Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 16 Декабря 2014 в 18:55, сочинение
Innovation management is the discipline of managing processes in innovation. It can be used to develop both product and organizational innovation. Innovation management includes a set of tools that allow managers and engineers to cooperate with a common understanding of goals and processes. The focus of innovation management is to allow the organization to respond to an external or internal opportunity, and use its creative efforts to introduce new ideas, processes or products.
Innovation management is the discipline of managing processes in innovation. It can be used to develop both product and organizationa
By utilizing appropriate innovation management tools, management can trigger and deploy the creative juices of the whole work force towards the continuous development of a company.[2] The process can be viewed as an evolutionary integration of organization, technology and market by iterating series of activities: search, select, implement and capture. Common tools include brainstorming, virtual prototyping, product lifecycle management, idea management, TRIZ, Phase–gate model, project management, product line planning and portfolio management.
Innovation processes can either be pushed or pulled through development. A pushed process is based on existing or newly invented technology, that the organization has access to, and tries to find profitable applications to use this technology. A pulled process tries to find areas where customers needs are not met, and then focus development efforts to find solutions to those needs.[4] To succeed with either method, an understanding of both the market and the technical problems are needed. By creating multi-functional development teams, containing both engineers and marketers, both dimensions can be solved.
The lifetime (or product lifecycle) of new products is steadily getting shorter; increased competition therefore forces companies reduce the time to market. Innovation managers must therefore decrease development time, without sacrificing quality or meeting the needs of the market.
What is innovation?
The process result in innovation’s idea is through two consecutive steps, which called imitation and invention (Godin, 2008). Some articles are mentioned inchoate researches of the definition of innovation: Baregheh, Rowley and Sambrook (2009) stated an early and directly definition is that “Innovation is a generation, which can acceptant and realize the new idea and products or services”(as cited in Thompson, 1965, p. 2). Moreover, Drucker’s (1985) definition was quoted in Eveleens’s (2010) article said that innovation is a significant tool can help entrepreneurs to explore a new opportunity by various business and services. Furthermore, over time, the innovation concept has been gained increasing attention for scholars. A detailed definition by Baregheh, Rowley and Sambrook (2009) was cited in Damanpour’s (1996, p. 694) study: “Innovation is conceived as a means of changing an organization, either as a response to changes in the external environment or as a pre-emptive action to influence the environment. Hence, innovation is here broadly defined to encompass a range of types, including new product or service, new process technology, new organization structure or administrative systems, or new plans or program pertaining to organization members.”
Finally, Damanpour and Aravind (2012) summarized that the process of organization adopt innovation include “aware of new ideas, acquires, adapts, and uses them”. The emergence of innovation of the final analysis is a new product, services, technology or practice in an organization, and ultimately is employed in organization and creates competitive advantage.
What is management innovation?
The pioneer of innovation management is the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter around 1930s, who said that innovation is a significant point to make economic growth (Betz, 2011, p. 33; Innovation Zen, 2014). His book “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” was mentioned that new markets and organizations have become reform and opening up, which indicating that companies from internal innovation in the economic structure, continue to disrupt the old one, but also continue to create new one. This process is what he calls “creative destruction” (Innovation Zen, 2014). In addition, the emphasis of innovation management is to make the organizations grasp the opportunity, which external and internal in the marketing, and use it to create and introduce new ideas, processes or products industriously (Kelly and Kranzburg, 1978). More importantly, creativity is the basis of innovation management, and then to ensure the ideas into action, eventually leading a specific change in services or business process. An article “Innovation management” cite a definition from Amabile et al., (1996) explained it as:
“All innovation begins with creative ideas . . . we define innovation as the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organisation. In this view, creativity by individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation; the first is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the second. ”
As time goes on, the core of innovation management is not changed. Management innovation adopted originality in the organization, which has been established, so it on behalf of an attribute framework of organizational change (Birkinshaw, Hamel, Mol, 2008).
In essence, innovation management is a way, which to the development of innovation products or services and build business to promotion their product or services. More specifically, it is a process through the various stages of innovation cycle to manage the idea and organization of innovation, which represents a market activity of innovative products and services (Top Gateway Series No.38, 2007).
In this era of economic globalization, innovation, knowledge and creativity are instead of the stability, and which become a key source of enterprise competitive advantage. Business Innovation is not just technological innovation; management innovation must be unique and meet the needs of consumers. For the enterprises of Nokia and Kodak, either due stubbornness and arrogance to dead, either they have been revitalized in continuous innovation. However, there are many uncertainties in the survival of enterprises. Similarly, innovation and change, although not fully ensure that enterprises will be in a dominant position of the competition, but it is a necessary prerequisite for the continued survival and development of enterprises. And ignoring innovation and the needs of enterprise customers will be more difficult to ensure the persistence of the enterprise. By the cases of Nokia and Kodak filed for bankruptcy protection, which illustrates the managers played a decisive role of the enterprise innovation. Because of the important innovation of enterprises will affect the strategic decisions of the entire enterprise development. And the business managers in general mainly determine corporate strategic decision-making, so managers should have very keen insight discovery capabilities in order to meet customer needs, and they should be good at handling disruptive innovation.
