Published on

Early Enterprise 2.0 perspectives (circa 2005) from Stephen Danelutti of netoCiety. Essentially covers the functions of innovation and change in business transformation efforts supported by social software.

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

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

No notes for slide
  • Innovation+Change=Transformation

    1. 1. innovation + change = transformation Stephen Danelutti
    2. 2. Topics <ul><li>Strategic Imperatives for the CEO </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic Imperatives for UK </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul><ul><li>Solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul><ul><li>Immediate Action </li></ul>
    3. 3. Strategic Imperatives for the CEO Sources: 1. Strategos Innovation Survey 2004 (N: 557) 2. 2005 Training and Development Survey CIPD, UK (N: 664) 3. The Innovator's Solution: Clayton Christensen & Michael E. Rayno 4. Winning at Change: John P. Kotter Barriers to Innovation Short-term focus/focus on operations-63% Lack of time, resources, or staff-52% Lack of systematic innovation process-33% Leaders expect payoff sooner than realistic-31% Incentives not structured to reward innovation-31% Innovation core corporate value – Yes 66% “ To be best-in-class we need innovation. Can’t be through continuous improvement of existing work. Without innovation, we’ll always be tactical tuners.” Main drivers for investing in leadership development are to successfully manage organisational change ! Organisations undergo some form of major organisational change every 3 years, but 4 in 10 reorganisations fail to achieve objectives. Over 60 percent of all new-product development efforts are scuttled before they ever reach the market. Of the 40 percent that do see the light of day, 40 percent fail to become profitable and are withdrawn from the market. Fewer than 15 of the 100 or more companies I have studied have successfully transformed themselves. 1 1 2 2 4 3
    4. 4. <ul><li>Success factors for Innovation performance, in which UK below avg. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sources of new technological knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The capacity to absorb and exploit knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Few firms show evidence of systematic adoption of the human resource practices typically associated with effective innovation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access to finance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competition & entrepreneurship </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Customers and suppliers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The regulatory environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Networks and collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>UK-based firms appear to have many, varied network relationships, but infrastructure patchy and relationships largely driven by short-term decisions </li></ul></ul></ul>Strategic Imperatives for UK Source: DTI Innovation Report December 2003, drawing on an extensive review of international innovation literature, aided by a panel of experts, analysis by the AIM Management Research Forum and the OECD.
    5. 5. Conclusions <ul><li>Change is the only constant - constantly changing is key </li></ul><ul><li>Constant innovation - good way of coping with change </li></ul><ul><li>But … most change programmes and new innovations fail! </li></ul><ul><li>Why? </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation/change efforts often stand-alone and unstructured </li></ul><ul><li>Work-force is not sufficiently engaged and do not collaborate effectively </li></ul>
    6. 6. Solutions Change Transformation <ul><li>Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Research and Knowledge Transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Consultancy or Interim Management (outside experts) </li></ul><ul><li>Social Software </li></ul><ul><li>Cultural Alignment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Locking-in Competence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engaging Workforce </li></ul></ul>Leveraging Opportunities The Transformation Cycle Built-in Resilience Creative Destruction pro  active Innovation re  active Managing Crises
    7. 7. Research - SD <ul><li>Influences on Corporate and Product brand evaluation? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Image mostly. Other association types? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No empirical link: association type  corporate/product evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One successful study - two association types </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Corporate Ability associations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Company’s capability for producing products and affect on product evaluation/purchase </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Corporate Social Responsibility associations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Company’s perceived social responsibility and affect on product evaluation/purchase </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Research - SD <ul><li>Investigation of Interactive Processes and their influence </li></ul><ul><li>Various contexts discovered: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication/information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>From broadcast to interactive </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relationship Marketing: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Using IT: listen to individuals continually and understand, interact, quickly respond to preferences </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Integrate marketing with design/manufacturing - involve customers early in development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Customer becomes “co-producer” and loyal </li></ul></ul></ul>
    9. 9. <ul><li>The Structural Equation Model </li></ul>Research Framework - SD Product Sophistication Product Suitability Corporate Ability Corporate Interaction Corporate Evaluation Product Evaluation
    10. 10. <ul><li>Associations of Corporate Interaction can be created </li></ul><ul><li>Can influence product evaluations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More interaction: more suitable products, more favourable corporate evaluation, more products purchased </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Use in: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corporate positioning strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Corporate identity and reputation building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Corporate communication platforms </li></ul></ul>Implications - SD
