Risk readiness and innovation growth – board room tension

I recently provided a post on a very ‘upbeat’ PwC report on innovation and its growing importance to growth in the coming years. The PwC report “Breakthrough innovation and growth” was a survey of 1,757 C-suite and executive respondents, on their thoughts on innovation and where the new growth was coming from in approach. The top line was companies are seeing innovation transforming their businesses and their need to take a more sophisticated approach to innovation, so as to achieve the growth plans they are setting for the next five years.

There was a strong indication that the innovation that was going to be pursued was going to follow a far more radical set of innovation practices that have the potential for offering a real impact on companies future growth ambitions.

Yet I have also been reading another report issued by Corporate Executive Board (CEB), a leading members-based advisory company called “Growth Readiness- prioritizing investments to drive executive commitment” discussing the secret to effective investment prioritization is demonstrating your organization’s readiness to pursue growth. (N.B You need to fill out the form to obtain the report)

Both correlate on the strong need for growth. CEB suggests as the global growth has stalled that in response, companies have planned to boost non-incremental growth investments by almost two-thirds. The CEB defines non-incremental investment as a large growth opportunity that requires some change to the business.

The PwC report enthuses about innovation and reports

Growth is a top priority for most (80%) of the companies we interviewed and their plans are ambitious. Executives are planning for 35.4% growth, on average, over the next five years, the equivalent of 6.2% per year. Over a quarter of executives (26%) say that they are aiming for ‘aggressive growth’ over the next five years”

Yet there are dark clouds of concern in the Strategic Office

Yet in a associate blog from CEB written by Marc Austin, who has primary responsibility for research and product research at CEB, he discusses one big if not huge issue that will hold any investment decisions back, and this lies clearly in the board room.

When I talk with heads of strategy – mostly, they talk about their frustration with the C-suite. Strategists describe the senior executives in their organizations as analytical, tenacious, and gifted in the art of getting things done. Yet the growing trend across boardrooms is indecision, especially when it comes to deciding on big, higher-risk growth bets.

As one strategist explained, “I only had head-nods, not real commitment.” This isn’t just a problem. It’s a big problem… At the end of the day, it’s getting executives to follow through, to defend their decision, to ensure funding and resourcing for the big bets happen and don’t get derailed. Without commitment, there is really no point to strategy.”

There are some serious issues seemingly raised around strategy according to the CEB report..

Strategy Frustrations with current systems for priority 1 CEBOne of the critical points within the CEB report is suggesting that the lack of commitments to non-incremental investment can cost a company 3.25% less return (above hurdle rate), or a 34% lower profit than they might

So do we sense we might be having a real problem here?

It seems a real tension is occurring between desire and reality? Between strategic intent and follow through? Certainly this will be between how innovation is intended to lead growth through the strategic intent? The CEB report discusses the important changes taking place around risk and talks about risk readiness.

Is innovation riding in to offset risk?

Yet in a further PWC recent study: Unleashing the power of innovation, three quarters(74%) of CEOs regard innovation as equally important to the success of their company as operational effectiveness, if not more. This is the first time in recent history that innovation has been in parity with operations in the C-suite.

The latest PwC report  on breakthrough innovation and growth goes on to mention that “the push to create new value is not so surprising in itself. What is most surprising is that in this challenging economic climate, where many companies still face enormous pressures to reduce costs and become more efficient, many executives are telling us they see innovation on a par with operational effectiveness”.

If these ambitious rates of growth are to be achieved, companies recognise that they will need to look beyond the more traditional options for growth, such as mergers and acquisitions and traditional R&D.

Growth driven by innovation PwC report

Part of PwC report

It does seem broader types of innovation might have finally arrived in the boardroom. There seems in CEO’s minds a clear correlation between innovation and growth.

PwC point out “The widespread rejuvenation of innovation should have a profound impact on the way businesses plan for the future”. The leading innovators in their study are targeting a higher proportion of breakthrough and radical innovations, particularly around products, services, technology and business models

Larger breakthrough and radical innovation PwC

Part of PwC report

PwC does caution companies, “they need to determine whether they should adopt a ‘Play to Win’ or a ‘Play Not to Lose’ innovation strategy. ‘Play Not to Lose’ is a defensive posture appropriate for groups that are risk averse or unable to be leaders that generate winning innovations. In some competitive environments this makes sense: it is better to play conservatively and avoid taking large risks” (pg24).

Companies are looking across the innovation cycle to get into the right shape to implement this shift in strategy towards a very high organic growth one and be able to execute on innovation.

Innovation concerns PwC

Part of PwC report

With acceptance that growth gaps need resolving it seems risk will raise its head.

Will business leaders overcome their current higher concerns for taking risk and will that come from more radical innovation? It seems this is a very open question. There seems a desire to ‘talk up’ innovation, to leverage it more but the reality of managing the risk seems the issue that needs managing.

Yet recent market changes have altered how executives make decisions and develop commitment.Prior to the recession, commitment could be captured on the basis of the opportunity’s inherent attractiveness.Today the basis of commitment to major growth bets has fundamentally changed.

Basis of commitment has changed CEB 1

Part of CEB report on Risk Readiness

There also seems a shift in strategic approaches.

Differences in prioritization CEB

Part of CEB report on Risk Readiness

To prioritize investments based on growth readiness, strategists must consider the three enablers of growth readiness, Risk Readiness, Capability Readiness and Stakeholder Readiness.

Enabling commitments through risk readiness CEB

Part of CEB report on Risk Readiness

Equating the two reports

Although the interview ‘universe’ is different, one  is global (PwC), one more contained in the USA (CEB) I think they justify this need to be brought together as risk readiness and growth through innovation need this equating.

I think reading both the PwC report “Breakthrough innovation and growth” alongside the CEB one on “Growth readiness” needs some narrowing of the dealing with risk, innovation and readiness, if companies  actually determined to really work towards radical or breakthrough innovation.

I think the present mind set of risk mitigation might need some thoughtful thinking through and the discussion about risk readiness needs to take place within boardrooms if they are about to deploy innovation in greater ways. Otherwise risk will impede innovation and then frustration then grows with innovation failing to deliver the expected results.  The real frustration has actually as its real source the inabilities to quantify ‘acceptable’ risk and not having guidelines. Innovation is inherently risky from often its inadequate data and market quantification. Clarification at board room level needs to be made on how to treat innovation when it is pursuing more radical, new business model or breakthrough approaches.

Strategic planning for innovation will need different thinking and tools to manage it adequately.

An early board room discussion should be about achieving a consensus over the growing recognition that innovation, at its most powerful, is a driver for rapid and profitable revenue growth but what will be the acceptable risks. If companies are targeting a higher proportion of breakthrough and radical innovations, particularly around products, services, technology and business models, it can dramatically deliver improved competitive positioning, higher customer satisfaction, and decreased costs with the right innovation solutions, but it has risk. Risk mitigation needs to equate as much of the uncertainties you find in exploring a breakthrough or radical approach to business. These discussions will have some high tension points, that need clearer guidelines otherwise we continue with growing strategic and innovation frustrations. The board needs to lead here.

Many of the challenges arise from the way innovation is managed and handled. Another early strategic boardroom discussion should be around the operating models and metrics for ‘business as usual’. These will conflict with those needed to drive innovation for ‘new growth business’.

Risk readiness needs to be well thought through, otherwise more radical or breakthrough innovation will struggle to get out of the door, let alone into the board room, if risk is not equated differently going forward. Risk versus opportunity needs to be constantly evaluated.

Risk vs Opportunity 1

Risk and Opportunity- two sides of the Innovation Coin.
Agility Innovation Specialists

It will be the ones that can articulate the value, create the right narratives for this innovation growth, by taking these bolder approach decisions to innovation will less than perfect data. They will succeed in gaining organic growth through innovation by understanding its parts in detail. It is those who can equally manage uncertainty by advocating a new risk readiness pathway to growth will be in better shape to pursue a broader innovation approach.

We will need to ‘marry’ risk and opportunity through our innovation activities far better and prompt some very important board room discussions to enable innovation to take this centre stage for growth.

CEB retains any and all intellectual property rights in these materials and requires retention of the copyright mark on all pages reproduced. © 2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company.

PwC also maintain the copyright over the material shown. © 2013 PwC. All rights reserved.

Value realization comes through innovation and our business models.

Everything, it seems we work towards in business, is for seeking out new value creation, for new growth, for wealth creation, for providing improved returns on the investments we have been making.

To achieve this we consciously have to set about the value capture and what contributes to its realization. This is where innovation plays such a vital part. If we don’t build our innovation capital we will certainly have a much harder, perhaps even impossible time of realizing new value. We are more than likely to just maintain our existing value or see it steadily decline. So a constant focus upon renewal is always needed. Do we consciously do that on a daily basis or just once a year at annual review time?

