Ambidexterity vs. Ecosystems: In Search for Sustainable Model of Intrapreneurship

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Eugene Ivanov

(This post first appeared on the Front End of Innovation Blog)

Innovation has climbed to the top of the corporate agenda in many large organizations, but its practical impact on the corporate performance has often been disappointing. Some would go as far as to say that the corporate innovation is “broken.”

This is perhaps an exaggeration. Large companies are actually quite good in what is commonly known as incremental innovation, which is a systematic improvement of already existing products or services; they’re also doing a decent job in streamlining operations and cutting costs. However, it’s definitely true that many corporations are much less successful in creating new businesses–no matter how you’d call this type of innovation: breakthrough, radical, transformational or disruptive.

The reason is simple: a hallmark of any successful modern corporation is a flawless, impeccable execution. However, while perfecting execution and establishing the culture of predictability and control, corporation lose the culture of entrepreneurship, the habit of experimenting and taking risky bets. That’s why transformational innovation, with its high rates of uncertainty and failure, struggles to take root in the corporate soil.

Many experts and innovation practitioners see a solution to this problem in bringing the spirit of entrepreneurship back in the corporate fold; a special term, “intrapreneurship,” coined more than 30 years ago, is now actively used to describe this process. Being intrapreneur means working for a large company, yet behaving as a small company’s entrepreneur, that is, cherishing risk-taking and experimentation.

On October 8, in New York City, The Corporate Intrapreneur Summit will take place, organized by the Institute for International Research and Culturevate. The Summit will bring together thought leaders in the field and practicing intrapreneurs from more than a dozen of leading corporations. One topic that is likely to come up in the discussions will be what models of intrapreneurship can be used to get real results.

18713551Back in 2004, Charles O’Reilly and Michael Tushman wrote an influential paper for the Harvard Business Review titled “The Ambidextrous Organization.” O’Reilly and Tushman argued that corporations actually don’t have to choose between investing in existing (core) and new businesses; they can do both (be “ambidextrous”) by creating corporate structures supporting both incremental and transformational innovation.

Critics of the ambidextrous organization concept pointed out that the requirements for both types of innovation are so different, even contradictory, that what makes companies great at optimizing the current business makes them terrible at creating new business opportunities. For this reason, ambidextrous organizations can’t be but a rare exception (3M and Google are traditionally mentioned as these rare exceptions).

41js0B+VpHL._SX312_BO1,204,203,200_An alternative to the ambidextrous organization approach has also emerged. In his recent book “Collective Disruption,” Michael Docherty, the CEO of a consulting company Venture2 (and a past successful intrapreneur himself), suggests that corporations should support transformational innovation by creating innovation ecosystems including startups. In this innovation symbiosis of sorts, startups will provide large companies with disruptive ideas along with a playground for testing and early prototyping, whereas large organizations will use their resources to scale up the most viable ideas.

Many would argue that differences between the two models of intrapreneurship are more semantic than real. Both require more openness to the external sources of innovation; both require more flexibility in relationships with outside partners; yet both require the creation of some corporate structures to facilitate the process. It’s therefore very likely that a new, “hybrid,” model may emerge combining the best features of the two original concepts.

Hopefully, the upcoming Summit in NYC will make a significant contribution to creating of such a viable model of corporate intrapreneurship.

Posted in Portfolio Management | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Why Do Startups Fail?

Posted on August 25, 2015 by Eugene Ivanov

why-100-employees-might-be-the-magic-staff-number-for-startups

I came across a March 2015 TED talk by Bill Gross, founder of the business incubator Idealab. He set out to identify the “single biggest reason why startups succeed” (or fail). To do so, he considered the five major factors: Idea, Team, Business Model, Funding and Timing. After having analyzed the fate of 100+ companies that went through the Idealab incubator and another 100 of “non-Idealab” companies, Gross came to an unexpected discovery: in 42% of the cases, the difference between success and failure was in the timing of market entry. The maturity of the team accounted for 32% of the difference, whereas the quality of underlying idea came only third with 28%.

