VISUAL MAPPING
YOUR INNOVATION STRATEGY:
Designing a tool for creating the Future
A dissertation submitted to
The University of Manchester
for the degree of
Master of Science in the Faculty of Humanities
2012
DENIS SALES LOPES
MANCHESTER BUSINESS SCHOOL
ABSTRACT
An Innovation Strategy can be a keystone for companies to build competitive
advantage and achieve results through Innovation. In highly competitive
fast-changing environment, typical of some sectors of business like
High-Technology, this process can be even more crucial for organizational
renewal. Despite this importance, there is a shortage of structured methods and
tools to support the creation of an Innovation Strategy. This study, taking in
consideration the organizational context of companies in this type of environment:
High competition, Pressure for Continuous Product Launching, Complexity of
modern issues, Information overload and Time famine, developed a Visual
Strategy tool to facilitate the process of creating an Innovation Strategy. This
study designed this tool by, identifying and selecting, the most appropriate
Innovation and Strategy frameworks for the purpose of creating an Innovation
Strategy. These elements were integrated into Visual Map Template, developed
using Visualization techniques. Along with the Map template a process was
developed aiming to stimulate creativity and collaboration of the participants of this
strategizing process. The main focus of this process was to support the tasks of
Idea Management and Sensemaking. The process developed aims to support the
creation of a big picture scenario of the most interesting paths for innovation.
Looking, particularly, for Innovation Paths which could leverage distinctive
competences of the organization, and explore alternatives to create new markets.
Overall, this study proposes that a process of idea management and sensemaking,
supported by conversations guided by a tool, can be crucial for creating the future
of the organization through Innovation.
LIST OF CONTENTS
1 NTRODUCTON............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Defining the problem................................................................................. 1
1.2 Motivation ................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Context ..................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Starting Point ............................................................................................ 5
1.5 Scope ....................................................................................................... 5
2 LTERATURE REVEW ................................................................................... 8
2.1 nnovation Strategy................................................................................... 8
2.2 Strategy Tools & Strategy....................................................................... 15
2.3 Foresight................................................................................................. 19
2.4 Visualization & Visualization tools .......................................................... 21
2.5 The Gap.................................................................................................. 26
3 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK.......................................................................... 27
3.1 Methodology........................................................................................... 28
3.2 Research Questions ............................................................................... 29
3.3 Method.................................................................................................... 29
3.4 User-centred Design............................................................................... 31
3.5 Analogy................................................................................................... 36
3.6 Conceptual framework............................................................................ 37
4 KEY DEFNTONS........................................................................................ 38
4.1 What is an innovation strategy process? ................................................ 38
4.2 How a visualization tool could be applied to the strategizing process? .. 40
4.3 What is still missing? .............................................................................. 42
5 DESGNNG THE TOOL................................................................................ 43
5.1 Defining the Tool Content ....................................................................... 43
5.2 Designing the Tool Process.................................................................... 49
5.2.1 Tasks Relevance for nnovation Strategy Process .......................... 50
5.2.2 Tool Process Design Requirements ............................................. 54
5.2.3 User-nterface.................................................................................. 56
5.2.4 How a map could be designed to mprove SENSEMAKNG........... 59
5.2.5 How a map could be designed for DEA MANAGEMENT ............... 64
5.2.6 How the tool process could foster Creativity and Collaboration....... 69
5.3 Combining all the pieces into a Map....................................................... 75
5.3.1 Relevant aspects of the Map Template to the Tasks....................... 77
5.4 Designing to fit the Tool Context............................................................. 79
6 DSCUSSON ................................................................................................ 82
6.1 Research Strengths................................................................................ 82
6.2 Research Limitations .............................................................................. 84
6.3 Does usability lead to adoption?............................................................. 85
7 CONCLUSONS ............................................................................................ 88
8 REFERENCES.............................................................................................. 92
(Word count: 21014)
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Defining the problem
Innovation is the most effective process to win a competitive game (Utterback
1994; Hamel&Prahalad 1994; Markides 1997; Kim&Mauborgne 1999), sometimes
it can be the only way for companies to stay in the game (Tushman&Anderson
1986, 1997; Christensen 1997; Christensen et al. 2004). But what is an innovation?
And where does it come from? Innovation is defined as the transformation of an
idea into something of value, e.g. a new product or process (Tidd&Bessant, 2009).
Does that mean that any idea has the same chances of turning into an innovation,
and thus should be pursued? How one could increase the likelihood of success of
a chosen idea? And by this, better exploit limited resources such as time and
money. One known way of having good ideas is by having a lot of them
(Rietzschel et al. 2007). Another way is by exploring new paths and the road less
travelled (Rietzschel et al. 2007).
But how can one increase the number of ideas produced? Brainstorming by
making a list of ideas is a known way of increasing the number of ideas. Another is
to be exposed to fresh stimuli, e.g. novel concepts from another area or person.
By placing together different perspectives and experiences one might increase the
chances of novel combination of ideas (Johnson, 2010).
Still, are plenty of ideas enough? How can one select the best ideas? How can
one judge ex-ante the quality of an idea? The quality of an idea is usually
measured by its novelty and usefulness, which is defined as creativity (Amabile,
1996). This assessment of quality became even more challenging when one
consider that an innovation, particularly on the technology area, might take several
years and a lot of investment to be transformed from an idea into a product (Arthur
1996; Cooper 2008). Even experts, without a proper process for assessment,
could miss the potential of an idea, as Western Union Telegraph Company who
called the telephone invention a toy (Christensen et al. 2004).
Another aspect to consider is that ideas are time and context dependent. A great
idea in the past (e.g. wheel) might sound ordinary today, others ideas might be
even considered unreasonable (e.g. smoking). Imagining the context this idea will
be included in the future when transformed into an innovation is one way of
2
increasing the chances of success (Fuglsang&Mattsson, 2011). Imagining different
possible futures, and switching between them, might allow evaluating which idea is
more likely to be fruitful (Fahey&Randall, 1998).
Even considering one have several potentially good ideas. How these ideas are
managed to be transformed into an innovation, particularly in an organizational
context, is still a challenge. The strategizing process will influence heavily on the
results (Hamel&Prahalad 1994; Porter 1985; Mintzberg et al. 2008). Anthony et al.
(2006, p.1) nailed the point: Many companies approach innovation without a
game plan [a strategy] that position them for success Their unsystematic efforts
to create growth lead to random and often disappointing results.
1.2 Motivation
There are some key drivers that motivate this study:
Idea management is the most impacting process on results coming from
innovation, such as sales of new products (Arthur D. Little, 2005);
Successful strategies, one that turns an idea into a great innovation, up to
now seems to have had serendipity as the key element (Johnston&Bate,
2003). Apart from a few examples like Swatch, NEC and Komatsu there is a
shortage on creative strategy creation;
Industry is left with little help and few tools on how to create strategy, or
how to make it emerge by creating the right conditions (Hamel 1998a;
Johnston& Bate 2003).
1.3 Context
There are some key elements that compose the scenario (the context) that
surround this study. They are important because they set the environment and
conditions that any result of this study will have to operate.
Globalization: Globalization generated more competition, now in a worldwide
scale. This implies more ideas, and consequently products, coming up to the
market in an increasingly faster speed and constant struggle to survive.
Schumpeters gales of creative destruction are happening faster than ever before.
Companies are left with no much further option than innovate. Financial Times (12
3
Mar 2012) reported results of a study indicating that: in 1937 a business that
would have been listed in the S&P 500 could have expected to spend 75 years in
that distinguished index; today, the average stay is down to about 15 years.
Samsung is a clear example of those who are winning in this fast paced game
(Strategic Direction, 2006), and Nokia is an example of those who were left behind.
Even the powerful Apple is starting to struggle to keep up with its pace of new
product launching (Financial Times, July 25 2012).
Complexity: modern products reached a level of complexity unparallel. A
commercial aircraft can have more than 25,000 different parts. Wood (2000)
reported that in 1999 a study in the Citibank showed that the bank had 150,000
different versions of a deposit account.
Time Famine: Whether because the higher competitive world made us more
multitasking on this never ending race, or this is just a consequence of our
perception of time scarcity (now intensified by the increase of economic value of
time as assessed by the opportunity cost), the general feeling is of playing catch-
up (The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2011 based on the article "Time Is Tight"
of the Journal of Applied Psychology). Weak signals of time famine can be seen
on corporate world by the increasing demand of management pill size theory, now
on visual format, to be quickly digested (reported by Financial Times, 8 February
2012).
Information Overload
The current society lives under enormous strain to cope with the accelerating rate
of information and knowledge. The technological developments of the last 50
years have made more information, more available, to more people than at any
other time in human history (Feather, 1998 as cited by Edmunds&Morris,
2000).This can be clearly seen on the on the following statement.
a weekly edition of the New York Times contains more information than
the average person was likely to come across in a lifetime in seventeenth-
century England. (Schuman, 1991 as cited by Bawden et al. 1999)
Since it seems hard to stop this trend of accelerated generation of more data and
information, particularly with the advent of the internet, one solution might be on
designing more appropriate methods of consuming this information. The
4
application of visualization methods, meaningful visual presentation of information,
can help the limited simultaneous cognitive processing of the brain. Research has
showed that Information Visualization has proven to help the cognitive process of
identifying patterns and relations between large amounts of information (Keim et al.
2006).
We see what we believe
But despite any techniques to improve our cognitive capacity, like information
visualization, one still has to rely on a heuristic model (a mental model) to decide
where to look and what to pay to attention. Nonetheless, in an ever changing
environment the rules of the game might be changing faster than one can cope.
Thus, automatically turning to cognitive shortcuts, like mental model, to guide
attention and perception might prove a risk strategy if this mental model is
outdated. The financial crisis of 2008 proved that every model real estate is
always is a good investment has a time and context.
Seeing what others see confers no relative competitive advantage. Instead,
like Sherlock Holmes, we should strive to observe what others merely
see (Neugarten, 2006, p.895).
There is more in the world than the eye would notice. The eye is guided by the
brain on what it should see so that rather than seeing is believing, it appears that
believing is seeingwe see what we expect. (Neugarten, 2006, p.895)
After setting this scenario of interconnected elements: globalization, competition,
complexity, time famine, information-overload, mental models, innovation and
strategy an important reflection comes up:
An ever increasing amount of information floods the organizations. This
(combined with the pressure of having to compete on a highly competitive,
complex and fast-paced market), putts a strain on decision making process
of limited resources such as time and money. This decision process can be
even harder if an organization do not have a strategy process to manage
the ideas into innovation (generate and select the most appropriate ideas
according to this changing environment and the distinctive competences of
the company). From this perspective comes an important question:
5
How can an organization make sense of this changing environment and devise
renewal strategies (organizational innovation strategies) that increase the
likelihood of success in the future?
1.4 Starting Point
To find the answer for this previous reflection requires evaluating the purpose and
conditions of this mission (as described previously) and what it is available out
there to execute this mission. It certainly there is a lot of research on innovation
(overview at Tidd&Bessant,2009), and similarly there is a well developed body of
research on Strategy mainly clustered around some paradigms (Teece et al. 1997;
Mintzberg et al. 2008; Moussetis 2011). Nonetheless, there is a shortage on the
strategy process theory, particularly on how to create or make one emerge (Hamel,
1998a). This shortage is evident on the lack of clear guidance and tools to put this
crucial task into practice.
There are two key elements that guided the beginning of this search for a more
practical strategy process:
On the conceptual level: Hamel&Prahalad (1994) book.
On the practical level: Osterwalder (2004) tool Business model canvas
1.5 Scope
The ultimate goal of this study is to help organizations to increase the likelihood of
success of innovation by facilitating the innovation strategy process through the
use a visual strategy tool.
To work towards this goal this study aims to identify the most updated methods
and theories available on each of main bodies of research most relevant to the
problem: Innovation, Strategy, Visualization and Foresight. Based on this
knowledge to design a tool aimed at helping to solve the problem of how an
organization can make sense of its environment and devise renewal strategies
(innovation strategies) leveraged on its competence and with increased likelihood
of success in the future.
6
Considering that idea management and sensemaking are becoming crucial tasks
for innovation, particularly in fast changing environments as discussed previously,
the core of the mission is established as:
The core of the mission:
Designing a tool for ideas management and sensemaking with the purpose
of facilitating the innovation strategy process.
Figure 1.1: The core of the mission
The choice of visualization, as the interface between user and the tool, is based
mainly on two aspects:
User requirements: information overload, cognitive limitations, time famine,
easy to use and engaging;
Expected benefits: creativity, collaboration, improved sensemaking capabilities.
7
Figure 1.2: The Concept of the Tool
The concept of the tool is based on a template applied to the wall that would allow
collecting and displaying, information and ideas, on a map of context. It is
expected that the visualization would foster creativity, collaboration and also help
sensemaking the big picture by a holistic approach.
The tool is designed based on the premise of the main purpose of an innovation
strategy process being to identify and discuss possible migration paths (in this
case innovation paths) which could lead the present organization into a future
renewed organization. Innovation (e.g. a new product, new process, new
competence) is seen as a source of renewal of the competitive advantage and the
paths are the options for innovation available to the company. From this
perspective, the overall process of searching, discussing and deciding which path
to go became the innovation strategy process. And the result of this process can
be the creation of a more prone to success innovation strategy.
As in any other project, time and resources limitations define the scope. This study
will be considered finished by the development of a prototype of tool.
8
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Once one take over the mission of designing a tool aimed at facilitating the
innovation strategy process, some elements to build this tool are clearly visible,
others not so much. Sometimes an element can be seen and be composed from
different bodies of research. To guide this process the ultimate goal of this study,
as established on scope section, will direct the selection of elements to compose
this tool.
Table 2.1: Ultimate goals guiding the designing process
Ultimate goal
Help organization to Increase the likelihood of success of
innovation through the creation of innovation strategy
Goal Facilitate the innovation strategy process
Mission Designing a tool
Type Strategy tool
Channel Visualization
From Table 2.1 it is possible to see this mission involves at least following areas:
Innovation ( Innovation Strategy)
Strategy (Strategy Tools)
Visualization (Visualization Tools)
2.1 Innovation Strategy
Why is Innovation Strategy important?
As discussed in the introduction, if one understands the importance of innovation
on building competitive advantage and appropriating returns from it (Teece, 1986),
the innovation process (Tidd&Bessant, 2009) is seen through new lens. In this
view the innovation is the prize of the game, the innovation strategy is about
thinking ahead on the options of how you are going to play this game in order to
win (or if you should play at all), and innovation process is how to play once you
decided to do it.
Source: Tidd&Bessant (2009)
Figure 2.1: Simplified model of the innovation process
11
Innovation Strategy Content How to combine the components? And why?
A survey conducted by management consultants Booz Allen Hamilton concluded
that there is no one size fits all best innovation strategy, however there is a best
innovation strategy specific for a company. This specific best strategy will
depend of corporate strategy and competitive environment (Jaruzelski&Dehoff,
2007). Dodgson et al. (2008) argue similarly that organizations should build an
innovation strategy that fit the company size, business life-stage and environment.
Despite the impossibility of an innovation strategy recipe, there is an agreement on
the most important drivers to create an innovation strategy, and capture value from
it, as being: Technology, Customers Needs, and Markets (Anthony et al. 2006;
Jaruzelski&Dehoff 2007; Dodgson et al. 2008; Katz et. al. 2010).
Jaruzelski&Dehoff (2007) defined these drivers as:
1) Technology drivers (scouting and developing new technology);
2) Needs seekers (identifying emerging customers needs);
3) Market readers (strong competitor analysis).
Despite a common agreement on the most important drivers of Innovation
Strategy, how to choose and combine the others components in order to increase
the chances of success, seems to be a case-by-case process. Hess (2010) after
studying several large companies described 4 main innovation strategies that led
those companies to successful results. 1) Good Recruiting and Human Capital
management; 2) Internal R&D investment; 3) Strategic Alliances; 4) Acquisitions.
