The planning out of this Composable Innovation Enterprise Framework

As I mentioned in a previous post, for any innovation enterprise change, I do not recommend a “big bang” solution; it should be phased to validate and grow to understand, build up validation, justify making the changes, bedding in the thinking needed and approaches to provide the level of returns and the growing understanding of cost/ benefit conversion.

The potential returns, including increased agility, improved innovation outcomes, enhanced collaboration, and long-term competitiveness, make this radical change worthwhile for organizations aspiring to thrive in today’s dynamic business environment. The ability to build the context and show its (ongoing) value makes the difference. You need a systematic approach and project staging plan.

The importance here is recognizing the shift in mindset and thinking towards a Building Block approach to build up the Innovation Stacks. Each stack “sits” on a technology platform. Thinking through what this means requires understanding, relating, and putting a clear context of innovation, what you want to achieve, and how to set about this.

In a series of posts, I have first explained why we should change, then introduced the concepts of the building blocks, followed by an introduction to the innovation stack thinking. this was followed by the critical relationships of Stacks and Blocks, then bringing these concepts into a perspective based on platforms that leads to the offering of a final perspective of this Composable Innovation Enterprise Framework ( the announcement post)

Post announcement, I have been following this up with posts on building up a validation plan, with the potential value of adopting this framework approach with an opening sketch of offering suggestions to beginning to think about an implementation plan and within this series this final post, the phasing and sequencing suggestions and who needs to be involved.

Collectively these prove the building kit for considering, justifying, and explaining this new innovation proposal.

Here, we are looking at a sequence of steps to work through and build experience and understanding.

I outline here the approach I would take as sequence steps from 1 to 8

The other question is, who needs to get involved?

Who needs to be involved in undertaking this framework’s initial structure, design, and building?

Undertaking the initial structure, design, and framing of a Composable Innovation Enterprise Framework typically involves a collaborative effort involving various organizational stakeholders. Here are some key roles that could contribute to this process that become the stakeholders:

1. Innovation Champions and Enthusiasts: These individuals play a crucial role in championing the need for change and driving the adoption of the framework. They can be senior executives, innovation managers, or individuals with a deep understanding of innovation practices. Innovation champions provide the vision, advocate for the framework, guide its implementation, and give it the necessary passion, drive, belief, and commitment.
2. Cross-functional Teams: Assembling cross-functional teams ensures diverse perspectives and expertise are brought into the framework design process. Representatives from research and development, marketing, operations, and IT departments can contribute their insights and collaborate to define the framework’s structure, design, and implementation strategies. For example, a series of workshops that draw out the diversity of opinions and points of value helps this cross-functional work.
3. Innovation Management Experts: Engaging experts in innovation management can provide valuable guidance and best practices. These experts could be internal resources, consultants, or external advisors who have experience in designing innovation frameworks and managing innovation processes. They can bring their expertise to inform the framework’s structure, ensure alignment with internal or external needs, relate these to evolving industry standards, and facilitate smooth implementation. The role here calls for a more forward-looking perspective, where the value of technology application is central to their experiences to aid more powerful understanding.
4. IT Professionals: Given the emphasis on adaptability and the potential integration of technology solutions, involving IT professionals is crucial. They can provide insights into technological capabilities, data management, and integration requirements. IT professionals can work alongside innovation champions and cross-functional teams to explore how software solutions, platforms, and digital tools can support the framework’s implementation.
5. Stakeholders and User Representatives: It is important to involve stakeholders and representatives of end-users in the design process. This could include customers, partners, suppliers, or other ecosystem participants. The management from top to bottom needs to be fully engaged, encouraging, and questioning to gain the financial and resource support required for this level of change. Their input can ensure that the framework addresses their needs, aligns with their expectations, fosters effective collaboration within the ecosystem, and moves towards a close alignment with existing operating systems to yield the right level of efficiency and effective returns.
6. Change Management Specialists: Change management specialists can help navigate the organizational and cultural aspects of implementing a new framework. They can assist in developing a change management plan, conducting training programs, and ensuring smooth adoption by addressing potential resistance, communicating the benefits, and facilitating the transition process.
7. Recognizing different system theories. There is a greater need to understand systems, are we dealing with complex adaptive systems or complicated causal systems, this needs a system theory specialist on hand to help unpick and recognize the different knowledge states so one reacts accordingly.

The collaborative effort of these stakeholders helps ensure that the initial structure, design, and framing of the Composable Innovation Enterprise Framework are well-rounded, aligned with organizational objectives, and address the unique needs and challenges of the organization.

The process should be iterative, involving feedback loops and continuous improvement to refine the framework over time based on real-world implementation and user experiences.

Change is never easy. The innovation pathway is often full of twists and turns. Keep focused

This Composable Innovation Enterprise Framework is radical in its design, but it can be built and validated if broken down into manageable parts. It is a project of sizable change but in “bite-sizes” to validate, build momentum, and support.

The movement to building a more composable enterprise is far more than proving technical features, like building blocks or innovation stacks, it is about working in the cloud and applying this composable thinking to the design of the innovation management process.

Achieving a radically redesigned innovation management system

This design thinking contributes greatly towards levels of enterprise integration and flexibility, gaining increased assimilation of applications, data, and knowledge sharing as it is designed as a modular approach. Through this modular approach, innovators can constantly re-imagine delivery frameworks to fit the type of challenge and complexity they are striving to resolve. It brings greater agility, flexibility, speed, and leveraging both knowledge and the use of the applications (API, etc) applied.

If we can achieve a management system that gives the organization the ability to rapidly assemble and reconfigure innovation capabilities based on changing requirements, emerging opportunities, and challenges we are perhaps, finally, truly able to pivot, recompose, to increase agility, efficiency, and resilience in the ways we want to innovate?

We have often wanted “faster time-to-market, increased agility, improve scalability, and manage costs in transparent and informed ways. Is it not time we gave innovation the chance to show it can be designed differently and closer to the evolving needs of the changing business landscape?

In some ways, I see similarities, for example, to undertaking an ERP investment in getting organized and project-specific or equally when dealing with shifting operations and plants onto a technology-connected digital platform that connects that process and transforms the business operation.