Gross’ assertion that startups fail mostly because of the wrong timing of market entry may seem to contradict some other data. For example, in a recent report “The Top 20 Reasons Startups Fail” published by CB Insights, the number one reason for startup failure was “No Market Need,” something that sounds more conventional. At the same time, product mistiming occupies only the 10th position on the list.

There is obviously no reason to mistrust either of the sources. Why then the difference? The discrepancy may come from the startups analyzed in both samples. In Gross’ case, half of the companies he reviewed went through his famed incubator–and I assume that at this point, they were already “filtered” for having a decent product/business idea. Even among the companies in the “non-Idealab” half of Gross’ sample which he considers failures, we see such notable examples as Pets.com and Kozmo.com, whose product/business ideas were at certain point good enough to attract significant VC funding.

I therefore feel that in Gross’ case, the “losers” were already pre-selected for having decent Ideas, so that the reason for their failure must have been something else. On the other hand, no such pre-selection seems to exist in the case of CB Insight’s report that samples what appeared to be “random” startups.

Besides, Gross himself defined good timing as understanding of “whether consumers are really ready for what you have to offer them.” To me, this sounds simply as a more sophisticated version of the same conventional market need. In some cases, consumers aren’t ready for your product at this particular time; in others, they aren’t ready at all.

From all of the above, I make two conclusions. First, figuring out what consumers want and need still remains the first thing to do for any startup to succeed. Second, accelerators/incubators (such as Idealab) can help startups hone their business proposition; yet they can’t prevent them from failing for other– often unexpected–reasons. That’s why startups continue being a risky business.

Image credit: http://www.businessinsider.com/

Posted in Startups | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

3 Ways to Improve the Efficiency of the “Idea Generation” Process

Posted on August 20, 2015 by Eugene Ivanov

downloadIn my previous post, I compared the efficiency of two approaches to corporate innovation: “bottom-up” and “top-down.” The former approach relies on ideas that are first generated by a company’s employees and then channeled up to the company’s senior management. The latter focuses on problems formulated by the company’s leadership which then moved downward for employees to find solutions to these problems. Available data suggest that the top-down approach (exemplified by an open innovation service provider InnoCentive) is significantly more efficient than the bottom-up (exemplified by an external innovation portal Idea Storm operated by Dell).

And yet, despite what numbers say, the bottom-up model of innovation remains very popular. Why? First, its popularity is fueled by a widespread belief that innovation must harness a collective wisdom of the whole organization. Second, sticking to this model allows the company’s leadership adopt a hands-off approach to innovation process. It’s so easy to announce an open season for ideas and then claim that the culture of innovation is taking root on the ground. Compare that to the time and effort needed to formulate the company’s innovation strategy, align it with the corporate strategic goals, identify key problems to be solved and articulate criteria for successful solutions–all what is required by the top-down approach.

I want to be very clear: I’m not against the bottom-up model of innovation as such. In innovation-mature organizations it can be remarkably successful. My point is that this approach doesn’t work well for organizations that are at the very beginning of the innovation journey. That said, I see at least three (reasonably simple) ways to improve the efficiency of the corporate “idea generation” process.

1. Define what innovation means for your company

The lack of ideas isn’t a problem for the majority of organizations; quite to the contrary, they’re usually awash with suggestions from their employees. The problem is that these employees, especially at the lower steps of the organizational ladder, often have only a vague understanding of the strategic goals of the organization; consequently, their ideas are likely to be misaligned with the organization’s real needs.

To overcome this problem, each company must clearly define what innovation means specifically for it; accomplishing this in the format of an Innovation Charter is usually a good idea. This definition should include the areas of desired innovations (product development, business model innovation or operational improvements), time horizons, target customers, the expected size of the market and so on. These parameters will serve as a “mold” that would shape the creative energy of the company’s employees into ideas that really matter to the organization. Yes, the number of suggested ideas is likely to drop, yet those that make the cut will have higher value.