    11. 11. Research – Innovation and Change <ul><li>Innovation requires experimenting and prototyping Leonard-Barton, 1995 </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation arises from knowledge creation in firm Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995 </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation on a regular basis can prevent inertia. Tushman & O'Reilly, 1997 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ambidextrous Organizations celebrate stability and incremental change as well as experimentation and discontinuous change simultaneously </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Innovation relies on recognition of opportunities O'Connor & Rice, 2001 </li></ul><ul><li>The Idea Itself and the Circumstances of Its Emergence as Predictors of New Product Success Jacob Goldenberg, Donald R. Lehmann and David Mazursky, 2001 </li></ul>
    12. 12. Research – Change Four choices of approach open to leaders to engage everyone in change a) Telling the many what has been decided by the few (instructional with little sell) b) Selling to the many what has been decided by the few (tell with a sell and entertainment) hooligans or spectators c) Driving accountability down by implicating people as individuals (giving people the time, space and process to apply the change/decision to their own work, regardless of the degree of delegation) d) Co-creation: judging who will add value if included in front end decision forming and change/strategy development (not to be confused with a laissez faire culture which is poor at closure and ill disciplined. Co-creation takes robust governance and skill) willing collaborators compliant collaborators personally committed reformers outcome outcome Source: McKinsey 2005
    13. 13. Features of successful innovation <ul><li>Successful innovations had some, or all, of following features: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>They were moderately new to the market </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on tried and tested technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Saved money </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Met customers' needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supported existing practices. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>By contrast, the products that failed were based on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cutting-edge or untested technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Followed a “me-too” approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Were created with no clearly defined solution in mind </li></ul></ul>Goldenberg, Lehmann and Mazursky, 2001 looked at 197 product innovations, of which 111 were successes and 86 failures)
    14. 14. <ul><li>Where ideas come from and why ensuing innovation succeeds/fails </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need spotting - actively looking for answer to a known problem </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solution spotting - finding new ways of using existing technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mental inventions - dreamed up in head - little external reference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Random events - serendipitous moments - no effort, large outcome </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trend following </li></ul></ul>Idea factors Goldenberg, Lehmann and Mazursky, 2001 looked at 197 product innovations, of which 111 were successes and 86 failures)
    15. 15. Success-to-failure rate <ul><li>Trend following and mental inventions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Three times as many failures as successes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need spotting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Twice as many successes as failures. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Market research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Four times more successes than failures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Solution spotting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Seven times more successes than failures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Taking advantage of random events </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Thirteen times more successes than failure </li></ul></ul>Goldenberg, Lehmann and Mazursky, 2001 looked at 197 product innovations, of which 111 were successes and 86 failures)
    16. 16. Bases for additional research <ul><li>Specific correlation between organisational factors and success? </li></ul><ul><li>Capitalising on random events most successful method of innovation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective change managements role? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Its nature? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Other “idea factors” imply systematic approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Correct? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Its nature? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Can all-encompassing approach be identified and described? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Processes, technology and culture? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Replicability with high success rate? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Difference in approach between different factors of innovation? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Product innovation, biz concept innovation, biz process innovation, etc. </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. <ul><li>Wiki for collaborative environment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Involve grass roots in Innovation and Change (needs management endorsement) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Positively leverage trends in blogging and P2P collaboration/activisim </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Site becomes centre of expertise (knowledge base) in and of itself </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Core philosophy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Everyone wants to make a difference, change faults, be creative, innovate in their work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus where change effectively happens, where great ideas reside - workforce </li></ul></ul><ul><li>System of qualification </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluate solutions posted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>External network of experts - payment if necessary </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Peer review – no charge but no way to verify expert involvement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Company sponsorship useful endorsement </li></ul></ul>Immediate Action
    18. 18. Thank you! There are costs and risks to a programme of action, but they are far less than the long range risks and costs of comfortable inaction John F. Kennedy The idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all Elbert Hubbard Stephen Danelutti Mobile: 0044 (0)7786 115 227 E-mail: [email_address] Web site: Blog: