Combining Ecosystems, technology and GenAI to unlock innovation
The concepts of ecosystem innovation and generative AI has arrived at the point where we need to question workflows have the real poential openness has become central to our process of thinking and development building.
Innovation does need reinventing as a discovery process. Radically different ways of capturing, extracting, and delivering value are emerging. Adopting ecosystem thinking and design, combined with Generative AI, has the impact of augmenting, automating, and rapidly scaling innovation in significantly different ways than ever before.
In one of my posts, “Embrace AI-driven innovation; it is the future,” I looked specifically at how the (traditional) innovation management process will change. The deployment of AI-driven thinking utterly alters my perspective of “delivering” innovation.
While ecosystem-based approaches offer numerous advantages, there are also challenges and potential barriers that organizations may face.
As I was building out the Hierarchy of Business Ecosystem Needs, you have to consider many of the (current) issues and challenges being faced by advancing Ecosystem thinking and design. The business case adds more value and needs to think more about the impact of ecosystems in highly connected ways.
I believe in building the foundation layer, the Innovation Ecosystem pushes the “grey cells” and gives the best platform for integrating a comprehensive Ecosystem framework in my proposal, which comprises an Innovation Ecosystem, a Business Ecosystem, a Dynamic Ecosystem and the Enterprise Ecosystem.
The question of barriers and issues must be addressed to comprehensively understand the values of synergies, interdependencies and the exponential value created when these Business Ecosystem layers I am proposing in my Hierarchy framework are interconnected. Constructing an interconnected business ecosystem framework is undoubtedly “no walk in the park”; it is hard work.
Following on from my initial post, “Our Need is to Shape Innovation Dynamically, ” this post outlines the eight value-adding points that I can help build out and deliver alongside you in different delivery modules to fit your circumstances and budgets.
My value proposition is to work together to create something that shapes innovation for a meaningful change. To support you in building out your innovation competencies, capabilities and capacity that requires a deeper investment in skill development in a culture of continual learning.
It’s a journey, but it promises the rewards of being at the forefront of industry evolution and transformation. It is a journey of building innovation, fitness and dynamics drawn out in a new way of thinking and design within innovation ecosystems.
Within the value proposition, we actively shape these journeys, building adaptability, agility and innovation for long-term success in the changing business environment we all face today.
In today’s rapidly changing business landscape, the ability to build a strong case, stay informed, and think critically is the key to unlocking success and driving innovation.
For me, this landscape is marked by its dynamism. Here, market trends evolve, new technologies emerge, and consumer preferences shift lightning-fast.
In this environment, success isn’t just about being prepared for change; it’s about actively shaping it. But how can you empower those responsible for innovation to not only navigate this terrain but thrive within it?
We need to navigate a very different terrain that requires a deeper investment in skill development in a culture of continual learning.
After a series of posts introducing and explaining the thinking and design behind the Composable Innovation Enterprise Framework, I thought it would be a good idea to put this into a sequence of visuals that should take you through this to provide a decent understanding of its make-up and logic.
Organizations in today’s business environment need to adapt rapidly and dynamically, have the need to bring the innovation management process into a constant technological advancement, and be more tailored in its design by their own specific needs and not “offered” as a rigid set of solutions. We need to embrace a significant change in the way we “set about” innovation.
If you are interested in reading more in the series I have been posting then here are the links in the order of posting.
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.
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.
How difficult would it be to embrace this Composable Innovation Enterprise Framework, as it is often argued that most people want to keep innovation management and its process simple? I wonder if that is the current incumbents, be these current innovation management software providers or individuals inside the organizations resisting change, as it brings significant uncertainty of change and disruption to the (inadequate) process, one that I feel is not fit for today’s and tomorrow’s innovation purpose.
So how to set about making this change and who should be involved as it is a more radical design of a holistic nature is what I am outlining in this post and the next one focuses more on the project organization needed.
Organizations in today’s business environment need to adapt rapidly and dynamically, the need to bring the innovation management process into a constant technological advancement, and more designed by their own specific needs and not “offered” as a rigid set of solutions. We need to embrace a significant change in the way we “set about” innovation.
It needs increased agility and looks to have innovation consistently redesigned to meet different challenges and needs. It needs a better set of flexible design elements and system thinking to gain from reuse and redesign rapidly. I like the term I saw the other day “systems of gravity” to get tasks completed faster than what is being offered today in innovating software solutions.
The need is to set about building a compelling business case to make the move to embrace this (radical) design change and its potential value in returns and flexibility. I want to begin to sketch out the pathway of change this might need. It will be hard work, but doing this in stages gives growing understanding and value, and I believe ultimately rewarding.
We cannot afford not to avoid changing our innovation processes as we deal with a far more complex and challenging world. We seem to be keeping innovation as a disappointing and often frustrating outcome for many leaders of organizations today, innovation needs to be top of mind and better equipped to deliver.
This morning I decided to have an exchange on ChatGPT on the future of Innovation Management Software, I asked a number of questions in a short series and can well-relate to the answers provided incredibly quickly.
What do you think?
Do they make sense and are the suggestions a competitive threat or a trend towards a future that needs fully embracing before others do?
Innovation requires a more dynamic, systematic approach
All companies talk about innovation and its growing importance, but why is it that still so few succeed in actually doing it on a repeatable scale?
What inhibits innovation? What would drive innovation success? What aspects of innovation are critical to achieving such innovative growth? Where should a company place its emphasis to gain both an improving impact on its performance and strengthen its innovation capabilities?
The difficulty for many is that innovation is a complex process that has many intangibles within the total mix to manage. Management today is far happier managing the ‘harder’ aspects of business, the current physical ones of everyday organization, not the ‘softer’ more intangible ones, where innovation often lies or emerges from. Continue reading “Innovation requires a more dynamic systematic approach”
The approach we take to embedding innovation in all its forms is a unique one that we call the Pathway Curve Methodology.
Innovation needs to be worked at, to grow into a deeper understanding, over time. It needs to be understood in all its different forms and often many can become confused and disappointed by their initiatives by not taking a more measured approach to them.