2. Create a pool of ad hoc innovation experts

 For practical purposes, just defining what innovation means for your company isn’t enough. People in the R&D may have a great technical insight, but they’re likely to struggle with creating a solid business case. At the same time, marketing people may come up with a great idea for a new product, but will have problems with articulating precise technical specs.

To overcome this problem, a pool of ad hoc experts can be created bringing together people from all departments involved in innovation activities: R&D, manufacturing, marketing, legal, finance, etc. The name of the experts (with the area of their expertise) could be placed on the company’s intranet, and every employee will be able to contact them should the need for a particular expertise arise. Again, this will result in improved quality of ideas going upward for review.

3. Create a separate Innovation Fund

The reality of large organizations is that their R&D budgets for the next year are usually drafted no later than the Q3 of the prior year. That means that new projects will lack immediate funding and have to wait for at least a few months to get paid for, at which point their utility may already be questionable (not to mention the detrimental effect of this delay on employee morale). Of course, funding may come from interested business units, but they already have a full load of their own stuff. To make room for “newcomers,” business units will have to kill their existing projects, something that I personally never witnessed in real life.

To solve this problem, a separate Innovation Fund can be created to pay for projects that fall outside the regular budgeting process. The amount of money in this Fund could be annually adjusted to reflect the company’s appetite for additional projects, but it must be fixed for the current fiscal year, meaning that the Fund will not become a “rainy day fund” to cover the company’s short-term financial emergencies (as sometimes happens to “innovation money”).

I doubt that the proposed three steps will ever make the bottom-up model of innovation superior to the top-down approach, but I do believe that they will increase the efficiency of the corporate “idea generation” process.

Image credit: www.papermasters.com

Posted in Innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Do Numbers Say About Different Models of Innovation?

Posted on August 6, 2015 by Eugene Ivanov

I’m not a fan ofimages the “idea generation” model of innovation. This approach, which I call “bottom-up,” puts the focus of innovation on ideas that are generated by employees on the ground and then channeled upwards to senior management. I think that the bottom-up approach is plagued with a numbers of serious flaws that I discussed here and here.

A plausible alternative to the bottom-up model of innovation is the “top-down” one, an approach that focuses on problems. In this model, a company’s leadership formulates problems that are strategic to the organization and then moves them downward for employees to find solutions to these problems. Again, I outlined the benefits of the top-down approach here and here.

Personal preferences notwithstanding, can we find any specific numbers pointing to a superior efficiency of one model over the other? Here is what I can offer and I strongly encourage anyone to challenge my numbers–or come up with their own.

Take InnoCentive, an open innovation service provider specializing in crowdsourcing. Its business model is a classic example of the top-down approach: InnoCentive’s clients post technical and/or business problems (“Challenges”) to the InnoCentive website, and a network of InnoCentive “Solvers” (365,000+ from nearly 200 countries) work on finding solutions to these problems. InnoCentive boasts up to 85% success rate of their Challenges.

Compare this to Dell’s Idea Storm, an external innovation portal designed to solicit open-ended ideas from consumer, a typical example of the bottom-up model of innovation. The opening page of Idea Storm tell us that of total 23,731 ideas submitted to the portal only 549 were implemented. That is slightly above 2%.

Sure, I understand the difference between soliciting ideas from outside a company vs. the company’s own employees–as I credit InnoCentive’s remarkable skills in formulating problems on behalf of its clients–and yet, the difference in the efficiency for both approaches is staggering.

That’s what numbers say.

Image credit: www.onlineastrologyconsultancy.com

 

Posted in Crowdsourcing, Innovation, Innovation Service Providers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Start-ups as an enemy of entrepreneurship?

Posted on July 30, 2015 by Eugene Ivanov

FORBES-WOMAN1

On July 27, The Telegraph published a column offering a blistering criticism of start-ups and what it’s calling a “start-up culture.” As the column author, Lucas Mikelionis, argues in the header, “Start-up culture is corrupting our youth and killing real entrepreneurship.” Mr. Mikelionis further claims that the start-up culture “has created a myth that has the power to ruin lives.”

For a rather short piece (fewer than 1,000 words), Mr. Mikelionis comes up with an impressive list of grievances he has with start-ups. First, he’s offended by the fact that start-ups go against “traditional business-making practice, where companies respond to the demand of consumers,” a strange claim, if you ask me, but that’s what Mr. Mikelionis says. Second, while admitting that some start-ups did deliver “revolutionary products,” he insists that this is not a rule, but rather an exception, arguing that most start-ups actually fail. Third, Mr. Mikelionis claims that start-ups don’t want to balance their books but prefer instead burning cash at high rate while ignoring market research, another strange claim, to say the very least.

Fourth, and this apparently is what brings Mr. Mikelionis’ blood completely to a boiling point, rare successful startups are not attempting “to create a business with a long-lasting plan,” but instead rapidly sell to “larger corporations…for a handful of cash.” As a result, there is a shift from company ownership to a “never ending game of start-up creation,” a deadly sin in Mr. Mikelionis’ eyes. A minor, but still a corrupting, factor is that inspired by Mark Zuckerberg and others like him, young people “rush out of university to start companies regardless of having no experience of working in the private sector.”

Mr. Mikelionis’ criticism is wrong in at least two fundamental aspects. First, he’s blaming start-ups for high levels of failure while apparently believing that “larger corporations” always do it right. This is absolutely not the case.  Let me quote Chapter 1 from Scott Anthony’s recent book “The First Mile”:

“…of eleven thousand consumer product launches in North America between 2008 and 2010, only six had first-year sales of more than $25 million, maintained at least 90 percent of sale volume the next year…and produced cumulative two-year sales that exceeded $200 million. Six. That’s 0.05 percent.”

So much for the efficiency of larger corporations! Large companies waste mountains of resources to launch products the vast majority of which spectacularly fail in the marketplace–and all that while keeping the balance books in perfect order (well, most of the time). Compared to that, the start-up world strikes me as El Dorado of Success and Efficiency. (Not to get too personal, but does Mr. Mikelionis really believe that all or even the majority of pieces published by The Telegraph, a large news corporation, are examples of journalistic excellence? I don’t think so.)

Sure, I strongly prefer young people graduating from colleges, at least eventually. And yet, it’s so tempting to recollect a number of failed companies, such as Kodak or Blockbuster, whose executive teams were packed with MBA graduates from the top business programs.

The second, and much more troubling, problem with Mr. Mikelionis’ piece is the fact that he doesn’t actually understand what a start-up is. He apparently believes that start-ups are smaller versions of larger corporations that can become such by creating “long-lasting plans” and nurturing the culture of ownership. To this end, Mr. Mikelionis could greatly enrich himself by reading Steve Blank with his famous “start-up is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model.”

Naturally, not every idea can result in a repeatable and scalable business model. It takes experimentation and inevitable–and unavoidable!–failure to identify a winner. That’s why start-ups fail, and not because their founders are lazy, stupid or corrupted. And, yes, when a larger corporation sees a start-up with a worthy idea, it’s ready to shovel piles of cash at it. This is how big companies fill their product pipelines these days.

The ultimate winners in this game are we, the consumers; because start-ups help large companies innovate better and faster, bringing to the marketplace new and exciting products. That’s why in contrast to what The Telegraph and Mr. Mikelionis say, start-ups don’t kill “real entrepreneurship.” They are real entrepreneurship.

Image credit: http://www.forbes.com

Posted in Startups | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

What Questions Does Chattanooga Shooting Raise?

Posted on July 19, 2015 by Eugene Ivanov

I like timageso argue that a key to successful crowdsourcing campaign is to ask a right question. It doesn’t really matter what this question is about, for as long as it well-thought-out, properly defined and clearly articulated. For, in the end, it’s precisely the quality of the question that makes your crowdsourcing campaign either success or failure.

Obviously, the ability to ask right questions matters not only in crowdsourcing, but in many other areas as well, including, not surprisingly, politics. I thought about that earlier today when watching the FOX News coverage of the Chattanooga, Tenn., shooting. During the interview with a former FBI official, a caption at the bottom of the screen read: “Chattanooga shooting raises question about lone wolf attack.”

Sure, the Chattanooga shooting raises many troubling questions; however, the one highlighted by the FOX News doesn’t strike me as the most pressing. The question I personally would love to have answered is this: How come that the Chattanooga shooter, Muhammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, had AK-47 in his possession? Who can explain to me why on earth a private person–whether a native or naturalized U.S. citizen; whether born in Kuwait, or Mexico or Kansas; whether a devout Muslim, or Christian, or Jew or an atheist; whether a lone wolf or a gang member; whether a school football player or a church choir singer; whether a brilliant student or delusional lunatic–can lay his hands on AK-47 assault weapon? Not a handgun or a hunting rifle, but the AK-47, a firearm which only real utility is to kill people?

(A side question to ask: is it a pure coincidence that such a shooting happened in Tennessee, the state that neither bans the sale of assault weapons nor requires background checks on private sales, the state that was rated with an “F” by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence?)

Every time a mass shooting happens in the United States, the question of gun control–real gun control– rises…and then gradually wanes until the next massacre. For as long as we choose ignoring this question–or keep asking other questions, like whether the shooter was sane or insane or whether he was “radicalized”–our attempts to fight gun violence will fail. Because it’s what inevitably happens to all campaigns that attempt to answer wrong questions.

Image credit: http://www.rt.com

Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Henry Ford, Toyota and Faster Horses

Posted on July 7, 2015 by Eugene Ivanov

Adownload consensus seems to have emerged that customer feedback, gathered through market research, is a key to successful innovation. And yet, dissenting votes can still be heard. Some folks claim that paying too much attention to customers can stifle innovation, degrade it to a mere incremental improvement of existing products (which is considered by these folks as anathema to a “true” innovation).

In support of this point of view, Steve Jobs is often quoted: “It’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” A plausible interpretation of this quote would seem to be that had Jobs listened to his customers, Apple would have been forever stuck to making incremental improvements to Apple-1. Another relevant line is attributed to Henry Ford: “If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse.”

I’d like to take issue with the latter statement. OK, Henry Ford had asked his customers what they wanted and they told him that they wanted a faster horse. Did Ford conclude after getting this response that he was done with collecting consumer feedback? Too bad if he did! What Ford should have done instead was to take a next step and apply the 5 Whys approach pioneered by the Toyota Motor Corporation that later became a formidable competitor to Ford’s own company. So, when hearing that his customers wanted a faster horse, Ford should have asked them: Why? Why do you need a faster horse? I suspect that many of Ford’s customers would have told him that what they had in mind was not an Arabic stallion to impress their friends and neighbors. What they really needed was a reliable mean to move commercial goods: in large quantities, to large distances and at faster speed. This customer feedback might well have led Ford to the idea of a Ford truck.

One should differentiate between two related, overlapping, yet distinct forms of customer feedback: customer wants and customer needs. What focus groups produce is customer wants: a demand for a faster horse or faster computer. It takes more time and effort–and much more sophisticated market research tools–to identify customer needs behind customer wants. True, people often don’t know that they want a product until you show it to them. But it is only after they realized that they needed this product that they’re ready to pay for it. It is consumer needs, not wants that lead to new product lines or even completely new markets. It’s serving unmet consumer needs that allows bold startups disrupt businesses of big guys.

Sure, a stroke of genius like Steve Jobs can sometime substitute for a proper market research. Try this approach at your peril, but don’t be surprised if your innovation journey won’t be as successful as that of Apple.

Image credit: http://www.artsb2c.com

Posted in Innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Have too many ideas? Blame your CEO!

Posted on June 30, 2015 by Eugene Ivanov

downloadIn an elegant piece in Harvard Business Review, Whitney Johnson points to a problem that many innovative companies face: an excess of good ideas. Obviously, only a fraction of them can be pursued. But what are we going to do with those innovators whose ideas weren’t selected for implementation? How shall we prevent them from growing “angry, jealous, or bitter” (in Whitney Johnson’s words)? How shall we protect the corporate innovation culture from being poisoned by the residual resentment?

