation. Third Edition. NY: McGraw-Hill. Smith, David (2006). Exploring Innovation. Second Edition. UK: McGraw-Hill Education. Turner, S.V. Michael D.sc (2006). Microsoft Solutions Framework Essentials. Building Successful Technology Solutions. US: Microsoft Press. Additional books Gall, Meredith D. & Gall, Joyce P. & Borg, Walther R. (2003). Educational Research - An introduction. US: Pearson Education, Inc. Articles Goh Han Teck and Jo Hennessy (2011). Generations and Leadership. Located 05.05.13 at WWW: http://newsite.roffey-groups.co.uk/wp-content/uploads2/Generations-and-Leadership.pdf Internet sources: Cohn, Mike (15.02. 2012). Agile Succeeds Three Times More Often Than Waterfall. Located 04.03.13 at WWW: http://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/blog/agile-succeeds-three-times-more-often-than-waterfall Wikipedia ❶: Located 16.03.13 at WWW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator
  • 103. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 103 | P a g e Appendix A – Copy of the Questionnaire Welcome to this survey about Software development and Innovation! Welcome and thanks for helping me out with this survey which I will use findings in my term paper! You decide if you want to choose anonymity for your name, company or product name etc. Leave those fields blank. This survey target persons working in-house or consulting based on customer projects. The survey aims to fit different roles related to both software projects, management and innovation. My research use qualitative methodology and uses this in depth survey with combinations of questions/statements, mostly single variate, some multivariate and ranking, and a few open answer fields for in depth insights. The combinations are used to minimize the time needed and to avoid "tired" eyes and heating brains... You need to set aside ca. 15-25 minutes to fulfill the survey. If you have any questions during the survey, just call me or send me a sign! This survey has 10 parts for exploring the following areas: * Organizational information * Software product/service strategy * Creativity & Brainstorming processes * Nature of the innovation * Software innovation & leadership * Software Team, learning capabilities and collaboration * Project Management and methodology * Budget * Time * Commercialization of Software Innovation So now starts your 20 minutes, click away and good luck! Grab a cup of coffee if you are in urgent need of one... Best regards Rune Haugestad +47 94 88 29 01 / rhaugestad@gmail.com / twitter: runebuzz Master student: Entrepreneurship & Innovation UMB School of Economics and Business, Ås - Norway
  • 104. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 104 | P a g e Organizational information (Part 1 of 10) What is your first name? (Optional: Leave blank and your name will be anonymous in the term paper) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ What is your role/position? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. Are you working on in-house or external (Customer) software/App projects? (Oppgi kun ett svar) In-House project External project (Customers) What is the name of your company? (Optional: Leave blank and it will be anonymous in the term paper) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
  • 105. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 105 | P a g e 2. How many people work in your company? (Oppgi kun ett svar) 1-4 5-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-99 100+ 3. How many of the employee (Consultants) joined the software development project? (Oppgi kun ett svar) 1-4 5-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-99 100+ 4. What is the software industry your product or services belongs to? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5. What is the name of your company’s software product or service? (Optional: Leave blank and it will be anonymous in the term paper) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
  • 106. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 106 | P a g e Software product/service strategy (Part 2 of 10) 6. We identified and defined a clear vision for our product/service (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 7. We identified and defined one clear goal for our product/service (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 8. We identified and defined several objectives for our product/service (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 9. We identified and defined KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) for our development project (Oppgi kun ett svar)
  • 107. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 107 | P a g e Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 10. We identified the challenge to be solved for the users/customer before starting up the details of the project (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 11. We always calculate the project ROI before startup of any project (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 12. What is the added value for the user? (Hidden!) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
  • 108. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 108 | P a g e 13. What is your product/service USPs (Unique Selling Propositions)? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14. Is your product/service a first-mover or follower based strategy? (Oppgi kun ett svar) First-mover Follower 15. We performed a "Freedom-To-Operate" (FTO) analysis to avoid infringement (Optional) (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 16. We performed a Product/Innovation SWOT analysis (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know
  • 109. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 109 | P a g e 17. We identified several "innovators & early user" adoption tactics! (Name your top 1-3 tactics) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 18. We identified our diffusion tactics! (Name your top 1-3 tactics) Fill inside the text field! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
  • 110. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 110 | P a g e 19. What are the sources of revenue and what is your business model? (Examples: Revenue: Pay-Per-download, subscriptions. Business model: Freemium) Fill inside the text field! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20. What is your price model? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Free Cheap Medium Premium 21. What is the nature of your target market? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Small Medium Big 22. Are your product/service an open innovation or closed/proprietary innovation? (Oppgi kun ett svar)
  • 111. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 111 | P a g e Open innovation Closed/proprietary innovation Combination 23. Does your company filed for any software patents? (Optional!) (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No Only Registered Trademark Creativity & Brainstorming processes (Part 3 of 10) 24. Do you have creativity techniques that help your team to move forward? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 25. What techniques and practices were used to stimulate the creativity of the team? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
  • 112. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 112 | P a g e 26. What framework is used within creativity & brainstorming in team settings? (I.e.: Six Thinking Hats, Concept Fan, DO IT and Min Basadur's Simplex) Name yours or write None...Fill inside the text field! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 27. In your opinion, are software "team creativity" or "individual creativity" most important? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Team creativity Individual creativity 28. Do the leaders help the team to set time aside to only focus on the creative aspects of the project? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No
  • 113. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 113 | P a g e The nature of your innovation (Part 4 of 10) **29. Innovation styles: Is your innovation mostly based on: (Please rank) Drag & Drop your ranking! (Foreta en prioritering med tallene fra 1-4, hvor 1 er best) Modifying ________ Exploring ________ Experimenting ________ Visioning ________ 30. Types of software innovation: Does the market/Customers/users call your product or service: (Oppgi gjerne flere svar) A radical innovation? (Example: Totally new tech or concept. Not built on existing tech) A modular innovation? (Example: Built on existing building blocks and/or tech) An incremental innovation? (Example: Small steps of optimizing features of existing tech or service) An architectural innovation? (Example: Reconfigure existing systems in a new way)
  • 114. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 114 | P a g e 31. Why is your product new and/or original? (Optional!) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Software innovation & leadership (Part 5 of 10) 32. Is your software project anchored strategically by the top level management? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 33. Does your software innovation involve fundamentally new concepts or principles for your leaders? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know
  • 115. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 115 | P a g e 34. Does your software innovation require new skills for your leaders that they did not possess? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 35. Does your software innovation require the leaders to learn from completely new sources or in different ways? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 36. Does your software innovation built a great deal on the leaders prior business & marketing skills? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 37. Does your software innovation built a great deal on the leaders prior innovation strategy skills? (Oppgi kun ett svar)
  • 116. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 116 | P a g e Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 38. Does your software innovation built a great deal on the leaders prior software tech skills? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 39. Does your software innovation built on known software know-how that existed widely external? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 40. Does your software innovation built on internal tacit knowledge? (Unwritten, informal knowledge) (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Software Development Team, learning capabilities and collaboration (Part 6 of 10)
  • 117. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 117 | P a g e 41. Does your company only use internal software team members? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 42. Does your company outsource parts of your project? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 43. Does your software innovation involve fundamentally new concepts or principles for your development team? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 44. Does your software innovation require new skills for your team that they did not possess? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know
  • 118. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 118 | P a g e 45. Does your software innovation require the team to learn from completely new sources or in different ways? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 46. Does your software innovation built a great deal on the team’s prior business & marketing skills? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 47. Does your software innovation built a great deal on the team’s prior innovations strategy skills? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 48. Does your software innovation built a great deal on the team’s prior software tech skills? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know
  • 119. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 119 | P a g e 49. Does the team have a shared project/product vision and know where it is going? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 50. Does the team have effective internal communication? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 51. Does the team recognize when it is not moving forward and do something differently? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 52. Did the team looked more inward or outward regarding creating innovative software features? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Inward Outward
  • 120. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 120 | P a g e 53. Does the team communicate its experience and expertise and learn fast? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 54. How does your team share new insights and skills? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 55. How does the team accommodate divergent thinking? (= Method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
  • 121. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 121 | P a g e Project Management and methodology (Part 7 of 10) 56. Do you have ONE named Project Manager (Or called Project Leader)? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 57. Does your project have a well function steering group? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 58. Do you have ONE named person responsible for Change Management? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 59. Does the team know about routines for Change Management?
  • 122. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 122 | P a g e (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 60. Do you have ONE named person responsible for testing? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 61. Does the team know about routines for testing? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 62. Had the Project Manager worked on a similar project before? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 63. Does the Project Manager allow space for creativity and innovation? (Oppgi kun ett svar)
  • 123. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 123 | P a g e Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 64. Does the team leader allow space for creativity and innovation? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 65. Does the team get valuable external feedback? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 66. Does the Project Manager import necessary expertise for the project when needed? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 67. What project methodology/framework was chosen? Name yours (Examples: SCRUM, MSF, ITIL, Kanban, Lean Six Sigma etc.) Fill inside the text field!
  • 124. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 124 | P a g e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 68. Why did you choose this project framework? Fill inside the text field! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 69. What is the number ONE reason for your team to work iterative? Fill inside the text field! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
  • 125. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 125 | P a g e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Budgets (Part 8 of 10) 70. Was the software project budget agreed on between leaders and development team before start? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 71. Who created and estimated the software budget? (Oppgi kun ett svar) The board Top level leader Project Manager Team Manager All together Other 72. What is the biggest risks regarding software project budgets? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
  • 126. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 126 | P a g e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Time (Part 9 of 10) 73. Did your top level leader, Project Manager, Team Leader and team members agreed on the project scope before start? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 74. Did your company succeed in delivering launch on time as planned? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 75. What is the biggest risks regarding the time frame?
  • 127. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 127 | P a g e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Commercialization of Software Innovation (Part 10 of 10) 76. Is your company's software product or service released yet? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Yes No 77. If yes: Did your company's product or service meet your customer/user expectations? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know No launch yet 78. If yes: Did your company's product or service meet your market diffusion expectations?
  • 128. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 128 | P a g e (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know No launch yet 79. If yes: Did your company's product or service meet your leader’s & owners ROI (Return On Investment) criteria’s? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know No launch yet 80. If yes: Does your company's product or service still gain technological lead ahead of the pack? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 81. If yes: Does the software innovation met organization’s expectations regarding the innovation’s impact on sales? (Oppgi kun ett svar) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know No launch yet
  • 129. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 129 | P a g e **82. Rank the following areas by what you think is important to address first: Drag & Drop your rankings! (Foreta en prioritering med tallene fra 1-8, hvor 1 er best) Innovation strategy ________ Unique software skills ________ Project Manager skills ________ Business strategy ________ Team creativity ________ Individual creativity ________ Product & Marketing strategy ________ Project Methodology ________ 83. In your opinion: What it the “single” most important “thing” or aspect in software innovation projects? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Finite: Thank you for your patience!
  • 130. Master student: Rune Haugestad. UMB – School of Business & Economics. Master course: Entrepreneurship & Innovation 130 | P a g e