In the past innovation units have been set up, processes have been installed, idea portfolios have been set up and have been rated, innovation projects have been conducted. But in most cases the efforts did not bring the needed results e.g. to even only maintain market shares. Consequently numerous companies shut down their innovation labs because expectations were not met, while still costing relevant money.
In most setups the currently practiced role of an innovation manager is unattractive:
- A vague or completely misguided understanding on C-level of what the output of innovation management actually should be.
- Inappropriate, unclear, or no performance agreements at all. Consequently, one’s own performance cannot be objectively evaluated based on meaningful criteria. This poses a significant risk to job security.
- No direct and reliable line of communication to senior management. Decisions at the executive level that are critical to the effectiveness of one’s work cannot be influenced.
- Mismatch between expectations and scope of action – There is an underlying expectation that innovation management will shape the future of the company. However, the necessary scope of action for this is not even remotely in place.
Innovation management usually does not bring the output that companies need. And employees who are actually well qualified for the role of innovation manager are reluctant to take on this role, as it entails significant risks – risks over which the innovation manager has little control.
Because innovating new added values is too important to let it go we should first try to understand what lead to low output. To then come up with an approach how to fundamentally re-think how innovation work can become effective (and thereby attractive) in a corporate structure.
For many years I´ve been working with companies to raise their innovative capability, in particular, to expand their portfolios with innovative value-added services for customers. First by coaching innovation teams methodilogically, then more and more by building whole innovation management systems.
Coaching innovation teams in customer understanding and in building and testing innovative business models already helped the companies, however not sustainably. These projects were often successful in their isolated scope but for the rest of the organisation, it was difficult to act on the findings in order to bring solutions to market.
Building innovation management systems has put this effort of prior isolated innovation projects into the whole organisational context. This improved the effectivity but still did not bring the results the companies needed. Many system features that appeared to be objectively sound and well thought out were not implemented with the necessary consistency. This was due to a lack of self-confidence among innovation managers, as well as a lack of commitment from C-level executives to strengthen innovation management in its role. Of course there are reasons for these individual behaviours.
A key take-away from this is that companies do not need more processes or methodologies, but a more rigorous approach to innovation management facilitated by specifically skilled and confidently acting people in the functions of C-Level Management and Innovation Management.
Rigorous in the sense that either we want innovation management to succeed and we take the necessary steps. Or we leave it where it is, accepting low output.
By specifically skilled people in a sense that C-Level managers and likewise innovation managers know their specific roles in innovation work and act by it.
By confidently acting people in a sense that an innovation manager has the guts to help a C-Level manager into his/her specific role in corporate innovation. And in a sense that a C-Level manager has the guts to let an innovation manager tell him/her what to do in terms of raising the organisation's capability to innovate.
Understanding these interrelationships leads to the logical conclusion that effective innovation management is to be conceived in terms of roles of responsible and consistent players. Processes, methodologies and tools are secondary and should arise from the consistent fulfilment of these roles. After all, processes, methodologies and tools are already sufficiently available.
In the past innovation units have been set up, processes have been installed, idea portfolios have been set up and have been rated, innovation projects have been conducted. But in most cases the efforts did not bring the needed results e.g. to even only maintain market shares. Consequently numerous companies shut down their innovation labs because expectations were not met, while still costing relevant money.
In most setups the currently practiced role of an innovation manager is unattractive:
- A vague or completely misguided understanding on C-level of what the output of innovation management actually should be
- Inappropriate, unclear, or no performance agreements at all. Consequently, one’s own performance cannot be objectively evaluated based on meaningful criteria. This poses a significant risk to job security.
- No direct and reliable line of communication to senior management. Decisions at the executive level that are critical to the effectiveness of one’s work cannot be influenced.
- Mismatch between expectations and scope of action – There is an underlying expectation that innovation management will shape the future of the company. However, the necessary scope of action for this is not even remotely in place.
Innovation management usually does not bring the output that companies need. And employees who are actually well qualified for the role of innovation manager are reluctant to take on this role, as it entails significant risks – risks over which the innovation manager has little control.
Because innovating new added values is too important to let it go we should first try to understand what lead to low output. To then come up with an approach how to fundamentally re-think how innovation work can become effective (and thereby attractive) in a corporate structure.
For many years I´ve been working with companies to raise their innovative capability, in particular, to expand their portfolios with innovative value-added services for customers. First by coaching innovation teams methodilogically, then more and more by building whole innovation management systems.
Coaching innovation teams in customer understanding and in building and testing innovative business models already helped the companies, however not sustainably. These projects were often successful in their isolated scope but for the rest of the organisation, it was difficult to act on the findings in order to bring solutions to market.
Building innovation management systems has put this effort of prior isolated innovation projects into the whole organisational context. This improved the effectivity but still did not bring the results the companies needed. Many system features that appeared to be objectively sound and well thought out were not implemented with the necessary consistency. This was due to a lack of self-confidence among innovation managers, as well as a lack of commitment from C-level executives to strengthen innovation management in its role. Of course there are reasons for these individual behaviours.
A key take-away from this is that companies do not need more processes or methodologies, but a more rigorous approach to innovation management facilitated by specifically skilled and confidently acting people in the functions of C-Level Management and Innovation Management.
Rigorous in the sense that either we want innovation management to succeed and we take the necessary steps. Or we leave it where it is, accepting low output.
By specifically skilled people in a sense that C-Level managers and likewise innovation managers know their specific roles in innovation work and act by it.
By confidently acting people in a sense that an innovation manager has the guts to help a C-Level manager into his/her specific role in corporate innovation. And in a sense that a C-Level manager has the guts to let an innovation manager tell him/her what to do in terms of raising the organisation's capability to innovate.
Understanding these interrelationships leads to the logical conclusion that effective innovation management is to be conceived in terms of roles of responsible and consistent players. Processes, methodologies and tools are secondary and should arise from the consistent fulfilment of these roles. After all, processes, methodologies and tools are already sufficiently available.