Literature research_benchmarking methodology

NPI Innovation Strategy PROGRESS REPORT
Compiled by: C. Sebego - 1 -
Knowledge Management & Research Programme
Workplace Dynamic Unit
Cost centre: 402
Comprehensive literature research on Innovation
By: Conrad Sebego
Date: 2 June 2006
1) INTRODUCTION TO INNOVATION
‘The creative act thrives in an environment of mutual stimulation, feedback and constructive criticism
– in a community of creativity.’ By William T. Brady
The purpose of this document is to develop a comprehensive strategy for increasing
the rate of innovation in the NPI as a whole. Existing models will be investigated and
assessed for relevance and applicability in the NPI. Factors required for successful
implementation and adoption will also be mitigated. The intended outcomes are
focused on how to formulate idea generation sessions, ability to bring all relevant
resources to supply complete solutions to customers, increased copyright, and an
aggressive move towards patenting amongst other things.
Adair (1996:1) indicates that ideas about work have undergone a revolution in
recent times. Gone are the days when an employer could hire people’s physical
energies without their minds. Your success at work now – and your longer-term
employability – depends largely upon your mental contribution. Most of us are
knowledge workers now. If your brain isn’t fully engaged by the time you reach work
– and throughout the day – your career prospects are limited!
Creative thinking or having new ideas is becoming an ever more important part of
work. But innovation is more than personal creativity. It is the process of taking new
ideas through to satisfied customers. It occurs at every stage in any business.
Potentially it involves the whole team at work. Innovation ought to be an essential
part of your business strategy.
Effective innovation therefore, has three overlapping dimensions. They can be
pictured like an oyster shell:

Figure 1 Oyster-shell model of innovation (Adair, 1996:1)
The group personality, or culture as it is commonly called, plays a vital role in
innovation. Some cultures encourage innovation; others stultify it. It’s not much good
being a creative individual, and building creative problem-solving teams if your
parent organisation poses a hostile environment to new ideas.
2) DEFINING CREATIVITY
In the view of Adair (1996:12) why do people perceive anything as new? What
obviously won’t do so if it’s already very familiar. They may give us some clues
about innovation. These questions point to the perception of newness in an idea or
concept, product or service:
 Has it recently come into existence?
 Has it been made or used but a short time?
 Is it freshly made and unused?
 It is different from one similar that has existed previously?
 Is it of superior quality?
 Has it just been invented, created or developed?
Adair (1996:12) differentiates between new and original, which applies strictly only
to what is the first of its kind to exist. As our knowledge is limited it’s difficult to
establish a claim to originality. So often, research or enquiry will unearth someone
who has thought of it before.
Successful innovation is comparable to the production of a play or film where
different people are involved: director, producer, author and scriptwriter, to name the
key ones. In successful innovation one or more of the following will be at work:
YOU TEAM(S) ORGANISATION

Role Notes
Creative thinker Has the power or quality to produce new
ideas, especially ones not known to have
existed.
Innovator Can bring in or introduce something new
or as new, such as a product or service
to the market. Also alters or makes
changes to an established product or
service.
Inventor Comes up with a new and potentially
commercial ideal. Often combines both
creative thinker and innovator.
Entrepreneur Conceives or receives ideas and turns
them into business realities. Often uses
OPB (Other People’s Brains) and OPM
(Other People’s Money) to develop a
market opportunity.
Intrapreneur ‘Takes hands-on responsibility for
creating innovation in any kind of
organisation. The intrapreneur may be
the creator or inventor but is always the
dreamer who figures out how to turn an
idea into profitable reality.’
Champion Picks up an idea, not necessarily his or
her own and runs with it. Shows
commitment and tenacity in seeing it
developed properly and successfully
implemented.
Sponsor Gives idea backing it deserves. Usually
a senior manager who believes in it and
influences key people to clear the way
and help overcome obstacles as it is
taken to realisation.
Table 1 Key players in innovation (Adair, 1996:14)
3) MANAGING FOR INNOVATION
Adair (1996:157), to produce innovative behaviour you must see innovation
essentially as a process which you can manage. Unlike production or assembly-line
work, of course, it isn’t visible and concrete. Nonetheless it is clearly identifiable.
The process falls into three major elements or phases captured by the following
table:
Generating ideas Involving individuals and teams in
producing ideas for improving existing
products, processes and services – and
creating new ones.
Harvesting ideas Again involving groups of people in the

