Oh, I have been suffering from a serious writers block the past few weeks. And I thought, I must break this one way or another. I am yet to complete my series on Re(i)nnovation….and I will..sooner than later.

In the meanwhile, here is a survey with a list of teasing questions – to test your innovation quotient.

What is your InQ?

Read on…or jump to the survey.

Innovation has garnered more headlines recently as one of the core processes that every organization must nurture in order to retain its viability. Innovation in an organization goes beyond simply responding to change—it creates change in the environment that other organizations must respond to, and therefore can become a sustainable competitive advantage.

Many organizations employ a top down approach to innovation. Strategy is formulated at the top along with the major initiatives for achieving it. Some of these initiatives will be innovative in nature, related to the development of an innovative process, product or service. Top down approaches may solicit input from deeper in the organization, but the formulation of the innovative ideas remains at the top. Hybrid approaches create a structure in the middle of the organization that encourages innovations from the bottom up and works to shape them into viable business ideas.

To find out which end of the paradigm you are in, we formulated a simple set of 20 questions. These questions are more focussed towards the intrinsic fabric of your organisation, to assess your weft and weave; they are not meant to determine what course of action you must take, or what you should do. It is merely a set of questions, the answers to which will determine if you are indeed a Star Innovator, or a Spectator, or a Seeker!

Take the survey here. We will compile your answers, and email you the results together with a comparative organisation assessment of your Innovation Quotient (InQ). ALL FOR FREE!!

Don’t reserve your best business thinking for your career.
Clayton M. Christensen is the Robert and Jane Cizik Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School.

Copyright © 2010 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. Harvard Business Publishing is an affiliate of Harvard Business School.

Editor’s Note: When the members of the class of 2010 entered business school, the economy was strong and their post-graduation ambitions could be limitless. Just a few weeks later, the economy went into a tailspin. They’ve spent the past two years recalibrating their worldview and their definition of success.

The students seem highly aware of how the world has changed (as the sampling of views in this article shows). In the spring, Harvard Business School’s graduating class asked HBS professor Clay Christensen to address them—but not on how to apply his principles and thinking to their post-HBS careers. The students wanted to know how to apply them to their personal lives. He shared with them a set of guidelines that have helped him find meaning in his own life. Though Christensen’s thinking comes from his deep religious faith, we believe that these are strategies anyone can use. And so we asked him to share them with the readers of HBR. Read the rest of this entry »

Innovation and the small business

Posted: July 20, 2010 by vikmuse in Idea Factory
Tags:

Why do businesses innovate, and what is the big deal about innovation anyway? I mean, isn’t it just a case of taking apart an invention and tweak it to make it more appealing and saleable? Sounds like a sure fire winner to me, and just the ticket for anyone out there sharp enough to see the potential of a new invention. And, there lies the rub – the ability to see the potential. Read the rest of this entry »

Much has been written about corporate culture, and much more will. There are studies, dissertations, discussions and many examples out there of good and bad corporate culture. Still, what is ‘good’ to some is ‘bad’ to others and vice-versa. Which leaves the rest of us in a pickle and we ask “is corporate culture subjective, and based on shifting perceptions, alliances, moods, and market share?” Read the rest of this entry »

Racing heart and slightly sweaty palms as I approach the posting of my first blog. It is one thing to say what you mean at the spur of the moment to friends, and newly made acquaintances. The friends will give that rolled up eyes look that say “that’s just him going off again”. Newly made acquaintances will:

A) think you are strange and move away;

B) think you are strange and want to hear you more; or,

C) file under daft. Read the rest of this entry »

This post is part of a 5 part series on Business Modelling, Collective Intelligence & Innovation. You can read Part 1 here; and Part 2 here.

In Part 2 of this series on Business models, collective intelligence and its importance in innovation, we discussed the need to understand value chain contexts, and to possess the capability of re-articulating existing assets to seek out new competitive advantage.

In this part of the series, we have presented a case study of Apple – and analysed some of Apple’s biggest and most disruptive successes.

Case 1: Apple | United States of America

Apple iPod:

Here is a brainteaser. Did Apple really invent the iPod? Read the rest of this entry »

This post is 5 part series on Business Modelling, Collective Intelligence & Innovation (read Part 1 of this series here.)

So, what does Re(i)nnovate™ mean? What is its context in the world of business model innovation?

I have been reading, debating, discussing, and advising on innovation for some time now. And in all these interactions, one thing has stood out – that organisations must innovate or they will perish. Put differently, innovate now, or pale into irrelevance.

That ultimatum made me think. It is not as if the big, medium, and small corporations of the world did not innovate. They did get here – somehow. There must be something that they must have done right. And doing things right does not mean that they went into copy-cat mode or simply repeated a successful business model, process, product, service, or a combination thereof. They did something right. And that premise is unshakable.

Yet, how is it that these very organisations are now faced with a threat of survival? Surely, something is wrong with the basic assumption here. Or is it? Read the rest of this entry »