Author Archive

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. (more…)

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? (more…)

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? (more…)

I was re-reading some of CK’s books recently, and rediscovered his sheer genius. The ability of the man to foresee trends in global ecosystems, trade, value chains, customer re-definitions, collaborations, organisational networking etc., was unique.

I consider CK as a futurist with an even more futuristic vision. His ability to take you into a new world, only to show

CK Prahalad. 1941 - 2010 - Eternity

you your present, was, simply put, sensational. I have never had the good fortune of either learning under him, or meeting him, or even having seen him from afar in the flesh – yet, he looms large in my thoughts, pervades every fibre of my learning and thinking faculties and guides me like an ever-luminous light from the heavens. He passed on into his future world, from where I know he must be watching, guiding, mentoring, and teaching the heavens – on how to create a newer earth, a newer planet.

I share with you some of his words – words, that I chanced upon when I was reading the blogs of some mighty management thinkers who have worked with, and shared CK’s presence, and continue to feel his halo shining on them. (more…)

Commented on “HBR Production”

Posted: June 9, 2010 by Ananth in Business Models
Tags:

The copycat model has also worked effectively in IT services – where almost every player decided to set-up low cost bases in India, South America, Eastern Europe etc. However, the issue that I see in the IT industry is that the follower (the copycat) didn’t really do anything to innovate – he simply adopted the same model – and the only “innovation” (if you can call it that), was to scale their operations – and bring in a multiplier effect to top and bottom line revenues.

With the recession, and with cash drying up, customers are now seeking more from their IT vendor – and that means the IT vendor needs to shore up serious skill sets – in order to provide services relating to improvements in business process, optimisation of the value chain etc. And unfortunately, a host of these IT vendors are caught off-guard – as they simply haven’t planned for the future – and now there is an urgency to BUY innovation. And the issue with such an acquisition is that the organisational fabric simply does not allow for innovative flexibility, and the other problem being the lack of ability to SCALE such buy-outs.

I believe that innovation, lies in contexts. Copycats did copy – but they “contextualised” the copy into their value chains. This contextualisation led to design improvements, process improvements etc. In the end, it is “contextualisation to your and your customer’s value chain” that drives innovation – not merely copying an idea or product, and not merely inventing and idea or product.

Originally posted as a comment
by ananth999
on HBR Production using DISQUS.

In my view, Innovation in today’s accelerating world, be it in tech or non-tech, must happen at the business model level. The ability to see old things in new ways, the ability to re-think, re-work, re-use our existing assets into newer dimensions is where innovation will move into. We have gone through a 100+ years of inventions and not all of them have been used. Do we need more inventions, or do we need an environment where people’s lives can become easier to live in? Any product, process, or service must evidently be used to make life easier. (more…)