Therefore, a good company should have a good management team and not subject to existing resources, and enterprise should actively innovate to form a unique corporate strategic decisions. The most direct way of business innovation is technological innovation and institutional innovation, and management innovation plays a significant role to promote technological innovation and institutional innovation. However, the past innovative ideas and methods have not a real sense of innovation, in order to respond to future market competition, companies need to be destructive management.
There are three reasons for the businesses lacking innovation.
The alliances of interfirm are keeping an innovation strategy, but the SMEs more easy to conservative and not innovation (Malerba, 2008). In generally, the small business have the inherent weakness for lacking finance to develop themselves (Chen, 2012). Most of SMEs are at the exploratory stage, because they do not have management ability (Chen, 2012). The most of SMEs do not have enough capacity to control the risks. Therefore, it makes the companies could not attract the external recourse and environments (Chen, 2012). For example, the investment come from other companies; government do the discrimination in financing, and do not have policy helping.
Most of SMEs’ management lack the experience and skills for a good strategy for entering the internationalization, so they always see it as a potential threat (Cappellin R., 2009). This would put off the SMEs development in the international market, even limit scope of their development. For example, the group could use fairs, presentations and visits to find and distinguish the potential cooperation. There is an example wrote by Cappellin (2009): a joint regional initiative aeronautical cluster in Hamburg, who are ask for organizing an annual fair on cabin interiors. This is a kind of innovation to decrease the competition between the SMEs and large organizations about their cabin interiors. In other words, the SMEs would not worry about the cabin interiors which would be the weakness for them.
Some managements of SMEs are not experiences to cooperate with the foreign companies, so they prefer to touch with the national companies (Cappellin R., 2009). However, when they have to communicate with the foreign companies, they would only weakly informed about culture from other countries. This would make the firms being weakness during the cooperation time.
The companies need a suitable environment to encourage or stimulate the development of companies’ (Rickne A., 2012). The suitable environment would help the firms get more cooperation projects, even ‘the take-off platform for business ventures’ (Rickne A., 2012, P57). However, if they do not have the innovation environment, they have to move to a better place for their keeping development. Richkne (2012) told an example which is about a Northeast UK inventor who find his technology could develop in the local, because there are not neither competitors nor cooperators. The inventor sold his company to other firm and move his technology to Sillicon Valley for developing himself.
The senior management's support is extremely crucial to the innovation and innovation success (Wong, 2013). Clear senior management direction, endorsement and support are essential to innovation pursuits (Wong, 2013).
The governments should be one of the most important to help the innovation. For example, the Chinese government should make the law which more perfect to help and sustain the innovation from the Chinese companies, such as innovation protection system (Jiang, 2011). This is a kind of method to encourage the national companies innovation.
Firms that are not innovative lack the capacity to deal with the nature and intensity of competition within the market thus leading to loss in market share and profitability. Innovative firms are capable of monitoring and understanding changes in industry competitive capabilities such as new processes and new technologies thus implementing research and development activities that will enable the firm to acquire those competencies (Shavinina 2003).
Lack of innovation in enterprises is associated with market failures such as insufficient ability of the firm to capture rents and profits that are created through innovation. In this case, lack of innovation will limit research and development activities that aim at creating innovative incentives such as ability to deal with externalities like air pollution. Accordingly, the firm will not be capable of dealing with supply and demand deficiencies thus leading to high prices or constant changes in the price levels thus affecting strategic planning in the organization (Fuglsang 2008).
Lack of innovation will hinder the firms from attracting and maintaining high skilled employees. This scenario is associated with low employee motivation among employees due to routine tasks, negative perceptions towards the organization, low skills level, poor remuneration and outright resistance to change by the management (Fonseca 2003).
In 2004, the researchers of the world's leading mobile phone company Nokia presented to the company's senior management, a new mobile phone. It had a large touch screen operated by touch, and can connect to the Internet. The researchers believed that this type of phone had advantages in the fast-growing smartphone market. However, Nokia's senior management believed that this innovative product may have a risk of failure, there is no guarantee fee. However, in 2007, Apple launched with Nokia's management to give up the pursuit of the function of mobile phone—iPhone. (Denning, 2011). And then, in 2010, Nokia lost its share of the smartphone market. And since 2007, Nokia's share price has fallen by half. Nokia became the typical cases of disruptive innovations. Then after, Nokia Finland, because unable to pay its debts, filed for bankruptcy protection. At the same time, a number of countries have announced delisting, Nokia mobile phone factory in Finland will be closed, and gradually withdraw from the mobile phone market.
This case illustrated that the overly ‘good’ management is not conducive to innovation.(Denning, 2011). Nokia is too "good" in this case is fully illustrated by management being not conducive to innovation. Although, the managers did a careful study of customers, markets and new technologies. They strictly evaluate the new development, and weight the process of costs and benefits of new investments. But, they missed the new customers and the market, missed the innovation of the products. Good managers should transcend the traditional so-called "good" management, and should be good at dealing with disruptive innovation; make innovation throughout the organization has the ability of become a part of the enterprise.
Nokia managers mostly took office last century, these managers are very stubborn, lack of modern smartphone concept, they firmly believe that, if Nokia uses android system and other vendors will be reduced to pure as mobile phone manufacturers, lack of competitiveness products and competitive differentiation. (Natasha, 2012). Management decisions due to an error on the Nokia are one of the main causes of failure. The other case study is Kodak. Kodak was founded by George Eastman in the 20th century leading photography camera company, which filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States. This means that the end of the "Kodak moments". In 1975, Kodak’s engineer Steve Sasson, has successfully invented the digital camera's prototype, but when the show to the management, the answer is: "this is very good, but don't let anyone know". Film market as the main long-term business with Kodak film market is still considered a great profit margins, digital marketing and film market will exist a period of coexistence, is hoping to make the best profit film market, while its existing digital camera film business does also have a huge hit, and therefore postponed the development and promotion of digital cameras, but this did not stop the pace of its competitors. (Jason,2013). 1980 Japan's Fujifilm has predicted a bright future of digital market, and invest heavily in the digital camera market, followed by Nikon, Canon have to enter the digital market, together occupy a strong market share, speed the arrival of the digital age Kodak unexpected, until its wake repentance, determination and turned the digital market, they found the face of strong competition, has been difficult to occupy a place. Kodak was the first company to create the digital camera's company, but at that time, Kodak did not have the courage to invest the digital market, including most of the profits from sales of chemicals used in the film.
In recent years, more and more powerful smartphones have high-resolution camera built-in. The iPhone has 8 million pixels, for example, is a compact camera powerful opponent. (Rupert, 2012). But when they realize the importance of digital market, all Kodak’s rivals in the digital camera industry is far superior to Kodak. Although Kodak lead in creating the digital camera's company, but in the end because of a lack of having own breakthrough inventions and facing bankruptcy. The management style of Kodak managers is conservative, lack of innovation, to meet the market share and dominance of traditional film products, the lack of a prospective analysis of the market, there is no time to adjust the focus of the company business strategy and departmental structure, decision-making hesitant to miss the opportunity. That is, to get the market to maximize the benefits of the film, but also should pay attention to digital technology, timely tilted to digital technology. Kodak is only concerned about the former, ignoring the latter. They cannot be transformed into a sustainable business model, the real market. How to innovation management The important innovation of the enterprise, is often affect the strategic decision of the entire enterprise development prospects, the decision is mainly by the enterprise senior policymakers to complete, so the senior policymakers have extremely keen observation ability, take the customer demand as the center, and be good at dealing with disruptive innovation. (Simone, & Aiberto, 2014).
Because the rapidly change of market environment conditions, innovation has a strong timeliness. In the past for a long time, because of the complexity of the enterprise organization structure and the market reaction lag, the enterprise decision speed is very difficult to satisfy the requirement of the enterprise market competition time. (Scott, 2013). So that even if there is good innovation idea originally, after through the management, because of the grip, slows, afraid of responsible for delays, lead to make decisions is invalid, because the market has already lost or competitors might synthetic-aperture. Management innovation is the soul idea innovation, the enterprise managers must keep up the pace, seize opportunities, bold innovation, constantly creating and have to update the ideas, update the concept of strengthening enterprise core technology advantage, the optimization and adjustment of enterprise internal allocation of resources, fully tap enterprise internal resources, strengthen the competition strength, and promote the long-term development of the enterprise. Enterprise only in constant innovation will go higher, further and more stable.
Innovation management can make the enterprise more ahead. Regardless of enterprise scale, market share, they all need to have the concept of innovation, so that in the fierce competition, in a dominant position. (Paul, 2007). Although enterprise management tool has mature technology, equipment has reached a high level, still need more rules and the new way to conduct business. Innovation management is not just a kind of enterprise internal management model, or technical innovation, but also deep transformation represents a kind of management thought, imagination and adjustable power and competitive here will appear in a new way.