Value-adding activities need to be central in nearly all of our decisions. The how we can turn our resources into being more productive, more creative is increasingly becoming one our biggest strategic areas of  future investment decision. Our resources are those all-inclusive assets, capabilities and processes that make up the Enterprise.

Yet it is clear management is spending far more of their discussion time and focus on the ‘harder assets’ that are made up of land, buildings, equipment and machinery – the ‘heavy’ financial capital investment decisions. Any new investment in IT, processes, software are usually well identified in the accounting or discussed within the narratives that support the reported numbers. We constantly report on these in our annual reports to validate and justify management’s decision.

Where we still seem to remain far too silent upon is our ‘softer capabilities’ Of course we extol the virtues of our employees for their hard work, for their vital role within any result, yet we still struggle to go beyond ‘simple’ articulation and quantify this value. Why is that?

Managing the innovation ‘stock’ and ‘capital’ potential

We do need to know our ‘innovation stock’, a large part of our wealth generating capital and where it can be best put to use. We are valuing the knowledge perspective far more and with this we are increasingly recognizing the importance of the intellectual capital that makes up the organization.

We are still caught in old world value reporting systems. We are not assessing our organizations for their true ‘invested’ worth. As the more intangible side is completely under-reported we make educated guesses. We are valuing firms on what we ‘feel’ they will generate in future innovation value but those internally as well as us externally lack the real ability to measure this. Yet we can if we took the same amount of time to understand the ‘make up’ of these.

We are needing to value the knowledge perspective far more. Far more intangible assets and the knowledge available is being recognized as the valuable aspects of the potential future of a business. These are the more ‘dynamic’ parts that come under human capital (competency, sharing, collaborative, learning quickly, collective competence and enduring value for the future), creative capital (creativity, fast prototyping, design and development, replacement & renewal), the relationship capital (responsiveness, retention, absorption, empowerment, networking), customer capital (the customer base, engagement, the potential and the ability to connect), entrepreneurial capital ( risk- taking, venturing and exploring)  and finally, the process capital (productivity, cycle time, process yield, on time delivery) are becoming far highly valued today. It is these contributing capitals that make up the unique mix we find within our innovation capital. These significantly deliver the value creating abilities.

We need to know the multiple capitals that make the true value of a business.

It is these different capitals that together are making up the intellectual, wealth generating parts. It is those that are more dynamic, the contributing parts of our capitals that should be highly prized today for the investment premium.  Yet often this ‘premium’ is often no more than an educated guess on what we suspect on past track records, assumed as the basis for the possible ‘promise’ in the future. We need to change this guessing into much more harder validation. Lets move away today from those traditional assets ‘seen’ and well measured on a balance sheet (buildings, machinery, the physical more static assets) and capture and report on the real value generating ones that create the innovation growth.

We need to make much more of a concerted effort to identify these intellectual and knowledge providing capitals and perhaps ‘house them’ under this broader innovation capital. As it is innovation that renders that different, unique set of value outcomes far more. Surely it is this innovation capital that is at the core for future wealth, that value creation potential. Innovation capital must be treated as the essential strategic asset and is it is central it needs to be far more reported upon by the management of organizations. Of course it constantly gets mentioned within the narratives by management today but often lacks quantifiable and substantive validation.

For years there has been this call for a far more integrated reporting mechanism, one that ‘accounts’ for identifying the intellectual capital to provide this better understanding. The struggle with this argument is it still seems to be a ‘pipe dream’ as management seemingly fails to understand the mechanisms within these. Can this change, if so how?

 Maybe we should reframe the measuring of intangibles differently?

Today we are operating in business environments that are highly diverse, specific and subject to rapid change. This reacting to this volatility and our ability to spot new opportunities is what is often keeping management up at night and certainly giving the investors equally sleepless nights, trying to second guess organization performance so as to make the decision to continue to invest or begin to divest.

The value creation being created simply needs articulating better. Markets and investors need the value generating perspective far better framed and explained. Today this is often random, ad hoc, left to individual interpretation in their presentation; it needs some form of uniformed framework to bring this together to allow for clearer, more transparent comparison and judgement of real value. It does need a more integrated framework of value creation.

The focus should be on value creation through the business model

Last week I read an excellent paper written by Vivien Beattie and Sarah Jane Smith called “Value Creation and Business Models: Refocusing the Intellectual Capital Debate”. I was kindly sent this by Vivien Beattie after the abstract caught my eye. It has triggered much of my thinking in the last week.

Of course! The Business Model, this is the place for us to gauge measure and gather a real sense of the dynamics that are making up the organization. Today there is certainly far more of an emphasis upon understanding the business model, so why not make this even more central to reporting?

The quality of the business models is paramount to the value proposition to the customer and this triggers even more of value identification within the value proposition, so central to the Business model canvas.

Within the business model we need to gain a real sense of the dynamics that make this up. Where is the intellectual capital being applied to create new innovation, where are the new business opportunities? It is the abilities to ‘connect’ these, in how we acquire, combine and utilize those unique and valuable resources with the business idea. It is this dynamic ‘combination effect’ that delivers the value (proposition) to the customer.

The Business model is the new unit of analysis for evaluating future value

Arguably the business model is holistic and is becoming increasingly the new unit of analysis, that spans the organization and ‘articulates’ its capital and strategic value capturing parts.

Can we achieve a more integrated set of disclosures that combine the Business model, its strategic approach, what makes this up and clarifying its value creating process?

This potential approach does need to place a much heavier emphasis on the innovation capital and all the knowledge creating aspects that make up intellectual capital. It would need a significant shift in management’s understandings as they would need to articulate the critical components far more, they would have to find a common communicating language. Where better than the ‘heavier’ use of the business model canvas or the layering structures that makes this understood?

Externally we can also judge far more the potentials within the stated ‘interactions’ between the critical components of the business model. Management does not have to ‘give the store away’ in their competitive position to its competitors but they certainly can do a better job to convey much of the dynamics that make this up, in better, thoughtful ways. Make this more financial contingent for future investments.

Beyond narrative reporting, we need to push further.

Narrative reporting has been suggested as the step for this to happen. To make the business model an essential mandatory part of the management reporting. I think this can even be pushed further. Whenever management has been ‘pushed’ by regulatory forces it has taken the time to learn and understand the parts that make this up. Our intellectual capitals are part of this learning as equally knowing the ‘dynamics’ that make up the innovation capital becomes essential.

The business model, the intellectual capital and the innovation capital simply make up such a significant part of the Value Creation process. Realization of this ‘make up’ and understanding its critical connections is needed far more today to understand. Knowing these can move us towards value our organizations far better than we can do at present.

Communicating the value creation and business model is critical today

Today and in the future, it is the ones that can articulate and ‘point towards’ what makes up the value creation will attract and command investors premium. Those that can describe how they are setting about sensing and seizing opportunities by knowing the more dynamic ‘interactions’ will be in a far better shape to exploit and capitalize on them.

The organizations that understand their unique mix of capitals and how it is made up in this broader sense, will be able to deploy their innovation capital towards the ‘value proposition points’ far better. These will will be through constantly evolving business models, to convert opportunity to their gain, repeatedly by directing their innovation capital far more effectively.

The key today is they need to know what to invest into as the critical resources and this is far less the ‘hard’ assets but more the softer competencies, capabilities and capacity parts that are made up through knowing what contributes into the innovation capital.

Failing to explain innovation capital

Last week I made a complete ‘hash’ of explaining innovation capital. I made a set of basic mistakes in my preparation and my delivery. I allowed for little discussion and debate and I just ‘blasted’ on regardless. I’ve been standing in the innovation ‘sins’ corner most of this week.

I can honestly say I don’t feel so good about this failure at the moment and I thought a more public ‘confession’ was in order. I will also let the ones that suffered from this also know how I feel.I made such a simple set of basic mistakes. I’m still asking myself why and have been slowly working through it to get to the bottom of my ‘aberration’ moment. Let me share some of this with you as learning from failure is as important as celebrating success.

The story could easily go……”well it was simply one of those days…to much coffee beforehand, being distracted by other issues……”  No, those should simply not happen. Somehow I forgot some basics and then some more but I’m certainly never too old to (re)learn and own up to this.

Let me explain, I was asked my opinion in a thirty minute exchange on innovation capital. It was not my finest thirty minutes.

Often you know this is not going right but often more times than not you simply ignore all those internal warning signals going off in your determination to get all your points across. In the end, no one gains from this. This was not the time or place to expand on emerging theories or even recently acquired additional thought.  Certainly not from me, who had been sought out to offer a ‘considered’ opinion in the first place about innovation capital only. So what went wrong?

My first big mistake

I tend to fall into the camp of over preparing (for anything). In this case I not only went beyond refreshing all I was thinking on “what makes up innovation capital” but I decided to link it into the bigger picture. Now, there is no problem on doing that but not for a short 30 minute exchange. That was not the right vehicle to expand and broaden out any discussion; this could have been left for future ones. I well and truly got well ahead of myself.

Mistake number two

In my refreshing and reflecting beforehand I came across some different strands of thought that I simply ‘climbed into’ for my own understanding, referencing and future work. Of course the mistake I made was to then want to bring this straight into the discussion, moving the need to explain innovation capital quickly off the table and straight into the linkage into how it creates the value creation through the identification of the dynamics within the system. I got caught up in some of my own discoveries, linking far more to some other work I had been undertaking recently.

Mistake number three

Not only did I want to link into value creation but I needed to throw into the ‘pot’ the importance of the Business Model as well. So here I am attempting to construct the entire value structure when all I had been asked was to expand on innovation capital. I still kept going.

Mistake number four

Of yes, three strikes and you are usually out right?  Well in this case I was going for a forth one.

I began to argue that the whole debate about intellectual capital needed reframing, so can you image the layering on process I was subjecting my poor listeners too, all in a short 30 minute discussion.

So at the end of the thirty minute session I think there were some glazed looks. I suddenly realized this had spun out of control from my side and I’d really lost sight of the actual need, I’d gone way, way beyond. Not a good moment that even after so many years this can happen. It shouldn’t but it did.

Certainly a little humbling to say the least, and certainly not one of my finest, for those at the other end I wonder what they felt. I think I need to find out, I just hope they will be still talking to me.

So what is innovation capital?

“Innovation capital is the sum of all that promotes the development and changes required for achieving innovation outcomes, within one organization or its broader networked environment for market place advantage. These are made up of the resources, processes, and capabilities to develop a constantly evolving capacity to innovate.”

I opened up the discussion with this but I then failed to explain all its connected parts and its value.

I’m not sure if you know of David Snowden’s Cynefin framework?

The framework sets out five types of problems, realities, or systems, it provides a typology of contexts that guides what sort of explanations or solutions might apply.

Cynefin Framework

The Cynefin framework has five domains, they are explained as:

  • Simple, in which the relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all, the approach is to Sense – Categorise – Respond and we can apply best practice.
  • Complicated, in which the relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and/or the application of expert knowledge, the approach is to Sense – Analyze – Respond and we can apply good practice.
  • Complex, in which the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance, the approach is to Probe – Sense – Respond and we can sense emergent practice.
  • Chaotic, in which there is no relationship between cause and effect at systems level, the approach is to Act – Sense – Respond and we can discover novel practice.
  • The fifth domain is Disorder, in the middle, which is the state of not knowing what type of causality exists, in which state people will revert to their own comfort zone in making a decision. I think those listening must have ‘headed for the hills’

Why do I bring this framework into this? Well in some ways I tried to ‘race around’ all five of its domains in thirty minutes and did not stop to think of this great framing model to stop me and focus on where innovation capital can fit.

Actually I did not even mention this Cynefin framework as I had not recognized what I was actually trying to do, which was actually not the brief either – mistake five. Although it could have been used to explain its value to work around where different innovation capital can fit and what might ‘make up’ the capital parts.

Instead of explaining the simple casual relationships of innovation capital, I went tumbling into the complicated, layering on the complex and then descended into the chaotic state of promoting the argument for novel practice and then I suspect ending in disorder (in all minds I would feel).

Not my finest thirty minutes, sometimes we make ‘things’ more complicated than they need to be or even were expected in the initial question! Mistake six.

Making six identified mistakes and still counting…oh boy! It hurts!

PwC’s report on breakthrough innovation and growth

I’ve been reading through the PwC report “Breakthrough innovation and growth”, a survey of 1,757 C-suite and executive respondents, on their thoughts on innovation. The top line news is how companies are seeing innovation transforming their businesses and their need to take a more sophisticated approach to innovation, so as to achieve the growth plans they are setting for the next five years.

PwC are suggesting there is an innovation transformation under-way: “Companies are changing the way they innovate“. They further state that “innovation is becoming a competitive necessity, if it’s not, then executives need to be asking themselves what they could do to improve their innovation process.”

All I am providing here are my initial takeaways from a report I would recommend does provide really good value in working through. It seems innovation is becoming far more the central driver of the organization’s agenda than in the past, where geographical expansion along with mergers and acquisitions were more dominating.

