Innovation

In recent years, many companies have learned to use the Internet as a powerful platform for collaborating directly with customers on innovation. But direct interactions & #8212; facilitated by customer advisory panels, online communities and product-design tool kits & #8212; have limitations. They don’t always allow companies to reach the right customers at the right time and in the right context. Thus, to fully exploit the Internet as an enabler of innovation, companies need to complement their direct channels of customer interaction by using third parties that can help them bridge gaps in customer knowledge. The authors call this process of indirect, or mediated, innovation innomediation and the third-party actors at the center of it innomediaries. In their research, the authors identified three distinct types of innomediary and observed how each one can help companies acquire different forms of customer knowledge. Using case studies, they suggest ways in which companies can begin to think about exploiting the power of these emerging intermediaries. For businesses that learn to use customer knowledge from both direct and indirect sources, the Internet holds the key to a multichannel innovation strategy.

To maintain growth, a company muståÊlaunch disruptiveåÊnew businesses whenåÊits core units are strong.

A pair of new research studies points to strategies for making the most of technology acquisitions.

Managers don’t have to be told that to innovate they need to embrace drastically different practices from the ones they use for routine work. So why don’t they do it? According to Robert I. Sutton, co-director of Stanford University’s Center for Work, Technology and Innovation, when business leaders see what innovation actually requires, they often recoil. The right practices seem strange, even wrongheaded. Understandably, it’s hard for any executive to take action that will lose money today in order to test ideas that might never make money & #8212; in hopes one idea will make money tomorrow. Nevertheless, Sutton contends, that is just what cutting-edge companies do, bravely tackling ideas that at first blush seemed weird. From his research on such organizations, Sutton has developed eight techniques to move teams and companies from working by rote to innovating. The first two techniques are designed to provoke emotions that interrupt mindless action (provoke unpleasant emotions in others; make yourself uncomfortable). The second two are for smashing mindsets (treat everything like a temporary condition; ignore the experts). The third two help people identify and reject their dearest beliefs (plan to do something ridiculous; hold a sacred “cow” workshop). The last two are for exploding the composition of organizations and teams (bring in some slow learners; keep changing the composition of teams). Sutton cautions, however, that the exact methods a company uses to spark novel ideas and actions should differ depending on the situation. He recommends giving people freedom to play around with a wide variety of offbeat notions until bringing in new knowledge and helping people see old things in new ways finally enables the company to break from the past.

User innovation communities present a great advantage over manufacturer-centered development systems.

The external environment for innovation is an important driver, and industrial clusters offer special advantages.

Strategically outsourcing innovation can put a company in a sustainable leadership position.

Even the best-intentioned senior managers may find it difficult to translate aspirations into action, when molding a more market-driven company. Although the underlying principles and prescription of generic change programs offer valuable guidance, a firm must tailor its own change program to the particular challenges it faces in understanding, attracting, and keeping its valuable customers. In this article, Day discusses six conditions that ensure change-process success. He uses the experiences of four corporate change programs (Fidelity Investments; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Eurotunnel; and Owens Corning) and post-audits of some failed change initiatives to illustrate this change model and explain the necessary conditions for a firm's durable shift to a market orientation. Two pressures initiate a firm's change process: (1) its inclination to focus inwardly and become remote from its customers and unresponsive to competitive challenges; and (2) external market, technology, and competitive forces that pull the business out of alignment with its present market. The interplay of these forces leads to one or more of the following triggers for change: market disruptions that threaten a firm's business model, continuing erosion of market alignment that results in a market disadvantage, strategic necessity, or intolerable opportunity costs. Successful change programs have six overlapping stages: 1. Demonstrating leadership commitment. A leader owns and champions the change, invests time and resources, and creates a sense of urgency. 2. Understanding the need for change. Key implementers understand market responsiveness, know the changes needed, and see the benefits of the initiative. 3. Shaping the vision. All employees know what they are trying to accomplish and understand how to create superior value. 4. Mobilizing commitment at all levels. Those responsible have credibility and know how to form a coalition of supporters to overcome resistance. 5. Aligning structures, systems, and incentives. Key implementers have the resources they need to create a credible plan for alignment. 6. Reinforcing the change. Those responsible know how to start the program and keep attention focused on the change and benchmark measures. Any program to create a market-driven organization must begin quickly but be sustained over many years. Fidelity's approach, which took five years to reach 60 percent completion, resulted in increased customer-retention rates and a doubling of "share of wallet" -- two results that would justify and sustain any firm's change efforts.