Whitney Johnson suggests two approaches. The first, conventional, is to acknowledge the input of the people whose ideas were rejected and then engage them in the implementation of selected ones. The second, somewhat radical, is to terminate the employment of those who have failed to overcome bad feelings after their rejection.

Wow! For a company that generates many ideas that could lead to a lot of terminations.

I feel amazed with how many people sincerely believe that the “we-have-too-many-good-ideas” syndrome is incumbent on the corporate innovation process. It is not. The “excess of good ideas” only happens when companies adopt the bottom-up model of corporate innovation. In this model, the focus is on ideas, which are collected on the ground and then channeled upward. I already wrote about serious flaws of the bottom-up model of innovation and don’t want to repeat these arguments here. Suffice is to say that this approach will serve only mature (innovation-wise) organizations; for organizations with a shorter history of innovation programs–and these are still in majority today–the bottom-up model of innovation doesn’t work.

What is the alternative? The alternative is the top-down approach. In the top-down model of innovation, the focus is on problems. The company’s leadership formulates problems that are strategic to the organization and then moves them down the ladder for employees to generate solutions to these problems. Again, I refer the readers to my previous post describing the benefits of the top-down model. The important point here is that companies practicing this approach don’t suffer from “too many ideas” because having many good solutions to a limited number of important problems is a blessing, not a curse. Equally important–and very relevant to what Whitney Johnson’s talking about–is that giving specific feedback to the employees about the value of their solutions is much less “toxic” than explaining to them why their ideas were rejected. Regardless of whether an employee “wins” or “loses” in a solution contest, he or she feels engaged and appreciated.

Why then does the bottom-up model still remain so widespread? Unfortunately, sticking to it allows the company’s executive leadership adopt a hands-off approach to the innovation process. It’s so easy to announce an open season for ideas and then claim that the collective wisdom of the whole organization is now harnessed. But it takes time and effort to formulate the company’s innovation strategy, align it with the corporate strategic goals, identify key problems to be solved and articulate criteria of successful solutions. So the “too-many-ideas” problem is not an inevitable toxic by-product of the innovation process, as Whitney Johnson wants us to believe; it is a result of a wrong innovation strategy.

Or let me put it differently. Does your company struggle with the excess of good ideas? Blame your CEO.

 Image credit: www.businessinsider.com

Posted in Innovation | Tagged , , , | 17 Comments

Three Reasons for your Company to Write an Innovation Charter

Posted on June 5, 2015 by Eugene Ivanov

Magna_Carta This piece was originally posted to the Qmarkets blog

A lack of executive leadership is one of the most commonly mentioned reasons for the failure of innovation. This leadership vacuum usually comes in two flavors. The company’s CEO loudly declares “Let’s innovate!” and then forgets about it, leaving the nascent innovation team fight alone the overwhelming forces of inertia and resistance. Or, the C-floor loads the innovation group with a zillion challenging goals, expecting it to deliver one magic bullet after another, but provides no room for experimentation or failure. Regardless of the road, the destination is the same: innovation initiatives splutter; the sense of excitement subdues; pessimists feel vindicated and cynics argue that corporate innovation is a career suicide.

I think that one approach to deal with this problem is to create a corporate Innovation Charter. No, I don’t consider this approach a panacea; other remedies should be administered too. And, yes, I realize that writing up yet another corporate missive may sound “bureaucratic.” Nevertheless, I see at least three reasons why Innovation Charter could help companies innovate more effectively.

  1. An Innovation Charter outlines major aspects of the company’s innovation strategy.

The major objective of the corporate Innovation Charter is to outline what innovation means for this specific company. It should explain where the company stands today; where the company wants to be in a few years; how the gap will be bridged and what role innovation should play in this process. The clarity about the place innovation occupies within the framework of the general corporate strategy will help select appropriate (and, hopefully, appropriately supported) innovation programs. It will also help identify the most efficient innovation tools, including the choice of innovation management software.

