I’m sure you’ve heard the statement – “we’re doing this innovation for strategic reasons”. Quite often “strategic” used in this context as a euphemism for “it’s not going to make any money but we need a reason to justify it”. Strategy should rarely be used as the sole reason or even excuse for innovation. It should always be strategic and make money.
Recently on the blog
Open Innovation (OI) offers companies greater opportunities for innovative products and services by increasing the access to inventions, technologies and products that other companies possess. In order for it to work effectively, it must be internalized in a way that gets a project moving fast. This is a key part of the process and certain people can play a key role.
The obituaries and tributes are fulsome and quite rightly so. Steve Jobs was an extraordinary man who built Apple into an extraordinary company. In the best tradition of declaring interests, let me say that I am also an Apple loyalist, an iPhile. I love the products, so my views may be slightly biased when I say that the Apple of the last 10 years is one of the most successful business stories ever.
I suspect the vast majority of innovation professionals would agree that measuring what you do is important. That may well be a statement of the blindingly obvious, but the debate diverges dramatically when considering what is actually done. Luis Solis of Imaginatik wrote a good post on Innovation Excellence clearly distinguishing between input and output metrics. I’d like to build on Luis’ article by adding four other considerations to the debate.