The document discusses the complexities of innovation, highlighting that it is a practice intended to translate market opportunities into performance, and emphasizing the importance of design and sponsorship throughout the innovation lifecycle. It outlines the difference between research and development, the value constraints based on organizational strategy, and the necessity for effective management of innovation to avoid stalling. Furthermore, it suggests that business development functions should actively seek and support innovations, enabling researchers to articulate actionable opportunities that align with organizational goals.

1. Who Gets To Innovate?
An archestra notebook.
© 2013 Malcolm Ryder / archestra

2. Problem: Innovation is Inconvenient
Innovation is a practice, not a skill.
Innovation is important as a performance advantage; other than that,
it’s just interesting.
For most innovators, chances of follow-through are… not so good.

3. The Innovator’s Gauntlet
1.
The business goal of innovation is to translate market opportunity to market performance
2.
Adopting externally sourced innovations is not a new business idea: e.g., M&A
3.
Producing internally originated innovations is also not a new business idea: e.g., R&D
4.
Anyone can do research; development is almost always subject to a different degree of
management
5.
Development responds to business pressures in market performance
6.
Research responds to business pressures in market opportunity
7.
Research is intended to create opportunities that did not already exist
8.
In the research stage, an innovation usually has no value outside of being a “problem solution”
• The importance of a problem predetermines the expected base value of its solution

4. The Innovator’s Gauntlet
9.
Outside of tackling a known problem, an innovation in the research stage mainly has value as a
strategic change
• The presence of a strategy predetermines the expected base value of the change
• Innovations not associated with a strategy are likely to be ignored
10. To capture the solution or change, research delivers a concept as a design
11. Relatively few individuals are good designers
12. The most valuable researchers are the ones that are also good designers or that work well with
an available designer
13. A designer is responsible for forming the innovation into something usable
14. Designers are often credited with the innovation because of the high importance of usability
15. The functional owner of the strategy needs to become the primary sponsor of the innovation’s
development
16. The full production lifecycle of an innovation requires the design to be built at least as a model
or prototype

5. Innovation is important as a performance
advantage. Other than that, it is just interesting.
Is the performance management system the biggest impediment to innovators?
“Performance” is a label meaning one or both of two things:
• Level of benefit that an effort produced versus what it used
• Final proximity to a target outcome achieved on a production allowance
Unfortunately, those two meanings, which translate to ROI and Productivity, leave out the primary
purpose of innovation:
• creating new ways of doing things, that leave behind the constraints of the old.
Unless the difference in constraints is an advantage for ROI or Productivity, the “new” is mostly just
interesting, while the “change” is mostly a risk.
Many performance “management” systems are 50% predicated on risk-avoidance. Hmmm...

6. For most innovators, chances of follow-through are…
not so good.
1. The business goal of innovation is to translate market opportunity to market performance
2. Adopting externally sourced innovations is not a new business idea: M&A
3. Producing internally originated innovations is also not a new business idea: essentially, R&D
4. Anyone can do research; development is almost always subject to a different degree of management
Chances are, somewhere in the gauntlet, you can spot the point where your innovation might
stall, stray, or stop cold.
5. Development responds to business pressures in market performance
6. Research responds to business pressures in market opportunity
7. Research is intended to createno one understands it yet. Perhaps
Maybe opportunities that did not already exist
8.
the right people can’t see it yet. Possibly, it went to
the wrong center of attention. of being might be a different innovation competing with it too
In the research stage, an innovation usually has no value outsideThere a “problem solution”
• The importance of a problem predetermines cares thatbase value of its solution you?
successfully. And, who the expected it is coming from
9. Outside of tackling a known problem, an innovation in the research stage mainly has value as a strategic change
than you intended?
• InnovationsWill anyone be able to both to be ignoredand reproduce it in business-as-usual operation?
not associated with a strategy are likely produce
10. To capture the solution or change, it actually change thearight thing(s) in the right way at the right time?
And, does research delivers a concept as design.
•
The presence of a strategy predetermines thewants a differentthe changeit
What if your supporter expected base value of use of
11. Relatively few individuals are good designers
12. The most valuable researchers are the ones that are also good designers or that work well with an available designer
13. A designer is responsible for forming the innovation into something usable
14. Designers are often credited with the innovation because of the high importance of usability
15. The functional owner of the strategy needs to become the primary sponsor of the innovation’s development
16. The full production lifecycle of an innovation requires the design to be built at least as a model or prototype

7. Solutions…

8. Breaking Through
There are already thousands of articles and consultancies that advise you on why known efforts
have failed.
But your idea and your organization could both be dissimilar to most of those failures.
The point is, you must determine why your innovation might work where you are. Otherwise,
failures occurring elsewhere don’t mean anything about you.
Each of the points in the innovation gauntlet includes a potential showstopper for the would-be
innovator.
Being supported as an innovator requires sponsorship.
Researchers and Sponsors need to find each other, with the same assertiveness found in the
external marketing of the business.
Innovators are likely to have sponsors depending on:
• how close the research concept is to strategy, and…
• how soon the design is likely to be buildable
Note – most potential innovators are:
researchers who do not have sponsors,
not builders who do not have funding.

9. Profiling the Innovation
The value of the innovation must be assessed by type; at the high level, innovations are either “breakthroughs”
(solutions) or “game-changers” (inflections).
Assessment must also be done within the context of a given organizational boundary (e.g. enterprise, department,
domain, community). Management’s perception of the innovation’s value is constrained by strategy, resources,
and time within the designated boundary.
Given any designated boundary, the following aspects are typically true for the innovation.
Research
Design
Build
Probable default Profile
Game-changer
May be
understood
only by small
audiences
Externally
competitive
Adoption
incented by
scenarios
•
•
•
•
Highly strategic
Unpredictable timing
Benefit-sensitive
Cross-functionally Influential
Breakthrough
May be
invisible to
external
parties
Internally
competitive
Adoption
incented by
demonstration
•
•
•
•
Largely tactical
Prescribed and limited window
Cost-sensitive
Operationally specific impact
© 2013 Malcolm Ryder / archestra
“Innovation X”

10. The value of Innovation is in the business goal:
the significance of its deliverable difference.
More
strategic
GREATER
DIFFERENTIATION
TIME TO MARKET
Concept impact
SEGMENT CREATOR
SEGMENT LEADER
SEGMENT STANDARD
BRAND STRENGTH
LESS REDUNDANCY IN
PORTFOLIO
PRODUCTIVITY
Less
strategic
The target payoffs of innovations
are varied and distinct criteria for
justifying support of the
innovation lifecycle. Any given
innovation may address one or
more of the criteria. The build of
the innovation’s design must
keep the innovation’s concept on
the path to an important target.
Adequate support of the
innovation requires both
sponsorship and management.
Shown at left: examples of
business goals in relation to
business timing and strategy.
sooner
later
Development timing
© 2013 Malcolm Ryder / archestra

11. SPONSORSHIP reallocates permission and/or
resources to accommodate innovators
Concept impact
More
strategic
Less
strategic
Proceed under LOB
management
• Join tiger team
Proceed under program
management
• Organize effort in
project portfolio
Proceed under product
management
• Incubate in a Center
of Excellence
Proceed under LOB
management
• Craft an initiative
re: product portfolio
Proceed under LOB
management
•
Include in product
roadmap
Proceed under program
management
•
Collaborate with
another existing effort
Proceed under task-load
management
•
Make allowance in
personal workload
sooner
Proceed under product
management
•
Absorb into another
existing effort
later
Development timing
•
•
•
•
LOB management
Product management
Program management
Task-load management
Most organizations have a
variety of mechanisms intended
to host, with accountability, the
ongoing attention to internal
production options. The
accountability provides tracking
of the current priority and
direction achieved, and
maintains awareness of the
related requirements. Without
these same hosts, innovations
don’t continue on through their
lifecycle. Shown at left:
examples of how such hosts and
innovators together support the
innovator’s effort. Some
innovations, as conditions
change around them, may
navigate multiple hosts.
© 2013 Malcolm Ryder / archestra

12. The Who Cares Test
• An organization that has a policy of promoting innovation will “make good” on the promotion by
explicitly managing innovations across their lifecycles (research, design and build). This will be
reflected both under strategic planning and in portfolio evaluation of its products and solutions.
• The requirement for follow-through of that policy is a practice that solicits and orchestrates
assertive navigation of potential innovators amongst the organization’s options for sponsorship
and resourcing.
• Innovators eligible for attention and support need to be able to articulate how their concept
represents actionable opportunity that does not already exist in the established practice of the
organization.

13. Solved: Where the Practice Resides
Getting the innovation opportunity into practice should be a business development function. This specifically
means that the organization is systematically looking for the innovator.
The business development management team should be prospecting throughout the organization to solicit and
vet research.
Any researcher should be able to engage the business development process and the business development
management team, to have the opportunity to review the organization’s current value mapping and have an
interview regarding how to describe and assess their research.
The business development management team should maintain a portfolio of innovation research, which
should be continually available for review-on-demand by strategists and executives.
The critical decision to generate a design from the research concept should be recommended by business
development, who should then become an agent representing the recommended research to hosts, sponsors
and other operations managers.
Design and build decisions are not frequently under the control of the researcher. Credit for design and build
should be accountable under Project Management and Operations.
All highly-rated innovations should be recognized proxies of “contributions” that would factor into performance
evaluations and assignments of the researcher.