"Blogging innovation and marketing insights for the greater good"
Business Strategy Innovation Consultants

Blogging Innovation

Blogging Innovation Sponsor - Brightidea
Home Services Case Studies News Book List About Us Videos Contact Us Blog

A leading innovation and marketing blog from Braden Kelley of Business Strategy Innovation

Monday, September 28, 2009

Innovation Perspectives - Own Yes, Manage No

This is the eighth and final 'Innovation Perspectives' article we will publish this month from multiple authors to get different perspectives on "Where should innovation reside?" Here is the final perspective in the series:

by Braden Kelley

Innovation LeadershipWhen I think about who should 'own' or manage innovation, and where it should reside in an organization, I believe the answer is obviously "It depends."

There cannot be a single answer for these questions because every organization's strategy and specific culture of getting things done could be different. But, the one thing that I can say for sure is the following:

"Every CEO must own innovation, but not manage it."

The CEO must own innovation because he or she is responsible for approving the strategy that the organization is going to pursue. At the same time, managing innovation is an emerging specialty of the same level of complexity of human resources or finance, and so CEO's are not qualified to manage it outside of deciding who should manage innovation in a manner consistent with the organization's strategy.

The most relevant variable from the organization's strategy in determining how innovation should be managed is whether or not an organization is committed to being an innovation-led organization. If the organization intends to be an innovation-led organization (attempting to improve every component and offering of the organization through innovation), then a dedicated innovation organization should manage innovation. If the organization would prefer to pursue innovation as a periodic or product-focused effort, then Marketing or R&D should manage innovation.

Another way of looking at who should manage innovation is to ask yourself the following question:

"Who is going to be asked to, allowed to, or encouraged to contribute innovation ideas?"

Your answer determines who should manage innovation. Here are some answers and their implications:

1. Our Scientists
  • In a research-led organization, R&D should manage the innovation efforts of the company with input from Marketing, Finance, HR, and Legal. R&D should be responsible for providing the appropriate innovation training to the R&D department. Marketing-led organizations should see #2.

2. Our Customers, Partners, Suppliers (or all three)
  • Marketing should manage the innovation efforts of the company with input from R&D, Finance, HR, and Legal. Marketing should be responsible for providing the appropriate innovation training to people managing the process.

3. Our Employees
  • A new centralized innovation group should manage the innovation efforts of the company with input from Marketing, R&D, Finance, HR, and Legal. Marketing should be responsible for providing the appropriate innovation training to the Marketing department.

4. A Combination
  • As soon as the combination includes employees, a new centralized innovation group should manage the innovation efforts of the company with input from Marketing, R&D, Finance, HR, and Legal. Marketing should be responsible for providing the appropriate innovation training to the Marketing department.


Innovation FundThe reason that almost every scenario ends up with a centralized innovation group managing innovation is because of the complexity involved in properly managing innovation. A centralized innovation group has the opportunity to continually evolve the innovation understanding of the organization and cascade that knowledge through a set of innovation champions, distributed throughout the organization. A centralized innovation group can also remove most of the innovation management burdens from other groups by taking responsibility for managing the policies, processes, systems and training needs for idea generation, selection, funding, and development. This allows other groups to focus on achieving excellence in their day jobs and coming up with great ideas.

And, after all isn't that what we're all after - great ideas to turn into marketplace innovations?


You can check out all of the 'Innovation Perspectives' articles from the different contributing authors on "Where should innovation reside?" by clicking the link in this sentence.



Braden KelleyBraden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Labels: , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

16 Comments:

Blogger Briang said...

Interesting Post, the position of Chief Innovation Officer should also be included in this post as the head of the innovation group. There is great value to having a chief executive with the core interest of focusing innovation.
Dr. Brian Glassman
Ph.D in Innovation Management from Purdue University

4:43 PM  
Blogger Mike Morrison said...

Interesting post - but should we even have a post of chief of innovation, having a job function will do what it has done to all the other functions - built a silo.

For me innovation must sit with the ceo and should be an output measure on every managers KPIs

it must have line management responsibility from bottom to top. I understand in many technology based orgs they will need a head of R&D but keep the innovation word out of the title - it is an action not a noun...

Mike
Innovation as a management style
Innovation
Management Blog

11:29 PM  
Blogger Briang said...

I would have to disagree, as new field of management were born there is great confusion about the job function, process, and methods. Examples are when "Marketing", or "Lean-manufacturing" were born it took a while to figure out how to apply them.
By creating a Silo like an 'innovation department' the company can concentrate its knowledge on that topic, and better diffuse it into projects inside the company, because someone is directly accountable for result. Also, by having a Chief Innovation officer you have an high level advocate pushing this topic.
If you study highly innovative companies you will not see such a function because innovation is being done all over. This is because these highly innovative companies have innovation as part of the culture, and as Mr. Morrison says 'it should be part of every job function.'
But for business wishing to improve their innovation abilities from a low level, creating a CIO or innovation department, I hypothesize, is an excellent way to push innovation into the agenda.
Now as the knowledge in the field of "Innovation" become common place, the need for such an officer and department will lesson because innovation will be integrated into the major functional areas, but remember we are dealing with an evolve field.

Dr. Brian Glassman
Ph.D in Innovation Management from Purdue University

7:32 AM  
Blogger Brad said...

When asking a question like "who owns innovation," I think there is a need to define "innovation" in the context of the questions and answers. I have read all of the posts in this series, as well as the comments, and found them to be insightful and thought provoking.

Yet throughout, there has been something nagging at me about the question itself. As I've re-read some of the blogs and comments, I think there are frequently discussions regarding innovation that use different definitions of the word.

If innovation is defined as "the execution/implementation of creative ideas," or soemthing like that, then it seems to me that the question of who owns innovation becomes nonsensical. You may as well ask who owns intelligence, who owns motivation and urgency, or who owns accurate process completion. The answer will always be everyone, at every level. A fork truck operator could innovate his or her work flow every bit as much as a Chief Innovation Officer could innovate her or his organizational systems.

If the definition of innovation is more narrowly defined, perhaps by degree (incremental versus disruptive) or by type (business model, product/service, work process), then the question would have more specific answers that could be more reasonably debated. Leaving it undefined allows for one person to propose an argument with say, disruptive service innovation in mind, while a reader ot commenter would be approaching the question with incremental business model evolution in mind.

I don't mean this as a criticism of the question itself, nor of any of the responses to it. Rather, I offer it as a thought to help direct furhter conversation ont he topic.

Excellent idea sharing, everyone!

Brad Barbera
PDMP

8:54 AM  
Blogger Brad said...

One additional thought regarding Dr. Glassman's proposal of a Chief Innovation Officer role, leading an Innovation function. One way to avoid having this function become just another isolated silo would be to have it operate as a corporate service function, along the lines of Human Resources, Information Technology, and Finance. Such functions impact every part of an organization. Structuring an Innovation function similarly would help drive innovation throughout every role in the firm, from fork truck operator to the VP of Sales.

Thoughts? Counter-arguments?

Brad Barbera
NPDP

9:04 AM  
Blogger Braden Kelley said...

Idea generation is not to be confused with innovation. Innovation in this context encompasses idea generation, selection, funding, development, etc. While the responsibility and mandate for generating ideas ideally lies with every employee, someone has to manage the infrastructure for all of the required policies, processes, and systems to manage innovation as efficiently and effectively as possible.

The mandate for helping to achieve efficiency and effectiveness extends beyond the boundaries of the managing group to helping those out in other parts of the organization. No small responsibility as this ultimately is about building distributed excellence, not just another silo.

Braden Kelley
Founder, Business Strategy Innovation
Editor, Blogging Innovation

9:09 AM  
Blogger Braden Kelley said...

Exactly Brad!

Any centralized innovation group must be seen and see itself as a corporate service function similar to Finance, HR, etc. and reach out into the organization to improve its innovation capability. This is in addition to managing the necessary policies, processes, systems, etc. for the organization's innovation effort.

Braden Kelley
Founder, Business Strategy Innovation
Editor, Blogging Innovation

9:18 AM  
Blogger Mike Morrison said...

One of the problems with any 'centralised' function is that it does not work from an operational point of view, take HR, they have now had to change to a business partner model where in essence there is a person working for each business unit in the operational units themselves.

Innovation definitions:
if we take the work of Byrd & Brown ...
Innovation= creativity * Risk taking

or more specifically the ACT of DOING something NEW

Innovation can occur at any level of a process, and indeed in these tough economic times it is vital that we harness the knowledge and experience of people doing the job - that is not to say that there is not a role for technology innovation - but we need to empower managers and all our people to be innovative if we want to be competitive. the more 'elite' the role of innovation, the more difficult it will be to progress.

we need to start looking at innovation as behaviour and not as a process - true innovation NEVER comes from a process - it is often the act of NOT having a process that enables true innovation

10:13 AM  
Blogger Briang said...