Similarly, Bowonder et al. (2010), after studying the innovation strategy of 100
innovative global companies identified 3 main dimensions (areas of focus) of these
strategies: 1) Customer Excitement, 2) Competitive Leadership and 3) Portfolio
Enrichment.
Overall the content of an innovation strategy will be guided mainly by:
1) Objectives ( the desired outcome) such as develop a new product, protect
market share, expand market share, sell or license to another organisation, create
greater staff retention, improve operational efficiency, increase recognition in the
marketplace (AIC, 2010); 2) Drivers; and 3) The intended Impact on the
competitive advantage (disruptive or sustaining).
27
3 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Before starting the definition of the research framework, it is important to clarify
some points. Despite the core of the mission of this study being to design a
strategy tool focused on supporting the idea management and sensemaking tasks,
the interconnectedness and far-reaching level these tasks will have through the
strategy creation process, required setting a clear picture of the research context.
This research context has been set through the discussions and contextualization
presented in the introduction, and is illustrated on the fig. 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Research Context and Research focus
This research context is crucial to clarify the goals, requirements and
organizational context this tool would be applied. These elements set the initial
inputs and conditions that will guide the design of the tool.
The research focus of this study is represented by the area defined by blue shade.
This area presents the tasks within Innovation Strategy Process that the proposed
tool is aimed to support. The selection of these tasks (ideas management and
sensemaking) has been discussed in the introduction and will be further discussed
on the section 5.2.1. The key reason is based on the results they could provide
47
Table 5.3: Tool Content - Frameworks and Methods selected
Innovation Strategy
Constructs
Key Definition required Method/Framework Selected
Framework Representative
Authors
Key elements Selected
Where we are
(position)
Organizations
Position
Porter 5 forces
Economic Engine
RPV (Resources-Process-Values)
Core Competences
Disruptive innovation
Porter (1985)
Hamel&Prahalad(1994)
Christensen et al.(2004)
Hamel&Prahalad(1990)
Christensen (1997)
Suppliers, Customers,
Competitors, Competences,
Resources, Process,
Values, Technology,
Core Competences
RBV (Resource-based-View)
Dynamic Capabilities
Hamel&Prahalad (1990)
Teece (1980,1982)
Teece (1997)
Core competences
Unique Resources
Strategic innovation Markides(1997) Business Key Questions
Market vs. Resources
Environment Scanning
SWOT
Aguillar(1967), Choo (2001)
Ansoff, (1987)
PEST Trends,
Opportunity, Threats
RPV (Resources-Process-Values) Christensen et al.(2004) Resources, Process,
Values,
Present vs. future
Foresight : Scenarios Fahey& Randall(1998) Scenarios
Where to look
(sources of competitive
advantage)
Internal vs. External
Sources of Innovation
Best Idea Sources
Peripheral Vision
Open Innovation
Tidd&Bessant (2009)
Cooper& Edgett (2008)
Day&Schoemaker (2005)
Chesbrough(2006)
Best Innovation Idea
sources,
Peripheral Vision,
Open Innovation
New Product
Business Model Innovation
Non-consumers
Competence Building
Cooper (1990)
Teece (2010),Osterwalder(2004)
Anthony et al. (2006)
Hamel&Prahalad (1990,1994)
Where
can we go
(paths)
Innovation Paths
Innovation Process
Tidd&Bessant (2009)
New Product/Process,
New Business Model,
New Market Segment,
New Skill
53
Stage-Gate process (Cooper, 1990), which is mainly aimed at new product
development. Stage gate process is based on the principle that not all ideas
should be pursued and that they should be assessed at each gate to check if the
idea should go forward.
Source: Cooper (1990)
Figure 5.5: Stage-Gate process
Lately, a growing interest has been placed by organizations on the earlier phases
of new projects of Innovation. This new phase is called Fuzzy Front End of
Innovation, and it is mainly focus on ideas and concepts in scenarios of high
uncertainty (Koen&Ajamian, 2002; Frishammar&Floren, 2008). The motivation for
this new phase comes from the growing perception that after an idea gets into the
new product development phase, there is not much that can be changed
(Frishammar&Floren, 2008). One of the main tenets behind this concept is that if
an organization is able to manage properly the ideas it will increase its chance of
success.
The Innovation Strategy process, particularly if the goal is renewal of the
organizational competitive advantage which implies aiming for radical innovation,
involves assessing ideas of paths of innovation (new products, new markets, new
business models) on a high uncertain and fuzzy scenario and taking investment
decisions based on this assessment.
Source: Koen&Ajamian,2002
Figure 5.6: Fuzzy Front End of Innovation
68
The process proposed for Idea Management aims to help integrate these two
traditional perspectives in a single structured process. To clarify the underlying
strategy principles that would guide such an effort, a brief discussion is provided
since this is not the focus here. The main strategy principles that guide this
integration are Pathbreaking to Create-the-future (Hamel&Prahalad, 1994) and
Path-Creation (Garud&Karne 2010, 2011). These concepts champion that within
bounded-rationality one could act on the organization present to change the
environment and build the future. Considering that the application of these
principles are guided by the theoretical framework of Dynamic Capabilities (Teece
et al. 1997). This implies a practical effort of integration of polarized strategy
perspectives:
Internal [Resources(Teece,1982), Path-dependence(David:1985,Arthur:1996) ], and
External [Markets(Porter:1985), Foresight (Hamel&Prahalad:1994), Environment(Aguilar:1967, Ansoff:1975)
The idea generation would start from 2 directions:
From the present competences and resources to the future
From the Future scenarios to the present position
Figure 5.22: Idea Generation - Convergence of polarized approaches
Now that the strategy principles that guide the Idea generation process are set.
The creativity principles, based on the Cognitive research findings, applied to this
tool can be detailed.
76
These elements were integrated under the structure provided by the Tidd&Bessant
(2009) innovation process framework. The Figure 5.28 shows how the phases of
the innovation process are represented on map. Theses phases structure the
discussion required for the tasks of Sensemaking and Idea Management. They
provide a frame of reference to help evaluate the possible option of paths that an
organization have to build the future and what is big picture in that. The map also
provides a focal point which helps the development of common ground for
discussions. This is mainly done by categorizing and labelling issues, but also
providing exploration of theses issues by in different categories.
Overall, the map incentives the creation of a nurturing area for innovation, inside
the organization, with the proper conditions for strategy creation or emergence.
Figure 5.28: Innovation Process phases represented on the Map
The process of integration of all elements under the Tidd&Bessant(2009)
framework followed some main steps as presented on the Figure 5.29. In a
summary, it involved the application of all frameworks of Innovation and Strategy
selected (Table 5.3), along with all research findings and procedures developed on
Tool Process section then applied over the Basic Layouts created. This process of
88
7 CONCLUSIONS
This study started with a reflection of the importance of innovation for
organizations, and how the seed of this process lies on ideas. The success of this
process will certainly depend of exploration and hard work, as Thomas Edison
approach to innovation showed. Nonetheless, one has to find ways of increasing
the chances of success by generating creative ideas and properly assessing and
selecting the most interesting ones to follow. The tool proposed here aims to
provide some help on this challenging task.
This study was motivated by the realisation of lack of support for strategy creation.
In particular, a process that could provide the right conditions to create the future.
The search started guided by Hamel&Prahalad(1994) vision, and it is worth to end
with some of their reflection:
Hamel&Prahalad (1994,p.XIV) championing the importance of a practical approach
to management theory points out an important aspect:
Professor Drucker has never lost sight of the fact that, for a theory or
concept to be useful, it must ultimately be translated into language and
context of managers and managerial action
This vision has been the fundamental essence that drove this study: to apply
existing concepts and frameworks of innovation and strategy, in a structure that
could improve their usability, and consequently their usefulness.
In search of a Creative and Practical approach for Strategy Creation this study
proceeded. The approach taken here was to identify, in the foundation of the
creativity research (creative cognition) and the sensemaking theory, elements that
could compose a tool that if could not solve the problem of strategy creation, at
least would help coping with it. This is not a traditional approach of research, it is
closer to a problem-solution design science. The concept of Pathbreaking to
Create-the-future (Hamel &Prahalad, 1994) was used, but this concept does not
solve all the practical aspects of strategy creation.
Despite the lack of a theory for strategy creation, organizations can not wait until a
fully formed theory is available. They have to act and take decisions based on the
89
perception of the situation they can grasp, and the options available. If this
perception can find a way to be improved by this tool, at least part of the mission
of this study was accomplished.
The process of idea management and sensemaking designed here improves the
chances of making sense of the big picture, and incentives collaboration and
creativity. These elements will increase the options of paths an organization see to
build the future. This process will increase the chances of success, but will not
assure results. Because, as any strategy guru would agree, the journey along the
path to the future always involves some learning and adaptation.
The real world inevitably involves some thinking ahead as well as some
adaptation en route. Mintzberg et al. (2008, p. 16)
One just increases its chances of success by thinking ahead.
The name proposed for the tool is Visual Mapping. This choice aims to emphasize
the key role visualization can play on supporting complex activities, like the
innovation strategy process on the path of creating the future. This role can be
even more crucial for organizations in information rich fast-changing environment.
The main theoretical frameworks that provided support for this study are:
A frame of Reference for Sensemaking (Weick:1995, 2012)
Creativity research findings which showed that some support and structure
for explorative thinking can lead to creative ideas (Santanen et al. 2000;
Friedman et al. 2003; Rietzschel et al. 2007; Hilliges et al. 2007).
Visual Strategy framework (Eppler&Platts,2009)
The Innovation process framework (Tidd&Bessant, 2009)
Besides these theoretical elements that guided the development of this tool,
another aspect that would suggest the approach taken here, is the perception of
renowned strategy practitioners (with particular emphasis to Hamel 1998a;
Kim&Mauborgne 2005; Anthony et al. 2006; Day&Schoemaker 2006) that the
elements promoted by the tool: new conversations, new perspectives, new voices,
and at least the thinking about new experiments can certainly improve the chances
of creating a successful strategy
90
The main research studies on innovation strategy identified by this study were:
Dodgson et al. (2008), Katz et al. (2010), Bowonder et al. (2010), Hess (2010).
Building on their work, and on the additional analyses and findings of this study,
the Table 7.1 is proposed as a reference of the components, paths and important
discussions for the Innovation Strategy process. This table is the progression of
Table 2.4.
Table 7.1: Innovation Strategy: Components, Paths and Important Discussions
Components Paths&Important Discussions
Goals
Renewal, Differentiation, Growth, Profitability,
Lower Risks, Defend, Efficiency, Reaction
Objectives
Leadership, Followership, Observe&Adapt,
React
Why to go
Impact
Disruptive to Sustaining
Project Risks
High to Low Risk
How
important is
to go
Drivers
Markets, Resources, Technology, Regulation,
Financial, Political
Where to look
Current Position
Industry, Customers, Suppliers, Resources,
Process, Values, Core competences
Where we are
Type
Product, Process, Business Model, New Mkt.
Segment, Competence building (new skill)
Where can
we go
Level Radical to Incremental
Place Internal R&D, Acquisition, Greenfield,
Collaboration Closed vs. Open Innovation, Co-creation
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
Innov. Process
Unsystematic, Evolving, Formalized
How to get
there
Adoption
Key customer factors:
Awareness, Excitement, Access, Skill, Wealth
Customer
Experience Mgt
Customer Engagement, Lock-in Mechanism
Appropriability
Barriers to Imitate
(Secrecy, Complexity, IP, Capital intensive, Regulated)
Lead Time, First to Market
Control over Complementary Assets
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
i
n
g
Diffusion
Early adopters, Infrastructure
Cultural Acceptance (compatibility value &norms)
Why to go
The key elements of this table were selected and represented on the Final Map
Template presented on the Figure 7.1:
91
Figure 7.1: Visual Mapping Tool Final Map Template
