Archive for the innovation success Category

Growth that gets you fired

 

CEOs–and all members of the C-suite–want to grow the company, but it’s no easy task. Just ask Thomas Glocer, the former CEO of Thomson Reuters. He was just fired for not growing fast enough.

A December 2, 2011, Wall Street Journal article <http://on.wsj.com/wuWogz>reports, “The Markets division has suffered from the weak performance of a new product, Eikon, that it had been hoping would spur growth. In response to the weak performance, Thomson reorganized the Markets unit in July, under pressure from the Thomson family.” Glocer tried to turn things around, but in December he announced that Eikon, “which was supposed to begin paying dividends [in 2012], likely won’t see an uptick in sales until next year and won’t drive revenue growth until 2013.”  That wasn’t good enough for the Thomson family.

 

What did the Markets division–and Glocer–do wrong? The answer is relatively simple: they relied on very traditional innovation methods. With their knowledge of the market, they brainstormed what they felt would be a good solution: Eikon. After concept testing, they created a supporting business. Then they created product requirements, based on the teams’ prioritization of the features. Finally, they developed and launched the product.

And it failed to generate growth.

This happens all the time. Why? Because executives continue to use innovation processes that are fundamentally flawed. First, they brainstorm a weak idea with their team without knowing all the customer’s needs. Then they find customers who say they would buy such a product–even though they won’t. Lastly, they put together a business case that mistakenly projects returns that would pay back their investments. In other words, they guess, and most of the time, they guess wrong. Ultimately, this destroys the equity value of the company.

To mitigate these risks, companies must use an innovation process that works. Our patented innovation process, Outcome-Driven Innovation, achieves these objectives almost 90 percent of the time. It works because it is focused on the job the customer is trying to get done. With the customer’s needs in mind, we help companies: (1) correctly identify markets that offer revenue growth potential, (2) effectively uncover all the customer’s needs and prioritize those that are unmet, and (3) systematically construct the platforms and feature ideas that will satisfy the unmet needs.

And because we defined customer needs (outcomes) using metrics, we can measure if a new solution concept is going to deliver value in the market (i.e. will it help the customer get the job done better) before significant capital is invested in development, marketing, and sales.

Had Thompson Reuters’ Markets division understood the job their customers were trying to get done and what metrics those customers used to measure the successful execution of that job, the division would have developed an entirely different product, one that would have accelerated Thomson Reuters’ growth.

And Thomas Glocer would likely still have his job.

 

 

 

Directed Innovation

Directed Innovation, the most effective way to create a corporate culture of innovation

Many companies are attempting to create a corporate culture of innovation by establishing a centralized Innovation Center of Excellence. Decisions on how to structure and staff such a center can make or break it—and can affect the company’s ultimate success or failure.

There are two common approaches to creating a culture of innovation:

  1. Everyone is responsible for innovation. Organizations that take this approach train hundreds, even thousands, of employees as part of a change management effort. They want all their employees to think differently about innovation.
  2. A specialized team is responsible for innovation. Organizations that take this approach place responsibility for innovation upon a small team and call upon that team as needed.

In our experience, both approaches are flawed. Companies that take the first approach, which is the more common, see innovation as being inextricably linked to broad cultural change in the organization. But it doesn’t need to be. What we have learned is that innovation as most commonly understood—that is, product and service innovation, geared toward growth—should not be everyone’s responsibility. Only those who decide what products to place in the development pipeline should concern themselves with innovation. These are the people who need to think and act differently so that only products that will create significant new customer value and contribute to revenue growth enter the development process to begin with. The rest of the organization simply has to do what it has always done—that is, validate, prototype, design, build, create, ship, and launch those products. Training the entire organization to be innovators is a time-consuming, costly, and unnecessary activity.

But the second approach is also flawed, and at a fundamental level. The problem with creating an internal team of innovation consultants is that there is a mismatch between the time it takes to develop the needed skills on the one hand and the demands that the organization is likely to place on the team, once trained, on the other. It takes a long time to obtain the skills and expertise needed: if this group is not involved in constant innovation, those skills will get rusty (and may never develop properly in the first place). But most organizations are not generating that level of innovation throughput. All too often, organizations that take this approach end up dissolving the innovation team. It simply lacks the skills needed to sustain itself.

So what is the solution?

We have introduced an innovation culture-building model called “directed innovation.” The directed innovation model enables an organization to grow through innovation quickly, with the least investment.

Instead of requiring the entire organization to be responsible for innovation, the directed innovation model requires a small group of people to form the nucleus of the Center of Excellence. But this model differs from approach number two because this team is not responsible for actually creating growth plans. Rather, it is responsible for assisting Strategyn’s professionals in the creation of such a plan and for managing its execution. The team does not have to develop the skills required for selecting and sizing markets, and it does not have to conduct job-based research. The innovation team, or Center of Innovation of Excellence, has three responsibilities:

  1. It must identify the markets that will generate growth.
  2. It must work with Strategyn to create a growth plan for those markets.
  3. It must oversee the execution of that growth plan.

With our assistance, the Center of Excellence presents a visionary growth plan to the sponsoring division, along with supporting information and financial justification. The sponsoring division takes it from there and works with the center to execute the growth plan. We will often work with the division as well, to ensure the plan is being executed as envisioned and to teach them how to use the plan’s insights to manage growth for years to come.

The diagram below illustrates the three recommended areas of focus for a Center of Innovation Excellence.

To find out more about how using directed innovation can help companies achieve their growth objectives without a major cultural overhaul, read our article “Building a Corporate Culture of Innovation.” Please feel free to contact us at info@strategyn.com with any questions or comments.

 

 

 

Innovate With Success

Who of you out there really likes to fail? I know I don’t. And I also know that if you fail at something more than you succeed, it can jeopardize your business, your personal relationships, your life – or at the very least, your self-esteem.

I’ve worked in the innovation management field for close to 20 years and it amazes me that when it comes to innovation, CEOs and executives often pass off failure as something that should be expected, and in some cases encouraged. You’ve heard the advice from Tom Peters, author of In Search of Excellence : “Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast.” Even A.G. Lafley, the former CEO of Procter & Gamble, famously said that unless P&G experiences a certain amount of innovation failure, not enough innovation is happening.

So the question is: why do companies accept average innovation success rates of 17 percent when they can enjoy 86 percent success rates like our clients? Is it fear of change? Not being open to “innovating” how they go about innovation? A lack of insight or leadership?

Last year, I participated in a panel discussion on innovation at the Edison Awards and made the bold statement that companies could experience innovation success rates of more than 80 percent. Competitors challenged me. Other panelists looked in disbelief.

Strategyn released today an independent study proving that companies who have used our Outcome-Driven Innovation methodology have enjoyed 86 percent rates when launching a new product or service offering. This study clearly shows that ODI can help companies dramatically reduce their innovation failure rates and costs, while bringing products and services to the marketplace that meet customers needs – the bedrock of success.

For all of those who say innovation is not a process that can’t be managed and that failure is good, I say, “Think again.” There is a process that exists that is five times more effective than traditional innovation methods. How will you “innovate” innovation in your organization?