The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Archive for the 'Ideas' Category
Innovation is all about profound faith in one’s abilities, an indefatigueable enthusiasm and the euphoric optimism of achieving success. It feels a little anachronous to see so many people let opportunities just pass by; at first it used to be frustrating. But I have come to believe that each and every person is driven by a different set of goals and aspirations. However, I am experimenting with an idea that innovation can be imbibed into the daily routine and people can be made aware of not only this wonderful word, but the whole conceptual ideology behind it. And it is plain simple - “Learning to Do Things the New Way” !! It is so simple yet so difficult to grasp and implement for most of us.
Infosys CEO has some interesting things to say in an article in Businessweek about the state of innovation in countries like India and China. He says that there are three emerging models in the Innovation space:
- One is process innovation: wiring everyone to the same network and leveraging the cost, talent, and volume of an integrated global economy.
- Another is creating pint-sized products and services sold cheaply to masses of poor people.
- A third is innovating through local partnerships and networks to get around external hurdles, whether bad roads in India or bad government policy on IP in China.
All the three models are visible across companies and industries in India - so much so that there are 21 companies from India in Boston Consulting Group’s list of 100 Emerging Global Companies. Nandan says that lack of an effective infrastructure and absence of strong regulatory systems are the major obstacles in speeding up innovation in India. Even though India has graduated from IT outsourcing and BPO models to become one of the major suppliers of knowledge across the globe, there still exist large voids in strengthening its hold over knowledge-based service and moving up the value chain.
The next step in the Indian Knowledge Services evolution process is innovation - innovation in products, processes and services. This is a crucial ‘next’ step in ensuring India’s continual participation and leadership in the global economy. Nandan’s article not only outlines the major obstacles in this space, but also provides a lot of fodder for thought. The last lines of his article epitomise the whole argument:
In the end, innovation capability depends on economic flexibility. The U.S., with its entrepreneurial culture, relaxed labor markets, and free capital flows, continues to be the most innovative economy in the world. India and China need such an environment to bridge the growth and productivity gap between emerging markets and the developed world and to truly transform themselves into innovative, energetic economies.
The Innovation Sandbox article by C K Prahalad is another must read on this topic.
It has been an interval of nearly a month since I posted last. Well, the month has been extremely hectic for me with a lot of interesting developments taking place in different spheres of my life. However, I would like to focus on the latest that has caught my fancy. I have been reading up on various corporate performance measurement systems, right from Six Sigma implementations in services industry to the balanced scorecard approach. I have started to like the balanced scorecard approach for the simple reason that it provides a very wholesome view of the performance of an organization.
Though I am still a tyro in this field, most of my future posts would be about what I am learning on this topic, and my view and thoughts on ways to approach a successful balanced scorecard implementation.
Businessweek has launched a new section on its site that focuses on innovation. The site features lots of interesting stuff - ranging from blogs, design prototypes, articles and news - all with the underlying theme of innovation. With innovation being the buzzword in the corporate world’s operating mantras, this new site should serve as a useful resource for anyone looking for the latest in innovation.
Navin Nagiah on Effective Leadership:
Over the last 65 years of my consulting career, I found no stereotypical leaders. They were all over the may in terms of their personalities, attitudes, values, strengths, and weaknesses. The ranged from extroverted to nearly reclusive, from easy-going to controlling, from generous to parsimonious.
What made them all effective is that they followed the same eight practices:
1. They asked, “What needs to be done?”
2. They asked, “What is right for the Enterprise?”
3. They developed action plans
4. They took responsibility for decisions.
5. They took responsibility for communicating.
6. They were focused on opportunities rather than problems.
7. They ran productive meetings.
8. They thought and said “we” rather than “I”.
One other final best practice … “Listen first, speak last.”
Sourced from Rajesh Shetty’s blog.
I have been reading a lot of blogs that discuss innovation and the business implications of the same. I recently came across the blog of Vijay Govindarajan, Professor of International Business at the Tuck School and founding director of Tuck’s Center for Global Leadership. He has also co-authored a book Ten Rules for Strategic Innovators, which is getting rave reviews from the business brethren. His blog is a collection of ideas that might act as good guidelines for anyone in pursuit of a transformation.
In one of his posts, he has outlined a very interesting three-box thinking model for streamlining innnovation and thinking about it consciously from a business perspective. However, most of the discussion seems to revolve around the larger companies. I wonder how the universe of smaller companies might go the innovation path, in the context of the three-box model. I had written a comment on the same on his blog, but am still awaiting a reply. I am posting my comment here as well, in case you might have some interesting thoughts on this.
Dear Govind,
Your last two posts outlined a very interesting thought process. However, most of the ideology behind strategic innovation is often discussed in the context of large organizations. Is this because the adaptability of a smaller company is quicker and easier than a large organization?
I feel that a small or mid-sized organization might bear a larger inertia to pursue the change/innovation process. A major focus for the smaller companies is to improve margins and cut costs. Just like a large organization, a smaller organization also has its processes and services well defined and entrenched in its modus operandi, though the universal set of offerings might be smaller when compared to that of large companies. However, instead of a strategy based on innovation and identifying future direction vis-a-vis industry dynamics, small companies usually pursue a short-term goal spanning two to four years, with a greater focus on replicating the existing processes and offerings.
A larger organization might be able to shift focus or include innovation in the larger picture, but does it make ’strategic’ sense for a smaller company to shift focus and strive to create new markets? Does it make sense for a smaller company to ignore short term profitability, and allocate resources towards innovation? And that too at a stage, where year-on-year growth for a smaller company is more critical for survival compared to a large organization that can afford to bear a few downturns.
I have been thinking about this of late. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Regards,
Gagan.
Recent Comments