Equally important, an Innovation Charter should create a common innovation language. Many problems stem from the fact that people use different vocabulary when speaking about innovation. The consequences might not be as dramatic as the epic failure of the Babylon Tower building project, yet serious enough to erect a communication wall between the innovation team and the rest of the company.

In other words, the Innovation Charter, after loudly declaring “Let’s innovate!”, keeps the message alive and helps transform it into a set of actionable business initiatives.

  1. Innovation Charter creates the innovation “law of the land.”

I’d be the last person to blame a company’s CEO for the lack of attention to innovation. Let’s face it: CEOs are people in charge of everything, and it’s plain unrealistic to expect them pay undivided attention to any particular business process, including, of course, innovation, a continuous process with no evident need for day-to-day executive control.

So, instead of asking CEO for constant intervention, the innovation team should create an Innovation Charter and asks the CEO to explicitly endorse it (ideally, publicly). With this endorsement, the innovation team can claim executive support even when the attention of the executive leaders will inevitably shift to other priorities.

In other words, the Innovation Charter establishes the innovation “law of the land.” Sure, as any other law, it needs re-enforcement, but it helps maintain order even when the cops are away.

  1. Innovation Charter makes innovation “everyone’s business.”

Corporate innovation can only succeed if it’ll expand from the traditional R&D or product development units to departments that are usually not involved in innovation programs (manufacturing, finance, HR, etc.). Unfortunately, very often, the corporate structure is too rigid, too “anti-matrix,” to allow innovation to become “everyone’s business.”

Realistically, not everyone in a company will be willing to assume the extra-load that participation in innovation activities demands. But even those who are, often can’t because of the immense pressure (applied by their managers) of their everyday routine tasks. Here, an Innovation Charter can help too as it provides an explicit mandate to get involved in innovation activities, something that even all-powerful mid-level managers can’t easily dismiss.

In other words, Innovation Charter sends a message to all: “Yes, you can and you should!”

Image credit: http://www.historytoday.com     

Posted in Innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Is Religion an Obstacle to Innovation?

Posted on May 20, 2015 by Eugene Ivanov

20150509_woc154_2In a recent piece, The Economist touched upon an interesting topic: the link between religion and innovation. The piece refers to a study, “Forbidden Fruits: The Political Economy of Science, Religion, and Growth,” published by America’s National Bureau of Economic Research, that attempted to correlate a country’s ability to innovate with its religiosity. Innovation was measured by the number of patents per capita and religiosity by the share of a population that self-identifies as religious. When plotted against each other, the data showed a strong negative correlation: more religious countries tend to be less innovative. The authors of the report hypothesize that theocratic models of government may provide environment in which anti-scientific views negatively impact public policy.

An obvious weakness of the study lies in the way it measures its endpoints. As already pointed out by Gijs van Wulfen, innovation is much more than simply technical inventions embodied in patents. Besides, defining a country’s religiosity by the number of people calling themselves “religious” is an oversimplification. True, the United States and, say, Iran may both have high ratios of religious people in their respective populations. Yet there is a huge difference between the United States with its constitutionally mandated separation of church and state and Iran, essentially a theocracy.

A year ago, I wrote about socio-economic factors that may affect innovation when reviewing the annual 2013 Global Innovation Index.  The Index ranked innovation capabilities of 142 countries–and, by the way, the authors of the Index used not one, but 84 “innovation indicators,” which included, among others, the quality of higher education, availability of venture capital and government support.

I was struck by the fact that the top of the innovation ranking was heavily populated by countries representing mature democracies: of 30 countries on the top of the 2013 Innovation Index, 28 were classified as “Free” by Freedom House, a U.S.-based non-government organization that monitors democratic development around the world. The same trend held at the bottom of the Index: among 30 least innovative countries, 17 were “Partly Free” and 11 “Not Free.”

My interpretation of these findings is simple: it’s not religion that impedes innovation; it’s lack of freedom. It’s freedom–political, economic and, of course, religious–that lets innovation flourish.

Image credit: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/05/daily-chart-3

Posted in Global Innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments