Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising.
Many top level executives are still hopelessly behind when it comes to designing an effective innovation strategy in the digital age.
While the risks vary – radical innovation is much more expensive and more likely to fail – all innovation is characterised by inherent uncertainty.
Thomas Edison quipped that “innovation is 99% transpiration and 1% inspiration” – and so it is rational that companies use process to carry out innovation. The idea of combining standardisation and innovation seems oxymoronic and points to the difficulty of crafting innovation processes within organisations. Top down processes are suitable for what we can broadly call “next step” innovation, that is the systematic improvement of what we do now, fixing strategic weaknesses that we can see now. A well-known example is Xerox, a company that had a famous research unit, PARC, the Palo Alto Research Center. However, Xerox adopted a narrow view of its business and strategy rejecting breakthrough ideas from PARC.
The second innovation process archetype, bottom-up, is the generation of new ideas from employees that go beyond or even against current strategy. Bottom-up innovation can also produce business-changing innovations.2 For example, the sweetener Aspartame arose from accidental results of a chemist in the Searle Labs, which, after their ultimate success prompted Searle to shift its business from pharmaceuticals into consumer products.
Figure 2  shows a stylised organisation chart, with a CEO office at the top, business unit heads in the middle, and operational heads (implicitly with their operational staff below) at the bottom.
But at the same time, employees are allowed to spend time and money on many efforts that create ideas at their level, harnessing ideas from the outside (such as customers, suppliers, trade association activities) as well as performing problem-solving not only for current business but also for the future. This coexistence of top-down and bottom-up activities works only if two fundamental enablers are present. Second: the innovation dynamics shown in Figure 2 can only contribute to effective output through horizontal communication and collaboration.
This desired balance between top-down and bottom-up innovation processes, gives rise to the question of what role innovation strategy can play in such a partially chaotic organisational system.
The first principle that senior management should adopt is that innovation strategy must be a core part of business strategy. A second principle requires a shift in mindset: an evolving strategy cannot fully be planned. When you look at the strategy journey through this lens, the cauldron shown in Figure 2 suddenly changes from a hard-to-control mess to a great opportunity to generate the inputs for good strategic decisions.
Christoph Loch is the Director of Cambridge Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge. Stelios Kavadias is a Director of Research and the Margaret Thatcher Professor of Enterprise Studies in Innovation and Growth at the Cambridge Judge Business School.
I’m bored to death at work so I decided to browse your blog on my iphone during lunch break. Below, Christoph Loch and Stelios Kavadias outline the ways in which organisations can effectively outline and implement innovation strategy.

Indeed, innovation is an “evolutionary system” analogous to biological and cultural evolution. Creating a standardised way of doing things enables them to do things repeatedly with some reliability rather than leaving outcomes to chance and individuals. Their danger lies in insufficient renewal – senior executives are usually not chosen for creativity but for delivering results now, and they may not be informed about the newest market or technology trends. It was established top-down to develop technologies in target domains, but then took on a life of its own, becoming bottom-up and sparking ideas such as the PC, the graphical user interface, distributed computing, and many other technological opportunities all slightly outside Xerox’s core business. At the end of the 1990s, Xerox fell into a deep crisis and was restructured because its business had become outdated and had shrunk. This is the dominant model for process improvements in service and manufacturing operations, where all the detailed knowledge is with frontline employees, who can be motivated to share their ideas for numerous small improvements of current operations (for example, through total quality management and continuous improvement methodologies).
Post-it Notes ended up changing 3M’s business in the 1980s, but were introduced on the stubborn initiative of a few people (led by Art Fry) against strategy and marketing analyses.
On the contrary, companies who succeed in innovation often follow both approaches in parallel.
They throw full support behind innovation efforts, but fail to appreciate that they will have to give up a bit of control – an innovative company will, out of necessity, do things that the CEO does not understand and (sometimes) does not even like. The cascading of the strategic direction of innovation efforts happens via business goals articulated at the top (supported by typical tools, such as trends and market intelligence, by their staff). For example, this includes quality circles and six sigma projects, but also ideation workshops and some free experimentation (like the 15% unguided time rule pioneered by 3M). First: trusted organisational help for proposing and, through evaluation and approval, entering employee ideas into the official innovation portfolio and budget.
This needs to be supported by an explicit “alignment of goals” (everyone understands how they fit into the larger business and complement one another), by common processes and standards that make explicit how the various actors influence one another, so they can adapt their actions and innovation initiatives to be sensitive of the goals and needs of the others.
Business strategy defines a competitive position (what offerings, to which customers, with what fundamental value proposition, through which combination of internal activities and external supplies), but the strategic proposition needs to evolve over time as the environment changes – in most industries, the half-life of strategies has shrunk to three years or less. Of course, senior managers need to plan, but they also need to realise that large pieces of “the plan” maybe no more than hypothesis. Senior management teams who believe that they personally hold all the knowledge required to steer the organisation through a changing world will sooner or later be caught out. Senior managers need to embrace the messiness of bottom-up ideas as a source of help to be able to steer the boat. However, strategy is a journey, and because of the complexity and unpredictability of the environment this journey contains surprises, experiments, and changes in course. Therefore, top management should define a portfolio of innovation activities not only to support the current business, but also to support the strategic journey: innovation should explore responses to environmental changes, including business models, customer approaches, approaches of regulators, and so on – anything that is viewed as uncertain or changing in the business environment. Get as many ideas as possible from the outside, and then morph them to become useful to your key strategic uncertainties. Set goals for all parts of the organisation not only for current efficiency and new products, but also for renewal in the spirit of addressing the changing environment. Professor Kavadias’ research interests include, but are not limited to, the effectiveness of new product development with a particular focus on strategy implementation and R&D ideation.

