18 months is the length of time most innovation programmes will last before cancellation. In the vast majority of cases, this occurs because results took too long to come.
Why do innovation teams fail so often? The main reason is that they've neglected to define their overall vision of what innovation should mean in their organisations.
You'd be surprised to discover the number of innovators I talk to who are unable to articulate their organisation's innovation strategy. You know you are dealing with someone in this category when you ask the question "why does your company have an innovation programme" and it takes more than a sentence to answer.
Deciding the overall objective of an innovation programme is the most fundamental, and most important, decision innovators will ever be asked to make.
It's a decision, however, that can be quite easy to make, as there are really only three strategic options available.
Option one is simple: don't bother with innovation at all. Instead, continue doing what has traditionally worked well, and accept that "back to basics" - meaning eliminating things which are not core - is very reasonable. Continuing the business practices appropriate two decades ago can, in many cases, work well.
Making the choice not to innovate is perfectly reasonable, as long as everyone agrees up front.
An alternative approach is Play-2-Win innovation. You have such an innovation strategy when you can say that innovation is going to be the front and centre source of all competitive advantage for an organisation in the future.
Innovators doing Play-2-Win are a relatively large investment in the short term, but (if they are any good) highly profitable in the long term.
The last kind of innovation strategy is Play-Not-2-Lose. This is the strategy you adopt when you accept that the reason for innovation is to maintain parity with competitors. Such an approach doesn't necessarily result in the massive market windfalls that accompany a breakthrough, but returns tend to be steady and predictable.
Deciding which of these three strategies to adopt is really a matter of deciding the risk appetite of the organisation wanting an innovation programme.
In conclusion, then, it is essential to make a decision on which course to follow before you start an innovation programme, because everything that follows this decision will be different depending on the strategy adopted. - 31960
Why do innovation teams fail so often? The main reason is that they've neglected to define their overall vision of what innovation should mean in their organisations.
You'd be surprised to discover the number of innovators I talk to who are unable to articulate their organisation's innovation strategy. You know you are dealing with someone in this category when you ask the question "why does your company have an innovation programme" and it takes more than a sentence to answer.
Deciding the overall objective of an innovation programme is the most fundamental, and most important, decision innovators will ever be asked to make.
It's a decision, however, that can be quite easy to make, as there are really only three strategic options available.
Option one is simple: don't bother with innovation at all. Instead, continue doing what has traditionally worked well, and accept that "back to basics" - meaning eliminating things which are not core - is very reasonable. Continuing the business practices appropriate two decades ago can, in many cases, work well.
Making the choice not to innovate is perfectly reasonable, as long as everyone agrees up front.
An alternative approach is Play-2-Win innovation. You have such an innovation strategy when you can say that innovation is going to be the front and centre source of all competitive advantage for an organisation in the future.
Innovators doing Play-2-Win are a relatively large investment in the short term, but (if they are any good) highly profitable in the long term.
The last kind of innovation strategy is Play-Not-2-Lose. This is the strategy you adopt when you accept that the reason for innovation is to maintain parity with competitors. Such an approach doesn't necessarily result in the massive market windfalls that accompany a breakthrough, but returns tend to be steady and predictable.
Deciding which of these three strategies to adopt is really a matter of deciding the risk appetite of the organisation wanting an innovation programme.
In conclusion, then, it is essential to make a decision on which course to follow before you start an innovation programme, because everything that follows this decision will be different depending on the strategy adopted. - 31960
About the Author:
If you'd like to find out more about Innovation for your organisation, then you might consider reviewing James A Gardner's free online book which includes a chapter on Innovation Strategy.
