孕育企业的创新流程（英文）

FOSTERING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION MARCH 1997 OVERVIEW DEFINING AND MANAGING INNOVATION JAPANESE VERSUS WESTERN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT INTRAPRENEURSHIP AND ENCOURAGING THE CULTURE OF INNOVATION CASE EXAMPLE: MOTOROLA THE CORPORATE STRATEGY BOARD THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY __________________________________________________________________________________________________ 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: 202-672-5600 FAX: 202-672-5700 This project was researched and written to fulfill the specific research request of a single member of the Corporate Strategy Board and as a result may not satisfy the information needs of other members. The Corporate Strategy Board encourages members who have additional questions about this topic to assign custom research projects of their own design. The views expressed herein by third party sources do not necessarily reflect the policies of the organizations that they represent. The pyramid organizational structures most large companies have developed over the years are considered to be effective in operating and protecting established businesses in order to ensure stability, predictability and control. Although such organizational structures serve to minimize risk, companies are finding that such structures create barriers to innovation; employees are conditioned to believe that stability and control are the most important attributes of good management, resulting in a corporate culture where spontaneity and new ideas are unlikely to flourish. As today's global economic environment becomes increasingly competitive, companies are placing a greater emphasis upon expansion into new markets and more rapid product innovation processes. Contemporary literature, reflecting this shift in emphasis toward greater innovation, offers various perspectives and methods for companies wishing to further develop formal and informal "processes" for innovation. DEFINING AND MANAGING INNOVATION Jean-Philippe Deschamps, vice president of Arthur D. Little's Technology and Innovation Management practice in Europe, defines innovation as the process by which a company: Builds insights about its customers Identifies and evaluates unique market opportunities and prepares a plan to seize them Develops a stream of winning products1 This process of innovation can generally be split into two parts: Upstream process — the sensing and creating of opportunities Downstream process — converting selected opportunities into successful products Deschamps finds that while most companies have a formal process in place to manage the downstream side of innovation, few companies are able to manage the process of sensing and creating opportunities. Deschamps categorizes the upstream innovation process into the three stages illustrated on the following page. 1Jean-Philippe Deschamps, "Managing Innovation: From Serendipity to Process," Prism, Second Quarter, 1995. FOSTERING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION PAGE 2 MARCH 1997 Further, Tushman and O'Reilly, authors of Winning Through Innovation, find that organizations that successfully sustain their competitive advantage in product innovation are those that operate in multiple modes of innovation simultaneously; that is, managing for short-term efficiency by emphasizing stability and control, while at the same time ensuring the promotion of long-term innovation by taking risks and "learning by doing."2 The authors believe that success with innovation comes less from knowing the right answer than having the ability to pursue multiple courses of action simultaneously.3 2 Michael L. Tushman and Charles A. O'Reilly, Winning Through Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, (1996): 175. 3idid., 175. FOSTERING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION PAGE 3 MARCH 1997 Upstream Innovation: Sensing and Creating Opportunities Stage 1. Fertilization: Envisioning Opportunities Stage 2. Seeding: Generating and Managing Idea Flow Stage 3. Incubation: Managing Precursor Projects 1. Identify the company's vision and values 2. Define the product by its raw materials or by its functionality 3. Identify the product's customers and markets 1. Allocate resources 2. Organize and manage idea collection for new business opportunities 3. Manage idea screening, enrichment, evaluation and ranking 1. Fund priority projects selected at the end of seeding phase 2. Further validate ideas from technical, economic and market perspectives 3. Officially incorporate the project into the company's overall strategic plan Tushman and O'Reilly identify three distinct modes of innovation — incremental, architectural and discontinuous — that they believe companies must promote within their organizations in order to excel in the innovation process. Characteristics of the three forms of innovation are presented below. Incremental innovation Culture of continuous improvement Incremental changes in the innovation process Emphasis upon consistency and control and the elimination of variability in the innovation process Management team that rewards cost control and the volume of new products developed Architectural innovation Culture that encourages cross-functional and cross-business unit interaction during the innovation process Management team that rewards process integration across functions and business units More flexibility as compared with incremental innovation processes Discontinuous innovation A culture promoting breakthrough innovation and "learning by doing" Encouragement of experimentation and product variation Acceptance of small, multiple failures in product development Little emphasis upon cost control and the volume of products produced Management team that rewards experimentation and breakthrough innovation Tushman and O'Reilly identify companies that effectively manage these different modes of innovation — incremental, architectural and discontinuous — as being "ambidextrous" organizations. In order to create and effectively manage an ambidextrous organization, Tushman and O'Reilly advise that companies emphasize the building of executive teams and leaders who can simultaneously manage the strategies, structures, competencies, work processes and cultures for today's short-term efficiency as well as for tomorrow's strategic innovation. The proposed organizational structure for managing innovation at ambidextrous companies is outlined in the graphic on the following page. FOSTERING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION PAGE 4 MARCH 1997 Burgelman and Sayles, authors of Inside Corporate Innovation, examine the managerial initiatives associated with innovation.4 They find that successful innovation processes require the "linking" of, or communication between, technically competent R&D employees with marketing-oriented managers. The former are attuned to the realities of the corporation's interests and look for new technological breakthroughs with commercialization potential, and the latter are able to direct scientists and engineers toward what appear to be exciting markets with assured high demand. Therefore, the ideal innovation managers, according to Burgelman and Sayles, are those who: Possess enough contact with their company's research process to understand and direct the technological innovation process Possess sufficient contact with the marketing and sales functions to think in terms of market needs Possess enough organizational experience to understand how new technological breakthroughs can be aligned with the core competencies and strategies of the entire company J APANESE VERSUS WESTERN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT 4Robert A. Burgelman and Leonard R. Sayles, Inside Corporate Innovation, The Free Press, 1986. FOSTERING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION PAGE 5 MARCH 1997 Incremental Innovation Architectural Innovation Discontinuous Innovation - Culture of continuous improvement - Incremental changes - Emphasis upon consistency and control and the elimination of variability - Management team that rewards volume of products and cost control - Culture encouraging cross- functional and cross-business unit interaction - Managment team that rewards process integration across functions - More flexibilty as compared with incremental innovation processes - Culture promoting breakthrough innovation and "learning by doing" - Acceptance of small, multiple failures in product development - Little emphasis upon cost control and the volume of products produced - Management team that rewards experimentation - Provides clear, simple vision - Balances multiple architectures - Balances heterogeneity and homogeneity - Makes bets on shifting innovation streams - Manages ambidextrously Today/tomorrow Large/small Incremental/discontinuous Executive Team Ambidextrous Innovation Management According to Nonaka and Johansson, authors of Relentless: The Japanese Style of Marketing, the Japanese approach to product innovation deviates considerably from that of traditional Western innovation techniques. Rather than relying upon a collection of individual inventors to develop new ideas and patentable breakthroughs, the Japanese new-product research process involves many people in more or less constant interaction.5 Nonaka and Johansson find that such cross-functional Japanese teams have developed organizational processes for "creating knowledge" that go beyond individual creativity. The table below contrasts Japanese and Western product development processes as examined by Nonaka and Johansson. J APANESE AND WESTERN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT Western Type Japanese Type R&D Process Product concept The product concept is clearly defined at early stages, and does not change throughout the process The product concept is ambiguous at early stages Developing the concept The design target is fixed at an early stage based upon the clearly defined concept; the target is pursued using division of labor While the concept is improved as demanded by the market, the final product is developed through the collaboration of various departments R&D Management Pattern of team work1 Phased sequential approach Overlapping "sashimi" approach Objective of team work Pursuit of the performance goalAdaptation to changing needs Team organization Functional organization or functional organization with weak project leaders Matrix organization with strong project leaders managing the whole development process or organization Strength and Weaknesses Strength Efficient in terms of manpower; reaches performance target Short lead time (three to four years); adaptation to current needs; high production quality Weakness Long lead time (seven to eight years); high development costs Inefficient use of manpower; may miss performance target 1 A detailed comparison of the "phased sequential" and "overlapping" product development processes is presented on the following page. 5Johny K. Johansson and Ikujiro Nonaka, Relentless: The Japanese Way of Marketing, HarperBusiness, 1996.S FOSTERING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION PAGE 6 MARCH 1997 As illustrated below, marketers, designers and engineers work closely together in the Japanese product development process. Processes that are sequential activities in the West — preliminary screening, proposed design, cost assessment, demand estimation, prototype, test marketing — are overlapping activities in Japan. Defined by Johansson and Nonaka as the sashimi process — so described because it resembles the way Japanese cut raw fish for serving — the Japanese product development process ensures that sequential activities are started before prior steps are finished. This shortened process helps bring new technology to market more quickly. FOSTERING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION PAGE 7 MARCH 1997 Phased versus Overlapping Product Development Western Product Development (Sequential Approach) Japanese Product Development (Overlapping Approach) Time Idea Generation Preliminary Screen Specs Proposal Prototype Lab Test Engineering Cost Analysis Market Test Sales Analysis INTRAPRENEURSHIP AND ENCOURAGING THE CULTURE OF INNOVATION Austin Pryor, president of Greenwich, Connecticut-based Foresight Consultants, finds that a formal product development process is rarely an innovating force in companies. Instead, Pryor argues that new discoveries occur by accident. For example, designers might find new uses for products intended for different markets. After 25 years of studying IBM, General Electric, Polaroid and Xerox, Brian Quinn of the Amos Tuck Business School at Darmouth College found that not a single major product innovation had originated from a company's formal planning process. As such, Pryor suggests that companies should look to develop an innovative culture where invention and the generation of ideas is encouraged. In fact, Pryor believes that companies should develop a culture that nurtures intra-corporate entrepreneurs — or "intrapreneurs" — who are more apt to come up with winning product ideas than would a formal product development process.6 Pryor identifies the nine steps outlined below for companies looking to effectively manage innovation through intrapreneurship. KEYS TO DEVELOPING AN INTRAPRENEURIAL CORPORATE CULTURE Obtain a strong commitment from management; senior managers must be convinced of the value of intrapreneurship and demonstrate their enthusiasm for the program Establish the specific parameters for the program, such as the goals, compensation and action plans that are acceptable to the company Find the latent intrapreneurs in the company and encourage them to come forward; rather than search for ideas, seek out individuals with the commitment and determination to put ideas into practice Develop among managers the skills needed to recognize, manage and nurture intrapreneurs — senior managers with sufficient clout to "get things done" who will lend a sympathetic ear and help the company's intrapreneurs deal with corporate bureaucracy and gain access to resources Select a team of intrapreneurs; not only do teams of intrapreneurs reinforce and nurture one another, but a portfolio approach to product development has the greatest chance of success Help the intrapreneurs along by giving them the training and resources they require to bring their projects to market; intrapreneurs are often inexperienced business people with little formal training Allow intrapreneurs room to experiment, to fail, to recover and try again Steer the intrapreneur away from internal and technical problems to focus upon the customer; early on, intrapreneurs tend to see internal barriers as the most difficult part of their product innovation process Establish support mechanisms to encourage long-term intrapreneurial activity throughout the company; provide for mentors, sponsors, access to resources and training 6Austin Pryor, "Growing the Busienss with Intrapreneurs," Business Quarterly, March 22, 1993, 1+. FOSTERING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION PAGE 8 MARCH 1997 CASE EXAMPLE : MOTOROLA 7 Joseph G. Morone describes the new product development process at Motorola as a process of "learning by doing." Because Motorola develops new products for markets that often do not exist, the company believes that the only way to know whether or not demand will arise in response to a specific product is and develop that product. The key to learning by doing, Morone found at Motorola, is to construct an organization that adapts to incremental changes in the marketplace and accordingly adjusts the product development process. Morone also found that Motorola's managers feel that quantitative financial return projections and discounted cash flow-style analysis are inadequate for determining whether or not to develop new products, especially when placed against the uncertainties of future markets and technologies. Instead, Motorola maintains a product development process that is more qualitative in nature and relies upon employees who understand the technology and the markets, and have considerable years of experience in the company's product development process. For example, at the initial stage of the product development process, Motorola tests each new product opportunity against a sequence of screens or decision hurdles that include the following four questions: Does the new product opportunity fit within the strategic focus of the business? Does the business have a distinctive competence with respect to the opportunity? Is the opportunity substantial—substantial enough to merit the risks and resources that need to be devoted to it? How can the business go about pursuing the opportunity in a way that it can afford? Once a new product has been slated for development at Motorola, individual lines of business are required to undergo the four-step process outlined below. Develop a five- to ten-year product- and technology-planning horizon At least once a year, meet with the business line chief executive officer, review technological roadmaps and agree on the technology and product development objectives for the following year Balance the product and technology development objectives against budgetary constraints Set and adjust standards of financial performance (e.g., standard rates of growth and return on investment) on a business-by-business basis 7Joseph G. Morone, Winning in High-Tech Markets, Harvard Business School Press: 1993: 122. FOSTERING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION PAGE 9 MARCH 1997 FOSTERING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION PAGE 10 MARCH 1997 The Corporate Strategy Board has worked to ensure the accuracy of the information it provides to its members. This project relies upon data obtained from many sources, however, and the Corporate Strategy Board cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information or its analysis in all cases. Further, the Corporate Strategy Board is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Its projects should not be construed as professional advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. Members requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional. Neither The Advisory Board Company nor its programs is responsible for any claims or losses that may arise from any errors or omissions in their projects, whether caused by The Advisory Board Company or its sources.