To manage complex innovation, ask the right questions
Innovation is the change that outperforms the previous practice. To lead or sustain with innovations, managers need to concentrate heavily on the innovation network, which requires deep understanding of the complexity of innovation. Collaboration is an important source of innovation. Innovations are increasingly brought to the market by networks of firms, selected according to their comparative advantages, and operating in a coordinated manner.
When a technology goes through a major transformation phase and yields a successful innovation then it becomes a great learning experience, not only for the parent industry but for other industries as well. Big innovations are generally the outcome of intra- and interdisciplinary networking among technological sectors along with combination of implicit and explicit knowledge. Networking is required but network integration (networking of networks) is the key to success for complex innovation in today’s era where diverse technologies are available at its best. Social economic zones, technology corridors, free trade agreements and technology clusters are some of the ways to encourage organizational networking and cross-functional innovations. To win with innovation in a flat world we definitely need complex networking and crowd-sourcing.
According to research on many literature find that Schumpeter (1912) pointed out that innovation is the seminal source of economic growth, is a creative destruction. Nelson, Winter (1982) and Malerba, Orsenigo (1996) considered the nature of innovation is a technological based on Schumpeter. Technological innovation is the first transformation process of a new product, a new commercial, new systems and new services (C Freeman, 1995). In economics, the innovative theory suggests that corporate profits from innovation activities. When innovation activities to be imitated and lost profits, the enterprise needs another innovation activities in order to create greater profits again. According to Trott (2008) analysis of theoretical models of innovation management, it traditionally can be divided into two school to thoughts, namely the social determinants school] and individualism School. Social determinants of school advocates innovation is the result derived from the comprehensive of the influence of external social factors are, including such as population, economic and cultural changes; When conditions are ripe, they will be innovative. As individualism school considered that innovation is the unique talents of individuals born, which means innovators are born. Trott (2008) considered that managemet innovation have three below models: 1. Linear models： This aspect has two different models to explain the source of product innovation. The first is a technology-driven model, or commonly known as a technology-push model, assuming that scientists have a new discovery, the technologist use them to form conception of developing new products, and engineers and designers put them into a new product prototype to test; then go on to take effective methods for production by vendor. Finally, the marketing and sales professionals promote this new product to potential consumers. Thus, in this model, the market is merely a passive recipient of R & D results. Until 1970s, some studies have considered in the innovation process, the role of the market is important. Therefore a second set of linear model of innovation model is produced, which is market-pull model. This consumer demand-oriented model emphasizes in the process of close interaction with consumers promotion plays the role of new ideas start; then turn to the R & D of design and engineering, end manufacturing into a new sub-products. 2. Simultaneous coupling model： Unlike the previous linear models, Simultaneous coupling model advocated innovation is generated by the interaction of three functions synchronized. Because the problem of linear model is able to explain only where star innovation, but cannot explain how innovation is generated, so this model innovation attempts to explain how the innovation happened. 3. Interactive model： Interaction model combines further the technology push and market pull models. This model emphasizes innovation formed through the interaction of market, General Science and organizational capacity. Like with the simultaneous coupling model that innovation does not have a clear starting point, but stressed that it might be from many points because the information transfer.
Another research on study the processes of management innovation, the author used qualitative research methods. Based on the evolutionary perspective of Burgelman (1991) and Zbaracki (1998), the author built a framework of management innovation process to illustrate how the four phases of the innovation process work. The framework has two dimensions. The horizontal dimension consists the four phases, which are motivation, innovation, implementation and theorization & labelling, and the vertical dimension includes internal change agents and external change agents. The framework indicates the important role of context in shaping management innovation (MOL. M. J, 2008). 1. Motivation Phase The motivation phase refers to individuals will be leaded to attempt a new management innovation experiment by this method under the preconditions and facilitating factors. It solved the question “Under what conditions, or in what circumstances, do executives deem existing management practices to be inadequate for their needs?” It is not easy to answer the question because it not only needs to identify the conditions of searching for new management innovations through executives, but also to appoint the situation, which can be obtained in advance from the management fashion-setting community (Abrahamson, 1996). 2. Invention Phase Invention Phase refers to the random or planned changes in the practice management, some of which are selected and retained by enterprise. (Burgelman et al., 1991). It is an approach assumes that a new practice was tried at first time in an experiment. 3. Implementation Phase The implementation phase include all activities on the technical aspects of innovation, which means from the initial experiment up to a new management innovation is fully operated in first time. 4. Theorization and Labeling Phase The fourth phase results in a theorized new practice, which means the new practice is retained and institutionalized within the organization. There will become an important paradigm related to a successful management innovation.