A wide range of business decisions are often conflated under the umbrella of 'change and transformation'. A new framework suggests the differentiation is whether the outcome required is a change in Magnitude, Activity or Direction, aligning neatly to Core, Adjacent or Transformational innovation ambition.
When it comes to innovation portfolio design and management, it is imperative to recognise the dichotomy in the approaches, skills and metrics required to explore, test and develop new products, services, value propositions and business models; and to scale, optimise and exploit those that already exist within the organisation.
Do you know what your source of strategic competitive advantage is today? Moreover, do you know whether that will that be sustainable and sufficient to support your strategic goals in your future operating context? And if not - which is likely - what new sources you will need to develop?
In the absence of fundamental, CEO led change in organisational structures and culture, no amount of 'innovation theatre' will move the needle on innovation effort. Budget, process and people need to be owned and integrated by a C-level leader with clear accountability and an intrapreneurial mindset.
In deciding where and how to compete, every organisation makes choices about the products and services they will offer, and the strategies they will pursue to get there. Having a well managed, systematised process to evaluate these choices is essential. You likely have many more opportunities to pursue than your resources permit and research indicates that it is your ability to allocate resources based on project merit that most strongly determines your innovation performance. A number of frameworks exist to aid prioritisation of the ideas for development. Their differences in rigour will impact on speed to market, and their suitability for deployment varies according to the scale...