It seems the future focus is far more on leveraging organic growth as organizations view the increasing dynamic and volatile business environment will  intensify and be even more risky but to achieve their growth objectives they will be needing to look beyond the traditional options they have explored so far to-date, through their innovation activity.

Firstly the transforming taking place around innovation

The five key transforming aspects with leading innovators taking a more advanced approach to innovation:

  1. Seventy nine per cent of the most innovative companies in their study have well-defined innovation strategies,
  2. Top innovators treat innovation just like any other business or management process that can be disciplined and successfully scaled.
  3. The leading companies are targeting a higher proportion of breakthrough and radical innovations, particularly around products, services, technology and business models.
  4. They are planning a wider range of innovation operating models.
  5. They collaborate more than their less innovative peers.

The factors setting the innovation leaders apart

Within the report findings, PwC are suggesting what clearly is setting the leaders apart can be summarized as they:

• innovate with purpose,
• have a well-defined innovation strategy,
• take a more formal and structured approach to innovation,
• are concentrating on a greater proportion of breakthrough and radical innovations,
• are planning a broader range of business model innovation,
• are exploring a wider range of innovation operating models,
• are planning to collaborate much more to generate a greater proportion of revenue from new products and services

The close of the report asks seven great key questions in the role executives do need to play in supporting  the innovation efforts.

  1. Are you paying enough attention to innovation? Innovation is quickly moving up the agenda for all businesses, becoming a competitive necessity and the main driver for growth. When was the last time that innovation was discussed at your management board?
  2. Do you have an innovation strategy? Innovation needs to be thought of as process which can be disciplined. A coherent innovation strategy aligns all elements of an organisation to its corporate goals. How do you plan to harness innovation to accelerate growth?
  3. Is your innovation portfolio right? Innovation portfolios are evolving, including a greater proportion of breakthrough, radical, and non-product innovation and a much broader range of areas to innovate. How well-balanced is your portfolio and where are you prioritising your innovation resources and investments?
  4. What is your innovation timespan? Companies too focused on the short-term never challenge existing thinking, while those too focused on the long-term overlook immediate delivery. A balanced perspective is needed. Are you creating the business of tomorrow while running the business of today?
  5. Is innovation an integral part of the executive and organisational mindset? Are operational efficiency and innovation metrics part of all management meetings?Are the resources, investments,processes, organisation and governance sufficient to provide the space for innovation to thrive?
  6. Do you know how to explore and find the really great innovations that drive unprecedented levels of growth? Is exploration something that people are incentivised to do?Do the innovation processes use leading practices to ensure high speed prototyping, exploration,and learning?
  7. Are you an innovation blocker or enabler? Executives too comfortable with the status-quo are one of the greatest barriers to greater innovation. Do you have the mechanisms in place to commercialize and scale your innovations? The last mile of turning innovations into significant revenue growth is often the hardest.

For me, this has been a report well worth working through, so thank you PwC for providing these valuable sets of insights. They offer encouraging news for innovation and its critical role within the current thinking within leading innovating organizations and the changing treatment that innovation is receiving.

This is certainly good news from any innovators perspective and a more than valuable report to put under the noses of the leaders of the organizations that are more within the ‘innovation laggard’ camp.

Those ‘ innovation laggards’ that are  failing to appreciate the changes  that are taking place within innovation practice and recognizing how they can leverage their future growth in broader and significantly different ways. Exploring different, more radical innovation practices, that have the potential for offering a real impact on their future growth potential, far more than the existing ones they are presently undertaking and supporting.

www.pwc.com/innovationsurvey © 2013 PwC. All rights reserved.

Approaching innovation through fitness dynamics needs a structured approach.

This post follows on from my recent one of “the Innovation Journeyman.”  We do have a real journey still to travel to understand the dynamics within innovation. Here, I want to lay out a possible path that might advance us towards achieving this. This includes a fairly ‘intensive’ nine step approach outlined below.

The innovation fitness dynamics

The innovation fitness dynamics

What we do need to do is constantly evolve our innovation capabilities to perform in more dynamic and flexible ways. We need to acquire that consistent aim of achieving a more adaptable and adjusting approach to innovation in all its parts. We need to meet the changing circumstances and challenges  we are all facing to regain the real growth needed from our economies and organizations, making what we do at the same time, more sustainable. Delivering better innovation outcomes is central to this task.

Continue reading