This means that an organisation needs to produce many diverse ideas (most of which won’t work), in order to capture the few that have the potential to become new offerings and improvements.
Based on the widely documented experiences of a number of organisations, successful processes can be structured into two fundamental types, top-down and bottom-up (see Figure 1).
For example, the current generation of CEOs does not understand social media and how it changes the behaviour of consumers (the authors include themselves in this diagnosis!).
PARC was closed just after the turn of the century, with other companies benefiting from the ideas (among them Apple and many other Silicon Valley high tech companies), but not Xerox, because management viewed the strategy of the company too narrowly. Companies who do this well can achieve annual productivity improvements in the order of 10% which is potentially a huge competitive advantage. Even the fundamental re-orientation of IBM in the 1990s from a hardware company, selling services as add-ons, into a services company with hardware divisions as internal suppliers, was initiated by a proselytising middle manager who ultimately convinced management that this was the best (although risky) way to go (the management team still deserves the credit for adopting the new strategy). Indeed, an organisation needs to balance direction with the mobilisation of diverse ideas from many sources.
Therefore, in many organisations, a significant part of the innovative energy suffocates from control efforts by top management.
Top management sets goals for the business unit heads, who in turn set goals for their organisations and execute innovation processes with budgets and staff. This can include, for instance, ideas from blue collar employees to introduce a new paint shop technology, or from service employees with ideas for new processes, offering new services to customers, or listening to customers in different ways.
This needs to happen not in one centralised place (which can become a stifling bottleneck) but through resourcing small-scale experimentation and testing at multiple decentralised levels, before a few projects rise up to “strategic” projects that are seen by the CEO office. Evolving the strategy is a journey where planning helps you to diagnose where you are and to understand the direction of travel, but it is not an “optimised planned change”.
They need to proceed with provisional plans, knowing that these plans may have to change as developments in the environment emerge. So a mindset of experimentation with some of the elements of strategy is required—sometimes similar to the pivoting strategic choices that small entrepreneurial start-ups make. Professor Loch’s research interests include innovation in products as well as processes and practices and managing novel initiatives; as well as innovation strategy and strategy deployment.
Similarly, the fundamental strategic shift of Intel away from memory microchips towards microprocessors was sparked by their middle management, which led a bottom-up redefinition of their product lines and innovation projects to support microprocessors.
For example, we found in a recent study of manufacturing organisations that a full 50% of strategic projects directly supervised by the top management team (representing, on average, just 15-20 projects per company) had been generated through a bottom-up process.
Contributions from employees can (with appropriate selection) make innovation better because they increase the organisation’s total creativity. This means that innovation is a core part of evolving an organisation’s strategy over time.
Management teams need intelligence and room for creativity within the organisation, as well as without, in order to make good decisions in this journey.

Top 10 free stuff websites
Daily quotes sent to my email
Mgm website promo b
Widow dating in coimbatore

Comments to «Business strategy review presentation ideas»

  1. Parkour writes:
    All, if I business strategy review presentation ideas necessary to go back out there.?It's a relief fascinating, arrogant, difficult, impatient, busy.
  2. President writes:
    Over believe that triggers men and use then do yourself.

2015 Make video presentation adobe premiere pro | Powered by WordPress