A14 www.jobs.telegraph.co.uk Thursday, July 15, <strong>2004</strong>InnovationA little anarchy at work cando a world of goodBig concerns find it much simpler to block innovation than support it, so many goodideas progress “underground”, writes Brian BlochCOMING up with new productsand new ways of operating isnecessary to ensure the survivalof both individual firms andentire industries.But there remains considerableuncertainty as to why so many newlyintroduced products – estimatesrange up to 50pc – flop.Opinions are also divided on howto change this horrendous statistic.Now researchers in Germany havesuggested two distinct approaches toreducing innovation disasters.One approach focuses on the earlystages of the innovation process, andthe other on relatively independentand revolutionary “partisan” groupsthat champion the cause of innovation.The reason for innovationglitches, according to recent researchat the University of Bochum, inGermany, are rigid businesses structuresand organisation.Vested interests and other humandimensions get in the way so thatinnovation often lacks broad organisationalsupport. As soon as there istalk of innovation, people getnervous about their own position, somany managers delay or limit theirco-operation.Product innovation is then oftennot possible with the current firm’sproduction technology. Many areunable to adapt to new technologyand compatibility problems lead tohigh costs. Firms also have little orno experience with new technologyand the external market is generallyunderdeveloped. As a result, clients’willingness to buy innovative goodsor services is often incorrectly estimated.In many instances, the questfor organisational efficiency haswhittled away resources that couldotherwise have been devoted toinnovation. If employees are alreadyoverwhelmed with routine businessactivities, there is no leeway for newdevelopments.Professor Bernd Kriegesmann ofthe Ruhr University of Bochum, saysit is common for innovative projectsor approaches to be duly announcedand promoted from the top, but oftenthey do not materialise and causemore costs and resentment thatanything else.So, the research concludes, theinsufficient integration of personnel,organisational, technical and clientrelatedprocesses, leads to the highflop rate.Because of these problems, innovationin enterprises is oftenaccompanied either by ambitious andsometimes unrealistic expectations,or the opposite – outright rejection.Over the past few years a numberof methods have been developed tofoster effective innovation. So-called“star gate processes” provide distinctmilestones for a number of phases,from concept development to marketintroduction, and try to optimise eachone separately. “Simultaneous engineering”uses parallel processes thatare supposedly efficient. “Businessprocess redesign” uses the notion ofprocess owners” to defineresponsibility.Project management structuresaim to overcome classic conflictsbetween, for example, research anddevelopment and marketing.However, so far, no innovationprocess model has proven fullysatisfactory, particularly for radicalinnovations.A recent and wide-ranging studyconducted by Professor CorneliusHerstatt and his colleagues at theUniversity of Hamburg attempted tosolve the problems in their owninnovative way.The research focuses on thebenefits of optimising the early innovationphases. The Hamburg groupbelieves the vital initial phases of theinnovation process have beenneglected in both theory and practice.Yet, this so-called “fuzzy frontend”is where the foundations of theinnovation process are laid. The newstudy supports the idea that withincreasing levels of innovation, theprocesses become progressivelyharder to manage. In such cases,there is an even greater need to getthings started off right by soundinformation and knowledge management.Various solutions emerge such asthe up-front integration of all relevantcorporate functions.The involvement of variousgroups inside and beyond the organisationis established before they havea chance to go wrong. Early cooperationbetween the differentdisciplines in a business does muchto reduce later tensions andmisunderstanding.A targeted reduction of technicaland market uncertainty from thebeginning further increases thechances of success. Costs and resourceneeds are specified as clearlyas possible to establish what can beachieved and whether plans arepracticable. In order to ensure internalsupport, people need to beconvinced, and realistically so, of thereal value of products and projects.The Bochum team, led by ProfessorKriegesmann, adopts a ratherdifferent approach. They stress that,in many enterprises innovation managementis still influencedexcessively by classical strategicmanagement concepts.Too many managers believe that asystematic analysis of competitorsand clients, together with traditionalplanning processes, provides a soundbasis for innovation. This is often notthe case.Prof Kriegesmann argues thatachieving real break-throughs meansgoing beyond routine organisationalprocesses and standard managerialconcepts. He believes in “partisanwars” in which small groups withinthe firm develop innovative ideascontrary to the mainstream. Suchgroups inevitably encounter strongresis-tance but overcome it.In other words, successful innovationis frequently the result, not ofcentral planning, but of trial anderror and the learning processes ofgroups of innovators given theImplementations of even the finestconcepts often fails unless initiativesare made very specific and testedover time in the market, possiblyseveral times, until they are exactlywhat the customer wants.This requires a high level ofcommitment and a lot of work –precisely what these small groups ofdynamic “partisans” do so well.They often go “underground” incompanies and only emerge whenthey are convinced of success.It is, therefore, individuals orsmall groups working in their ownspecial way that really deliver theinnovative goods.The fundamental principle of thepartisans is that they avoid the usualcommittee processes where they maynever get approval for their projectsand plans. The small groupcircumvents these barriers.If left to themselves, these groupshave an entrepreneurial spirit whichcannot thrive in a tightly controlledbig-company situation. Particularlyin old and possibly over-developedorganisations, these relatively freethinkingand highly active groupsmay be the only way to innovatebeyond prevailing trends andfashions. This gives progressivefirms a new way to move forward byencouraging change-oriented forcesinside the company.Nonetheless, to develop fully,“partisan groups” need the rightconditions. The corporate climatemust promote the detection anderadication of innovation barriers.Partisans must have freedom fromroutine work to develop innovativeideas and concepts.Some support from above is essential,or at least confidence that ifthe group really comes up with somethinguseful it won’t find itsefforts undermined by the prevailingorder.40
Kompetenzbereich„Innovationsmanagement“Die Projekte