gathering, sifting and evaluating of ideas.
Developing and implementing these
ideas
Once more involving teams in the work
of improving and developing the idea
right up to the first response from a
delighted customer.
Figure 2 Three phases of innovation (Adair, 1996:158)
What is the common factor in these acts or phases? Teamwork. A team is a form of
work group in which the members posses complementary skills that fir together like
a jigsaw puzzle and create synergy – the confined action that is greater than the
sum of the parts taken independently.
v
Figure 3 What a leader has to do (Adair, 1996:159)
INNOVATION
CREATIVE THINKING MAKES
IT POSSIBLE
TEAMWORK MAKES IT
HAPPEN
DEVELOPING THE
INDIVIDUAL
BUILDING AND
MAINTAINING THE
TEAM
ACHIEVING THE
TASK

To fulfil the three circles of responsibility certain key functions have to be performed.
They are the responsibility of the leader, but that does not mean the leader will do
them all himself. They can be shared or delegated in all sorts of ways.
The following list is by no means definitive – the sheer variety of situations prohibits
that – but these general functions are commonly required:
Defining Task Correctly specifies what needs to be
accomplished and breaks this task down
into its discrete parts
Planning Formulates an effective method for
achieving the task(s), i.e. organises
people, material, time and resources in
such a way that the objective(s) can be
met
Briefing Allocates tasks and resources to
subordinates in such a way that each
person (a) knows what is expected of
him and (b) understands the importance
of his contribution
Controlling Keeps things to plan. Is sensitive to
problems and delays and is quick to
respond to them. Coordinates the work
of the team
Evaluating Makes accurate and insightful
judgements about proposals, past
performance and people
Motivating Creates and maintains the team’s
commitment to, and interest in the task
Organising Creates a structure and hierarchy
appropriate to the task
Setting an example Exemplifies the values and behaviours
he/she wishes to see in others
Supporting Encourages group/individuals; builds
and maintains good team spirit
Table 2 Core functions of managerial leadership (Adair, 1996:160)
According to Adair (1996:162), the nature of any task today has changed. It now
includes – implicitly or explicitly – the demand or requirement to DO IT BETTER,
FASTER, LESS EXPENSIVELY. The need for change and innovation is thus now
built in to whatever you do. That is why wise managers are converting themselves
as rapidly as they can into business leaders. For, the future lies with leadership.
Change throws up the need for leaders; leaders bring about change.
But to create and sustain innovation requires extra, over and beyond the typical
actions as listed in Table 2. They really describe, if I am honest, what you must do
to lead and manage today’s business. In order to create innovative teamwork – the

key to tomorrow’s business – the further set of activities required can be boiled
down to five essentials:
 Selecting creative people
 Encouraging group creative synergy
 Training the team
 Communicating about innovation
 Overcoming the obstacles that separate new ideas from the market place
Adair (1996:166) because innovative organisations rely more upon shared ethos
than adherence to written rules, special care has to be taken over recruitment.
Intuition must pay a large part in the process, for academic qualifications or work
record may not always be accurate predictions of creative potential. You need
‘people-feel.’
You can usually identify some general characteristics. Creative people tend to be
more open and flexible than their less creative neighbours. They bring a freshness
of mind to problems. They have usually exhibited the courage to be different and to
think for themselves. They are comparatively more self-motivated and are often
addicted to their work. Here is an expanded list of seven characteristics to look for in
studying references, biographical data or during interviews:
General intelligence Powers of analysing, synthesising, and
valuing, as well as the ability to store and
recall information
Highly self-motivated A high degree of autonomy, self
sufficiency and self-direction. Creative
people enjoy the challenge. They like to
pit themselves against problems or
opportunities in which their own efforts
can be the deciding factor.
Negative capability The ability to hold many ideas – often
apparently contradictory ones – together
in creative tension, without reaching for
premature resolution of ambiguity.
Hence the capability of occasionally
reaching a richer synthesis.
Curiosity Sustained curiosity and powers of
observation. Creative-minded people are
usually good listeners.
Independence of mind Marked independence of judgement.
Resilience in the teeth of group
pressures towards conformity in thinking.
Seeing things as others do, but also as
they do not. Thinking for oneself,
thinking from first principles, not getting it
out of books.
Ambiversion Ambiverts occupy the middle ranges on
the spectrum that has introversion at one
end and extroversion at the other.

Slightly more introvert if anything, but
need contacts with stimulating
colleagues.
Wide interests A broad range of interests, including
usually those with a creative dimension.
Table 3 Qualities of creative people (Adair, 1996:168)
4) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONDUCIVE ENVIRONMENT
In the view of Adair (1996:170), research has identified the most important
environmental factors in stimulating or encouraging creativity. In order of importance
they are as follows:
 Recognition and appreciation
o Because the results of creative work are often postponed for a long
time (many geniuses in history received no recognition in their
lifetimes), creative people stand in special need of encouragement and
appreciation. The recognition of the value or worth of their contribution
is especially important to them, particularly if it comes from those
whose opinions the respect.
 Freedom to work in areas of greatest interest
o While the predominantly analytical person concentrates and focuses
down, the creative person wanders in every possible or feasible
direction. Freedom to move is the necessary condition of creative
work. A creative person tends to be most effective if allowed to choose
the area of work and the problems or opportunities within that area,
which arouse deep interest.
 Contacts with stimulating colleagues
o ‘Two heads are better than one,’ says the ancient Greek proverb.
Creative people need conversation with colleagues in order to think,
not merely for social intercourse.
 Stimulating projects to work on
o Along with a congenial and appreciative environment and the
opportunity for appropriate recognition by their professional peers
inside and outside the organisation, stimulating projects or problems
are especially attractive.
 Freedom to make mistakes
o Errors are inescapable in innovative work. The climate should be such
that they are not all used to inflict immediate and permanent damage
on one’s professional career.
Adair (1996:193) indicates that the third dimension on the oyster-shell model of
innovation in Figure 1 is ORGANISATION. What makes some organisations more
innovative than others? Why do some organisations act as magnets to people with
flair, imagination and creative energy? Others, in contrast, cannot find large enough
bribes to secure or keep their people of talent.

Setting aside what organisations say about innovation, are there any characteristics
of those who actually do it? There are five key ingredients, which overlap
considerably, that can be clearly identified and described:
 Visible commitment at top level
 A climate that encourages teamwork and innovation
 A toleration for failure to balance risk-taking
 Open and constructive communications
 Flexibility in organisational structure
Together these factors inoculate your organisation against the fate of the dinosaurs.
For an established company which in an age demanding innovation is not capable
of innovation is doomed to decline and extinction. And a management which in such
a period does not know how to manage innovation is incompetent and unequal to its
task. Managing innovation will increasingly become a challenge to management,
and especially to top management, and a touchstone of its competence.
5) ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR INNOVATION
According to Adair (1996:218), the German sociologist Max Weber provided the first
profile of a bureaucratic organisation. In his writings, bureaucracy simply describes
a certain type of organisation: the word did not have for him the pejorative sense
that it has acquired for us. He summed up the distinctive characteristics of
bureaucratic organisations as follows:
 Authority is impersonal and formal
 Strong emphasis on functional specialisation
 A rule for every eventuality
 Strong emphasis on hierarchy and status
 Clearly laid down procedures (red tape)
 Proliferation of paperwork
 Security of employment and advancement by seniority
It is evident that an organisation with this culture will tend to be rigid rather than
flexible when it comes to responding to change. It is unlikely that it will encourage
innovation; it may indeed actively seek to suppress it.
These two types of organisation – the bureaucratic or mechanistic one and the more
flexible or organic one – are really two ends of a spectrum. Most organisations are
blends of both the bureaucratic and the organic. The former principle stands for
order and continuity; the latter spells freedom and change. At any one time, the
proper balance has to be struck between these two necessities.
There is no doubt that growth in size, together with the passage of years, increases
the bureaucratic tendency. Insidiously and imperceptibly its ivy tentacles creep over
the structure. Instead of the machine being well-oiled by commonsense and
humming with energy it begins to slow down. More treacle is poured into the works.
Paper proliferates. Even minor decisions are referred upwards. Systems regulate
people. Systems regulate the systems. The senior managers become more remote
and finally invisible. People begin to feel alienated.

Matrix organisations – where a person may belong to two or more teams at the
same time – tend to be transitional. One or other of the arms of responsibility –
geographical, product or business, professional specialism – tends to become the
more dominant. It is essential, in other words, to think in a matrix way in innovative
organisations, even if the structure emphasises one main line of accountability. The
importance of structures for growth can hardly be stressed enough. They should
assure innovators both support and stimulation. Flexibility is becoming the key
quality of the truly innovative organisation. The flexible person, team or organisation
is capable of responding or conforming to changing or new situations. That places a
high premium on communication. Barriers between staff people in different areas
need to be minimised. Keep open communication channels between researchers
and production people, between researchers and market people, and between
researchers and the customer.
In organisational terms that also means flattening the hierarchical pyramid and
pushing decision making downwards to where the organisation interacts with its
environment. In short, it means to create an entrepreneurial and matrix-type
management structure while preserving the efficient monitoring system and
disciplines essential in any large organisation.
According to Lynch (1997:714) every organisation needs an element of innovation:
hence, every organisation needs structures capable of producing this, even if these
structures are only temporary, e.g. when a project team is disbanded once the work
is completed. Before exploring how an organisation can best structure itself to be
innovative, it is useful to examine what is required. In a competitive market place, it
is not enough to be innovative: the new product or service has to be commercially
attractive to potential customers, i.e. it must offer value for money compared with
existing products and services.
It may be desirable to include a broader range of benefits in addition to the
innovation itself. Often, the real breakthrough comes not with the technical
development but with the extended package of promotion, distribution, support and
customer service. All of these elements are geared towards making the innovation
user-friendly and more commercially attractive. This requires an integrated
organisation structure across all functions of the business.
Lynch (1997:716) indicates that the organisation structure and processes that were
most conducive to innovation included the following (based on a survey of US
companies in the 1970’s and 1980’ by Kanter):
 The importance of matrix structures: These were more likely in innovative
companies. They tended to break down barriers and lead to the more open
reporting lines that were important to the innovative process. Decision
making may have been slow and complex in matrix structures, but it
provided the network for individuals to move outside their own positions and
make the interconnections useful to innovation.
 The need for a parallel organisation: A separate group to run in tandem with
the existing formal hierarchy was often highly valuable. It was specifically
tasked with finding innovative solutions to problems especially where a

matrix structure was not in operation. It was able to act independently
without the day-to-day pressures and politics of the existing structure.
 The work of a parallel organisation: This had to be problem-solving, possibly
focused on a single business problem and structured around the team. The
work was integrative, flexible and with little hierarchical division. The function
of such a group was often to re-examine existing routines and systems,
concentrating especially on areas that were partially unknown and needed
challenging. It often provided a means of empowering people lower down in
the organisation.
 Participative/collaborative management style: This was often employed to
encourage innovation. It involved persuading rather than ordering, seeking
advice and comments and sharing the favourable results of successful
initiatives.
6) LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGY
In the view of Adair (1996:223), innovative organisations do not happen by chance.
They are the end products of good leadership and management. The essence lies
in getting the balance right between freedom and order, between the anatomy of the
parts and the integrity of the whole.
According to Adair (1996:227), above all, innovation should not be a reactive
process but part of a long-term strategy that gives direction. It needs to be fed by
the dynamo of a corporate sense of purpose. Such a strategy will balance the
present needs of producing and marketing existing goods and services – the
commercial priority – with the middle-term and long-term requirement of research
and development. A balanced and coherent strategy will enable your organisation to
build on its past successes and create its desired future. It is the only sure pathway
to profitable growth
There are always reasons for not becoming an innovative organisation, not least the
fact that it costs money to go down the path. It is thus a trade off whether the
organisation of the future can afford the cost of the alternative.
Adair (1996:243) notice that good ideas can come from so many different sources,
some close at hand and some far removed. A comprehensive list of sources for new
ideas in an industrial organisation might include the following:
 Research and development
 Other specialist planning and research functions
 Directors and senior managers
 Quality circles
 Competitors
 Suppliers
 Customers
 External research establishments
 Government

Interest leads to ideas. In turn, the recognition of ideas by management leads to
more job interests, greater involvement and deeper commitment. Even if – for good
reasons that are explained – a team member’s proposals are not acceptable or if
acceptable, cannot be implemented, there is no loss of motivation. The important
thing from the motivational perspective is the feeling of being really part of the
enterprise, with a full share of responsibility in developing the quality of the product
or service. Identification matters more than the fate of any particular suggestion.
Success in the outside markets of the world, then, depends upon the effective
working of the internal market for ideas. The whole innovative process can be now
shown in the simple model below, which illustrates the processes and key elements
found in organisations that are successful innovators.
Figure 4 Successful Innovation (Adair, 1996:252)
At the lower end of the model are three stages or phases that ideas have to go
through before – in some shape or form – they contribute to the satisfaction or
delight of a customer, one who values them enough to exchange money for them.
 Nets: The new ideas have to be harvested, like fish netted from the sea.
TEAMS
SIEVES
NETS
NEW IDEAS
THINKING TIME
CREATIVE PEOPLE
A CLIMATE WHICH
ENCOURAGES
CREATIVITY
MARKET CONTACT

 Sieves: A sorting-out process is needed in order to separate the gold dust
from the mud.
 Teams: Developing modifications or improvements, and bringing new
products to market, always calls for a mix of talents, skills and knowledge.
This model suggests that good new ideas are more likely to be forthcoming in an
organisation which encourages creative people and allow time for productive
thinking. Needless to say this requires leadership and vision to bring about and to
sustain the right climate.
Adair (1996:269) points out that major innovation should be planned in gradual
stages, as part of a continuous process of adaptation to changing circumstances. It
should not be a panic response to change which is now confronting an organisation
because that same organisation failed to accept and respond to the requirements of
change. Use the time available carefully to communicate about the need for change;
experiment and review.
7) CONCLUSION
Key points regarding innovation:
 Innovation is more than having ideas: it includes the process of successfully
introducing them or making things happen in a new way. It turns ideas into
useful, practicable and commercial products or services.
 Successful innovative organisations have nets for harvesting ideas, such as
team meetings specifically for that purpose as well as supporting suggestion
schemes. Ideas should come into those nets from many sources –
competitors, customers, and market research as well as from your staff.
 After preliminary sifting or evaluation, good suggestions still need to be sold
in the internal market place of ideas. You should not only aim to be a good
‘seller’ of ideas but also an open-minded and potentially enthusiastic ‘buyer’
of ideas from your colleagues.
 Forming a project team with an effective leader is a critical step in the story of
most significant innovations. An intrapreneur or ‘product champion’ often
plays a key role as well, usually in association with a team.
 In overcoming the natural resistance to change, the inertia which tend to
accumulate in any organisation (regardless of the merit of particular ideas),
it’s useful to remember three proven strategies: recruit a senior sponsor, offer
a pilot project or experiment and present innovation as incremental
development.
 Without good leadership desired change will not happen in time. Leaders
need both personal qualities, notably enthusiasm, and also professional skills
to involve others in decision making and the management of change.

Literature research_benchmarking methodology

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (14)

Similar a Literature research_benchmarking methodology

Similar a Literature research_benchmarking methodology (20)

Más de Conrad Sebego

Más de Conrad Sebego (20)

Literature research_benchmarking methodology