evolutionary frameworks for innovation | Paul4innovating Innovation Views

Pitching of the Interconnected Business Ecosystem Framework

The Interconnected Business Ecosystem driving impact and increased value.

I am working to validate and expand on the value proposition of the Interconnected Business Ecosystem Framework and have tried to create, hopefully, a compelling pitch that will bring others on board to advance this initiative. I have published this pitch on both of my primary sites, discussing innovation, business, and ecosystems, as they both provide a combination effect for understanding this framework.

I initially called this “the hierarchy of business ecosystem needs,” which built out an interconnected framework of business ecosystems that give organizations a real alternative to how they operate today and in the future.

I provided a comprehensive series of outline papers as the introduction phase earlier this year, which provided the concepts forming a cohesive outline structure of how organizations should think through the future. Also, I provided an earlier view on my paul4innovating.com posting site of “pitching business ecosystems opens up the possibility of real change.”

We need to really open our thinking towards collaborative ecosystems. This is one of openly collaborating and co-creating in different Ecosystem structures and designs to provide a greater diversity of opinions, knowledge, and resources.

This “pooling or network effect” forms around more complex challenges to tackle, thus giving a more sustaining and hopefully greater value in solutions to the needs of their customers, markets, or areas of need.

I have recognized this needed rebranding- hierarchy has some negative connotations.

I have now entitled this The Interconnected Business Ecosystem Framework as it reflects the essence of what I believe this framework provides

Is Innovation evolving in the way I see it going?

Innovation is evolving, the future will be different

I have been asking Google’s Gemini a series of questions about innovation, how it has evolved in the past twenty-five years, and where it seems to be heading.

This is the third and final part of my questioning on looking towards the future and how innovation will evolve, starting from the original thread of looking over the evolution of innovation in the past twenty-five years, since 1999.

This post is about what has evolved and then what will evolve. There is a very different innovation pathway ahead of us, and then I touch upon a vastly different future at the end of this post.

Innovation will evolve very differently, linked tightly to the organization’s future design, no more cutting it loose, housed separately or outside the core.

Have organizations become more collaborative over 25 years? What has enabled that?

Collaboration, Idealization and the enabling of innovation

I have have been looking back at innovation and how it has changed over the last twenty-five years. In a series of three posts, I have asked Google’s Gemini to answer five questions to track and trace the progress innovation has made and where it seems to be heading.

This is the second post looking more at collaboration and idealization and how and what has helped it evolve in this period. Hopefully, this change has enabled better value creation and learning how to innovate. (First post here)

So this post, in a series of three, looks at the answers given by Google’s Gemini on how collaboration and ideation evolved the organization’s ability to adapt and what helped.

25 years of Innovation- how has it evolved? Has it been successful?

25 years looking back at Innovation’s evolution

I decided to hold a conversation with Google’s Gemini about how innovation had changed and hopefully progressed since I first became involved 25 years ago, when I lived in Singapore and was heavily involved in my MBA, which had innovation as an elective.

The MBA elective “hooked” me on innovation, and here I am 25 years later, still going on about innovation, championing, cajoling and encouraging innovation to be more central, disciplined and structured.

So I have taken the educational looking back from Gemini lense of perspective and broken this into three parts. I find it interesting and reaffirming. This is the first of these posts looking at the development, thinking and design of innovation from 1999 to today 2024, twenty-five years.

Innovation can be both highly frustrating and rewarding. It is good to gain a real sense of progress in these past 25 years; otherwise, where have I been?

I often feel innovation has not advanced in these past twenty-odd years, but having all the changes nicely summarized here makes me feel there has been a shape and purpose to be so actively involved in the evolution of innovation over these 25 years and been part of that evolution.

Firstly, this post outlines how innovation has evolved since 1999 and does a further recheck for 2019 until today. So, it covers a twenty-five-year period but recognizes that the last five years have seen a very different set of innovation accelerants.

Ring Fencing Constrains Innovation

It is the very act of ‘ring-fencing’ we have constrained innovation. We then can limit risk, as well as we are constantly separating it from the center of the company, even though many of us try to push it back towards the core.

Innovation remains separate for the clear majority of our companies even today as it is full of unknowns and question marks. Top executives just do not like the sound of this, so they seek to ring-fence innovation. One where they want to contain it, to try to tame it, so it can mirror their (mistaken) believe that our world is one of order, control, and stability.

Instead of embracing that the real world is actually an innovating world, full of opportunity, for those prepared to take a greater risk, will have much to gain. Regretfully we still see many companies operating with a 20th-century mindset. Thankfully the pressure upon companies to innovate, to get their growth back, is getting a very tough place to operate in today without tangible demonstration of innovation being realized. There is this need to “embrace” innovation. If not, rapid extinction is occurring for many that choose to ignore the sweeping changes we are witnessing in the business world, where more open and technology-driven innovators are connecting and collaborating. Those companies that only halve-heartedly attempting change are fearful and still want to “box” innovation in. A transformation where innovation and technology go hand-in-hand does have to be utterly full on to succeed! Continue reading “Ring Fencing Constrains Innovation”

Cynefin: A framework that grows for me all the time, in its value and worth.

The Cynefin Framework by David Snowden, through Cognitive Edge

A good framework seems to grow, it becomes integrated into your thinking and application. You see increasing possibilities to apply it. One of these for me has been Dave Snowden’s Cynefin.

I also increasing apply the Three Horizons framework as well.

Both allow me to organize my thinking and provide options within any multiple evaluations to begin or shape thinking going forward. Both attempt to break down a growing complexity we all find in our word today.

One, the three horizons, attempts to sketch out our thinking about today’s world, of where we are and what we need to do to keep it going in a hopefully orderly state, and then looks to forecast out the changes we need to move towards, in a projected future and then identify the needs to get there. It passes through three horizons of today (H1), the near term (H2) and the longer term (H3).

You will find much of what I have written about on the three horizons story, within my “insights and thinking“ tab (shown above) and look for the applicable section. Equally, you can put into the search box “three horizons” and many posts will come up to explore this, if you are curious on its value, position and our need, to use this on a more consistent basis.

The Cynefin framework provides a wonderful way to sort the range of issues faced by leaders and us all, into five contexts, defined by the nature of the relationships between cause and effect. Dave Snowden has been explaining these consistently for years. Four of these five are; obvious (formerly simple), complicated, complex and chaotic states and requires us to diagnose situations and then to act in contextually appropriate ways. The fifth one is disorder, often overlooked or not fully appreciated. It is when something is unclear, it is in a disorderly, highly transitory state and needs to be rapidly stabilized into one of the other four to give it a more orderly state going forward.

So why do I see this Cynefin framework as growing in importance? Continue reading “Cynefin: A framework that grows for me all the time, in its value and worth.”

Building an innovation framework that has real capabilities as its formula as its heart.

I’ve strongly believed when you begin to think through a framework for innovation, see my last article as an example, you also should equally need to recognize the capability framework that you will need to build into this.

Working through these as essential combinations can become the real enabler.

Here is my solution that I think is worth working through, to firstly absorb and then consider for applying to your own innovation building activity. Try it!

I have worked on a formula SCA = II + OC + EE + MLC + RNE for this. I have never published the make-up of this in the public domain before, although I had briefly outlined it in a past post here.

In that post I outlined my thinking and I do not think it needs repeating, does it? So onward…….
Continue reading “Building an innovation framework that has real capabilities as its formula as its heart.”

Lingering dogma, fixed mindsets, tensions and conflicting needs

Sometimes you would be amazed at the underlying tensions that occur when you get into those discussions around the board table on what and where innovation contributes to strategic direction.

Even managing the present portfolio of innovation initiatives gets caught up in these underlying tensions as it becomes another opportunity to open up the old wounds of bruising past battles and get back into those discussions again.

Suddenly the CFO becomes animated over the uncertainties; the research director grows defensive, and the marketing director more strident in why it is constructed that way.

The HR director raises their concerns on stretching the resources too thinly and suddenly a fast and furious open debate erupts. Then the Supply Chain director throws in the concerns that the system will not cope with the sudden influx of new introductions in the remaining part of the year.

Each has a valued perspective but much of these are based on past positions, attitudes built up from other pitch battles and scores to be settled.

The CEO listens and silently thinks to himself: “what happened to the series of bonding exercises that we had all had invested in, suddenly just gone”. Continue reading “Lingering dogma, fixed mindsets, tensions and conflicting needs”