RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP VISION DEVELOPMENT AND ETHICS

360 RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Strategic
At a strategic level, there are three (sub-) recommendations. Firstly, to bring more continuity
to innovation projects, placing them on hold or stopping them altogether when a client
withdraws should be avoided. Instead, we would suggest using a system of opportunity evaluation
so that, when an opportunity is positively evaluated (i.e., Ampelmann is convinced of
its market potential), it should be easier to decide to continue a project even when a client
withdraws. When the opportunity is thoroughly evaluated, Ampelmann itself can be convinced
of its market potential and continue its development even without immediate market demand.
This may also mean that Ampelmann must be able to say no to a client. At the moment, Ampelmann
responds positively to every opportunity that present itself. However, by saying no to
certain opportunities, the focus and consistency with regard to the company’s strategic decisions
and actions can be increased.
Secondly, Ampelmann could improve the formulation and communication of its strategy,
vision, mission and values to make them more meaningful to employees, both in operation
and in innovation. This study showed that Ampelmann’s mission and vision are unclear to
its employees and that they are directly associated with innovation. However, a clear and
(relentless) communicated strategy (and mission, vision and values) increases a company’s
ability to behave in an ambidextrous way. One approach would be to use the so-called Monday
morning meetings to consistent communicate the strategy, provide updates on projects,
highlight their priorities, inform people possible future to occur and inform them as to how
these things fit the strategy.
Thirdly, when applying organizational models from Mintzberg et al. (2002) to Ampelmann,
we see that one important characteristic from the entrepreneurial organization (i.e., dominant
influence from the top manager) is (still) present, even though Ampelmann has already developed
into a more mature organization. The current organizational form is more comparable
to the innovative organization and, since these models suggest a different leadership style for
these kinds of organizations, it may be worthwhile to discuss whether the current leadership
style still matches the kind of organization Ampelmann is becoming.
Organization of innovation
The organization of innovation at Ampelmann is still in an early stage. The following recommendations
should help the company identify starting points for further development. To
begin with, Ampelmann’s innovation process is still relatively narrow and to a large extent a
project management process. There are many studies into innovation processes that can help
Ampelmann develop a more complete innovation process, for instance adding opportunity identification
and evaluation, project selection, project evaluation, etc., to the existing process.
Secondly, Ampelmann can start evaluating innovation projects, by formulating evaluation
criteria to determine project success, index project determinants (i.e. team size, experience,
innovation type, team work, etc.) to identify critical success factors for a project, and
process evaluation to extract learnings. These project criteria, lessons and the innovation process
mentioned earlier be assembled in a Ampelmann guide to project management.
Thirdly, Ampelmann can work on its definition of innovation. At the moment, innovation
projects are seen as projects that run across multiple units. Distinguishing types of innovation
can help determine how projects should be organized and managed. Both explorative