Great Insights Brad & Braden.
1. Do you think the evolving nature of innovation is making it difficult to push innovation out to companies?

2. Do you think this would be helped by a centralized innovation?

Thanks
Brian

10:21 AM  
Blogger Briang said...

Hey Mr. Morrison
I see where your common from, in studying the most innovative companies I have substantial support that the behavior of “innovativeness” is a cultural value that all employee share. This by far gives them a competitive advantage, because it is hard for another company to reproduce this value and resulting behavior. Further, because it is a behavior, they operate innovatively in many of their functions.
But, let look at it from the point of view a company which is not innovative. They need to learn innovation, and changing behaviors is much harder than providing a process, then leading into changing behaviors. For example, you can provide an innovation process for developing disruptive products, once that produces great results, the rest of the company is much more likely to absorb those innovative behaviors. Great results always help in any cultural change efforts.
Ultimately, Mr. Morrison I agree with you, I am just arguing the semantics of deployment.
Dr. Brian Glassman
Ph.D in Innovation Management from Purdue University

10:30 AM  
Blogger Mike Morrison said...

Hi
you don't need to be so formal - call me Mike

I have worked with many large and small firms looking to become innovative and regularly find more problems when they have the 'thought' that innovation is a process - indeed a process they have tried several times before under different labels.
Where I have had some success in changing behaviour is when working with CEOs and introducing innovation as a leadership style and a framework for coaching. This fits all the things HR and others have been saying, but provides them with something they can 'hang their hat on'

I agree that if you are working with a firm that has 'products' then a process is a great way to go as most engineers (and as a consequance managers in a given firm) are process trained and that is the way they work, however in the service sector I find the behavioural and cultural approach easier.

vive la difference!
What works for one firm and its culture will not work in another so it is great to explore peoples views.
The one thing we agree on is that there is on one 'magic bullet' solution!

have a great week

11:09 AM  
Blogger Briang said...

Hello Mike
Thanks for that insight, this is extremely interesting!
You say that "Behavioral and cultural approach are easier" and seem to work better in service organizations?

Why do you think this is for service organization?

I am super interested?

This may be a gap in my understanding, and if you can fill me in I would be extremely greatfull.
Warm Regards
Brian

12:33 PM  
Blogger Mike Morrison said...

when I say service sector, i dont mean those that run 100% process through CRMs - that is modurn manufactuuring... I mean honest customer service, retail, construction (where they are not doing the same build on every site)

places where culture makes all the difference.. again so not the franchises!

1:16 PM  
Blogger Briang said...

I think I understand.. let me see if I can summarize?

By change the front line employee's beliefs and perception (cultural change) to align with factors that increase innovation, you as a result increase innovation. Changing many beliefs over time helps embed new values in the corporation.
On top of that, you use behavioral programs to point out where employee actions are inconsistency with their believes, and slowly modify those behaviors.
The combination of the two is "effective" for pure service organization. Also because the pure service org are not process depend this approach works well; where as, process depend orgs like manufacturing companies seem to do better on process change toward innovation.

Does this sound right?


Let me think of examples of innovative service orgs. Sorry can think of one right now.

Thanks
Brian

1:29 PM  
Blogger Braden Kelley said...

The role of a centralized innovation group should be primarily to educate and coordinate.

Selection, funding, and development fall under that, but ultimately if someone isn't in charge of pushing out innovation knowledge and coordinating the efforts at the edges then true sustainable innovation capabilities are less likely to be built.

Braden Kelley
Business Strategy Innovation

8:52 AM  
Blogger Mike Morrison said...

Innovative service organisations...
Dell and their use of twitter
HP and some of their B2B service supports

Generally the larger the company the less innovative they can be at a service level. Innovation, unlike previous trends - LEAN etc, do not scale.
If you take innovation to be product and service generation then yes large scale enables leaps (Look at LG, Apple) - but to deliver "soft services" and to have a true culture of innovation requires more empowerment (old word going out of fashion!)

Product and technical innovation has its place - but it is NOT where 95% of innovation in a firm can come from. If you believe the concept from Byrd that innovation =creativity * Risk taking - then you need to have the ideas - and the best ideas come from a broad church of people not niche people.

7:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Map Contact us to find out how we can help you.