Convincing Management of Innovation Management

 

“I would like to convince the management to take the IMP³rove Assessment”. In this short sentence that we received on Monday morning, the full dilemma of Innovation Management becomes obvious. Innovation Management is difficult to introduce. Even more complicated is it when an assessment of the company’s own Innovation Management performance is proposed. “What is in it for me?”:  This question from management needs a compelling answer.

Arguments that have help in similar situations are:

  • Innovation is the future for the company – without managing the innovations, the future of the company is at stake.
  • Systematic Innovation Management ensures that innovations are developed in an effective and efficient manner resulting in high revenues and profit from innovations.
  • Performing an Innovation Management assessment saves time. And it doesn’t cost much. It points directly to the strengths that need to be leveraged and the weaknesses that need to be eliminated.
  • Performing an assessment of the Innovation Management gives an idea what the essential elements of Innovation Management are.
  • Innovation Management assessments that provide benchmarks show the gap to the best performing companies where the competitiveness of the own organization is at stake. This is a painful yet effective and efficient way to catch up with competition. However, the pain of losing competitiveness would be even higher.
  • An Innovation Management assessment is an early warning system for example when most of the revenue comes from “old” products while competition has already launched the next generation. 

We are looking forward to your arguments and comments why Innovation Management and its continuous improvement should be high on the agenda of management.

3 comments

Ken Marr

|

For our clients the strongest argument for IMP³rove would be if it brought financial value. It could do that if being IMP³rove certified were to be a pre-requisite to investment in an SME by a venture capitalist, business angel or public sector grant-giving organisation.

Are there any case studies or examples that indicate this is the case?

Alexander Nordhus

|

I strongly agree with Ken, companies will be much more likely to use the IMP³rove approach, if the results can be directly linked to a monetary performance ratio.
Logistics is also a field of improvement, which for non-logistics companies usually is not of much interest. Logistics consultants are often confronted with the same question: “what’s the profit for our company if we invest in logistics improvements?” For the investment in new warehouse software or new machines, this link is easy to create, but what about the indirect advantages of an improved mindset and improved development processes which consider the logistics at an early stage?

You may know the SCOR approach, which aims at developing a causal relationship between logistics and the company’s financial performance.

If there isn’t such a link (or system of links) available, this should be one common goal for all people working in the IMP³rove network.

Francisco Perez

|

In Expertia, we use the systems thinking / system dynamics business simulation approach. We “deconstruc/construct” the business model in its parts and then see the what-if results. This is a sound and excellent strategy for high level business cases involving mid-level managers and C-level managers. In this methodology cause-effect relationships using soft/hard // tangible/non-tangible variables are possible and results/forecasts show for themselves when presenting it to the decision makers.

Best regards
Francisco

Leave a Reply

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons