Finally, the implementation and diffusion process is an opportunity for robust organizations to identify the next set of needs for customers. Unsuccessful diffusion informs an organization of true user needs, often delivered in the form of complaints and angry customer voices. Successful diffusion may elicit wistful comments (particularly from lead users) that hint at unsatisfied needs, and thus at potential customer needs that the company can strive to satisfy. Thus, feeding customer input back into the organization facilitates and stimulates the innovation process to begin again. This is particularly true when the organization looks for larger trends in the marketplace (for example by looking across products that satisfy a particular need) and uses that knowledge to refine its innovation processes.

CONCLUSION

The innovation process can be cyclic. All ideas must go through the entire innovation process, but any single organization may not participate in all of the stages. Identifying competencies (and deficiencies) in the innovation process can help organizations improve their overall success with innovation. For instance, if outputs tied to a specific stage of the innovation process are weak, an organization has an area upon which to focus or to consider outsourcing.

The innovation process outlined in this paper can provide a guideline for structuring internal analyses and dialogues around innovation (see Table 1). Organizations need a common language around which to discuss and analyze innovation. Establishing goals for specific stages of the innovation process will be more effective than simply urging employees to innovate. Rather than relying upon serendipity, organizations can structure initiatives around the innovation process for maximum benefit. Furthermore, companies can advance each of the stages, for example by infusing them with activities that will leverage knowledge assets or by introducing contemporary IT support, for even better performance. The pace and scale of innovation and organizational changes pose a huge amount of challenges. Managers need to be aware of these challenges and take a set of systematic approaches.

First, managers must constantly pay attention to the operational details of innovation projects. Because market conditions shift swiftly, managers always have to know how well their projects are doing. Rapid technological advances do not make their jobs any easier. In order to ease the burden of constant changes and monitoring, managers need to establish a learning-focused environment. In this environment, individual employees are empowered to explore and generate new ideas. To make this approach work, managers need to balance between loose and tightly controlled idea generation. Far too many organizations neglect to combine these two mechanisms. For successful idea generation, managers need to take the following steps:

* Recognize employees when they have done something innovative.

* Encourage individual employees to identify both mechanisms of idea generation and apply any one of these two as they see suitable.

* Ask employees to explore and evaluate ideas from a wide array of sources.

* Support employees' efforts to organize, connect, and focus ideas in a meaningful manner.

* Designate people, teams, or units to be responsible for the activities mentioned above.

Second, managers need to be clear about how the ideas are evaluated and selected. One distinctive feature of robust organizations is the existence of clear-cut protocols for the evaluation and screening of ideas. These protocols help managers keep their attention on the processes of robust innovation. And, their continuous attention is required to assess any new idea's relevance to the current operational needs and its potential long-term impact.

Managers are the ones that actively recognize the difficulties and the risky nature of idea advocacy, and provide rewards to those who advocate for ideas in addition to rewards and recognition for idea generators. For every new idea, it is necessary that managers ask the following questions:

* What do we know about immediate costs and benefits, as well as long-term investment and return on that investment?

* Do we know the difficulties and the risky nature of idea advocacy?

* Do we have dedicated resources (e.g. teams) in place that examine the potential of ideas and then advocate and screen for them?

* Are there transparent avenues through which employees can advocate for and get feedback on their ideas?

* What might be the consequences of idea advocacy?

* Do we provide rewards to those who advocate for ideas in addition to rewards and recognition for idea generators?

Third, managers must be quick to respond to external constituents and provide their opinions for experimentation purposes. Such prompt and open approach makes innovative experimentation particularly effective and relevant. Questions managers must ask are:

* What is our process by which a prototype is constructed, tested, evaluated, refined, and improved upon?

* Is that process clear and well known to the employees?

* What are the costs and benefits of various types of experimentation and commercialization?

* What do we learn from our failures?

* How is the technology used to capture and share tacit knowledge gained from experimentation and commercialization?

Last, managers must pay careful and continuous attention to customer desires and perceptions. Stories and tangible cultural artifacts bring organizational changes in an easily understood manner. They not only provide a clear map of changes, but also establish strong relationships with key customer segments. Creative use of technology is also important. For example, data mining and pervasive computing infrastructure play a critical role in connecting organizations with their customers and business partners. This connection will channel customer input back into the organization and stimulate the innovation process all over again.

The framework described in this paper is to help managers identify what they need to focus on and commit their resources to at any given time in the innovation process. The framework informs managers about the areas of focus, factors to give close attention, and the directions they need to choose. Establishing an organizational process for innovation is a worthwhile effort. The innovation process of the organization is the backbone against which innovative efforts can take shape; it is the context around which ideas are mobilized from thought to action. An organizational process for innovation displays commitment and direction for all stakeholders towards innovation. In many cases, just having a sanctioned and organization-wide framework for innovating may be a strategic competitive differentiator.

Both practitioners and academics recognize that sustained, non-disruptive innovation is crucial for success in industry. Having a sound innovation process is critical to achieving sustained innovation. As one interviewee put it:

'If I have to go into an organization and measure the innovation competency or capability [of the organization], the first thing that I would do is see if the organization has a process for innovation. Do employees know their role in this process? Does the organization have metrics around this process? Does the organization have methods for improving the process on a continuous basis? Without a defined process, there can be no management of innovation as you do not know what you are managing [and] as you have not defined or even articulated the process. You may get lucky on occasion ... the absence of a process will even prevent the organization from exploiting the lucky breakthroughs.'--CEO, Information Technology Organization

Received 18 December 2008

Accepted 6 February 2009

References

Albert, M. and Picq, T. (2004) Knowledge-based organizations: Perspectives from San Francisco Bay area companies. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3), 169-177.

Albert, M. (2006) Managing change at HP Lab: Perspectives for innovation, knowledge management and becoming a learning organization. The Business Review, 5(2), 17-22.

Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000) Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.

Atkinson, W. (2003) Make the most of e-procurement tools. Purchasing, 132, 46-47.

Benbasat, I., Goldstein D. K., and Mead M. (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369-386.

Breen, B. (2002) Lilly's R&D prescription. Fast Company, 57, 44-45.

Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. (2001) Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198-213.

Buchel, B. and Raub, S. (2002) Building knowledge-creating value networks. European Management Journal, 20(6), 587-596.

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C.M., and Raynor, M.E. (2003) The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Cillo, P. (2005) Fostering market knowledge use in innovation: The role of internal brokers. European Management Journal, 23(4), 404-412.

Chua, A., and Lam, W. (2005) Why KM projects fail: A multi-case analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 6-17.

Cutler, G. (2003) Innovation mentoring at Whirlpool. Research Technology Management, 46(6), 57-58.

Dahlin, K. B. and Behrens, D. M. (2005) When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717-737.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates