On Strategy and InnovationOn Strategy and Innovation https://www.nmerge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/growth.jpg 780 441 nMerge nMerge https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ce0755d38d6244f0bf5581a7e16f5bb1?s=96&d=mm&r=g
- no comments
The following is an academic paper we wrote a few years ago on Strategy and Innovation. We only had 2000 words, which made it all the more difficult!
There is much debate as to what strategy is and how to best perform the practical process of formation. To frame the dichotomy, Mintzberg and Lampel (1999 ; 2005) dissect the various strategic ‘schools of thought’ and divide them into ‘prescriptive’ and ‘descriptive’ categories where the former has more militaristic, analytical and positional origins in the vein of Sun Tsu (2001), Liddell-Hart (1954) and Porter (1980). The later is categorised into psychodynamics, culture and learning in the spirit of Bion (cited by Tyson 1998), Schein (2004) and Senge (2010). To simplify, Kiechel (2010, L 257) states, “strategy has gone through three phases over the last sixty years, from position to process to people” (Appendix A; figure 1; 2).
Table 1: Definition of Strategy
|“The direction and scope of an organisation over the long term, which achieves advantage in a changing environment through its configuration of resources and competences with the aim of fulfilling stakeholder expectations.”|
Source: (Johnson et al. 2008, p 3)
De Wit and Meyer (2005) follow a similar logic, dividing the strategy into rational/planned versus generative/incremental, with Kim and Mauborgne (2009) defining two strategic approaches, ‘structuralist,’ assuming an uncontrollable environment and ‘reconstructionist,’ assuming a malleable environment. This is further distilled through Kiechel’s (2010) analysis that the strategy paradox is defined as the struggle between positioning, attributed to Porter (1980, 1985) and organisational learning, attributed to Mintzberg (1994 ; 1985).
Figure 1: The Prescriptive Schools
Source: Mintzberg et al. (2005, p 353)
Figure 2: The Descriptive Schools
Source: Mintzberg et al. (2005, p 353)
The argument posed by theorists is whether strategy is deliberately, rationally planned or emergent, based in creative responses to changing stimuli (Mintzberg et al. 2005) with Kiechel (cited by Mintzberg et al. 2005, p 177) commenting, only 10% of formulated strategies get implemented. Figure 3.
Figure 3: Deliberate versus Emergent Strategies
Source: Mintzberg et al. (2005, p 12)
However there is agreement that strategy is about change, due to more volatility and competition (Kotter 2001), to best deliver a positive organisational future. This dispute has ramifications on the process of implementing and managing innovation which Kiechel (2010, L 338) describes as the latest evolution of strategy.
To contrast, innovation has similar tensions such as technology push or market pull (Johnson et al. 2008). However there is agreement on innovation types, through more granular explanations of outcomes and strata. Outcomes feature what could be coined as the five D’s of innovation, including, destruction (Schumpeter 1943), diffusion (Rogers 2003) (figure 4), disruption (Christensen 1997 ; Christensen & Raynor 2003) (figure 5), discontinuous (Skarzynski & Gibson 2008) and democratised (von Hippel 2005). The strata includes innovation focused on product, process, position and paradigm (Tidd et al. 2005) all of which, the five D’s influence by successfully exploiting change through the social or economic system (Drucker 1985 ; Rogers 2003).
Figure 4: Demographic Based on Innovation Adoption – Diffusion
Source: Rogers (2003, L 5869)
Figure 5: The Disruptive Innovation Model
Source: Christensen & Raynor (2003, L 473)
Tidd et al. (2005, L 6136) describe, “innovation is about learning and change which is often disruptive, risky and costly.” Whilst Skarzynksy and Gibson (2008, L 913) posit, innovation doesn’t come solely from individual brilliance but is driven by viewing the world through a different set of lenses “to see connections, spot opportunities and take advantage of them” with the aim of reshaping the status quo to create value for the customer (Tidd et al. 2005, L 165–199). If the customers find value and adopt the innovation, the competition may imitate to neutralise the innovative organisation’s competitive advantage. If this is the case it will be adopted and adapted to the point that it becomes commoditised and the norm (Christensen 1997, L 2266–2274).
The issue then becomes how does an organisation develop the capability of systematic innovation, purposefully searching for changes and opportunities that might offer social or economic benefit (Drucker 1985, p 34–35), which will be valued by the customer and beat competitors?
Strategy and Innovation Summary
In summary strategy and innovation share common elements (table 2). An organisation wishing to implement a strategy for innovation has two very different difficulties to overcome. Strategic formulation needs to cope with issues between the paradoxical natures of planned deliberate strategy versus, emergent generative strategy to allow for innovation. Innovation management has the difficulty of what is to be managed, how do you manage it and align it to the strategy, what is the culture and how risk tolerant is the organisation? The organisation needs to consider, what is strategic and what is operational and should they be mutually exclusive or reinforcing? If innovation is about learning and change (Tidd et al. 2005) then the question to be answered is what comes first and how does the organisation implement an innovative strategy or a strategy for innovation? Lastly should the organisation be an innovation leader or follower?
Table 2: Common elements shared between strategy and innovation
The importance of strategy formation to innovation
The old adages of “fail to plan, plan to fail” (Fahey & Randall 1997) and “innovate or die” (Jagersma 2003) are both related to business survival. Therefore if one were to subscribe to the planning school having importance in strategic formulation, then both strategy and innovation are equally important.
Strategy needs to be the driving force behind innovation practice with Lafley and Charan (2008, p 29) postulating, to implement an innovation culture, strategy comes first followed by ideation and appropriate organisational structures. De Wit and Myer (2005, p 67) state, strategy formation is an innovation process, which is subversive, rebellious and challenging those who are wedded to the present paradigm. Strategy without innovation becomes a zero sum game; a strategy of do nothing in the current competitive environment (Kotter 2001) ultimately means a loss of competitive advantage or results in a possible Icarus Paradox (Miller 1992) through missing the inflection/tripping point (Grove 2010 ; Brown 2005 cited by Johnson et al. 2008, p 334). Figure 6.
Figure 6: Strategic Inflection Point
Source: Grove (2010, L 478)
For established businesses continuous strategic and technological renewal is imperative to insure against irrelevance (Hamel 2006) whilst, for new businesses a staircase process of future expectations vital (Berkery 2008 ; Swingler 2010). Figure 7 and 8 illustrate how both concepts are similar. Both types of business lifecycle indicate a possible approach to strategy formation and innovation management explored in the next sections.
Figure 7: Funding Strategy in Staircase/Stepping Stone Form
Source: Berkery (2008, L 518)
Figure 8: Technological S Curve
Source: Christensen (1997, L 640)
Differing business views and current issues
Indicated previously, there are many differing views. However the stage of the business could indicate how strategy formation can influence innovation management. If the business is new, a predication for first mover advantage (Johnson et al. 2008) is driven by the entrepreneur/innovator(s) who sees the requisite changes, need and timing (Skarzynski & Gibson 2008) to bring their product to market. Whilst in established businesses, strategy could be based on following or be driven by the concept of intrapreneuring (Pinchot III 2000) to explore the possibilities of entrepreneurial leading to establish something new.
A new business or an intrapreneurial business unit might focus on the product first, then, as the product is diffused and accepted, focus on incrementally improving the process through trial, experimentation and learning (Johnson et al. 2008). However for established businesses trying to establish innovation, Govindarajan and Trimble (2004, 70) suggest, “conventional planning approaches create barriers to learning.” This indicates bureaucratic mechanisms such as formal, rote, isolated planning crush innovation (De Wit & Meyer 2005, p 55) and intra/entrepreneurs, the very people who link the opportunity to the market (Drucker 1985) who continually learn about needs, demand and improvement.
An organisation cannot just state that it wants to be innovative with Mintzberg (1994, p 299–300, italics added) linking creativity, a building block of innovation to strategy, “creativity… cannot happen in isolation or on schedule, let alone on demand (any more than can strategy formation, the best of it being just a form of creativity in any event).“ With the establishment that innovation is a component of strategy, a social process for both would be more suitable than an isolated analytical activity where the ideation process is closed (Chesborough 2003). Barsh et al. (2008) cite, new ideas spur more new ideas with social networks generating a cross-fertilized cycle of innovation. Their contention is, by utilising existing resources, management might avoid radical in preference for incremental change, which is preferential for stability. Figure 9.
Figure 9: The role of leadership in collaborative environments
Source: Barsh, Capozzi & Davidson (2008)
Skarzynski & Gibson (2008, L 1061) create their own paradox through challenging foresight, by stating that radical innovators are not people who try to predict or imagine the future (i.e. scenario planners) but are people who are aware of things changing in the present but then quote futurist Naisbitt, “the future is embedded in the present.” The place for traditional analysis (i.e. present) is in areas where innovations sustain a market position. However this changes when a disruptive innovation defines a potentially new market (Christensen 1997, L 191). Similarly, at the stage of discontinuity, traditional strategy formulation tools cannot be used because there is no history with which to inform (Lindgren 2009). This indicates that foresight tools are applicable (figure 10, 11) to develop scenarios that “are not predictions, extrapolations, good or bad futures, or science fiction. Instead, they are purposeful stories about how the contextual environment could unfold over time” (Burt et al. 2006, p 60). The main aim of a scenario is to provide contextual and causal data to help the decision making process.
Figure 10: Scenario planning and non-linear, disruptive change
Source: Lindgren (2009, p 29)
Figure 11: Levels of Proactivity
Source: Lindgren (2009, p 15)
The issues facing strategy formation and innovation management are based in the paradoxical nature and similarities between the fields. The issues are also based in attitude to risk, which is firmly embedded in culture, due to both fields being about change. Lastly, humankind isn’t infallible. Some things occur that cannot be predicted with ‘Black Swans’ interrupting a company’s strategy due to the resultant plans failing because of “tunnelling, the neglect of sources of uncertainty outside the plan itself” (Taleb 2008, L 3346).
Strategic management considerations and recommendations
This is a complex area of management, with the hope that this analysis spurs the reader to question their assumptions by incorporating innovation into strategy formation processes to deliver resultant innovation. The following proposes considerations and recommendations:
- The organisation must know it’s core competencies (Hamel & Prahalad 1994) in order to develop strategic innovation as a core capability.
- There must be balance towards the ‘strategy paradox’ (De Wit & Meyer 2005 ; Mintzberg & Lampel 1999 ; Stonehouse et al. 2004 ; Tidd et al. 2005) with each ‘school’ having its place. Figure 12. Mintzberg and Lampel (1999) suggest that balance is due to the prescriptive schools being clear and consistent whilst the descriptive schools allowing for experimentation and innovation. All of the necessary ingredients, refashioned as strategy formation processes delivering needed ambidexterity (Birkinshaw & Gibson 2004).
Figure 12: Strategy Formation as a Single Process
Source: Mintzberg & Lampel (1999, p 27)
- Strategy focusing on cultural and social elements to deliver innovation is key to long-term success. Drucker (1985, p 33) cites, technology can be imported at low cost, with minimum cultural risk. Institutions, by contrast, need cultural roots to grow and prosper. This suggests, strategy formation should not be the purview of one person or an isolated team but benefit from social structures bringing the outside/operational in, to deliver open, innovative (Chesborough 2003) strategy.
- Hammer (2004) outlines the concept of iterative or evolutionary innovation similar to Agile software development (Ambler 2005). For operational innovations that may be championed by members of the lower organizational ranks, a process of evaluation to assess strategic alignment may be necessary (Hammer 2004). Thus providing the loop and feedback necessary to create learning, so strategy feeds innovation and innovation informs strategy. Figure 13.
Figure 13: Strategic Process – Definition and Implementation for Innovation
Source: Christensen & Raynor (2003, L 2612)
- Due to the commoditisation of innovation (Christensen 1997) a strategy of creating a portfolio of innovation projects (Skarzynski & Gibson 2008) to ensure, when one reaches tipping point, the overall enterprise maintains its relative position should be implemented.
- Scenario development should be utilised within the strategy and innovation social structures, due to their value “when it comes to paradigmatic/non-linear change” (Lindgren 2009, p 28)
These recommendations are demonstrable in Apple Inc. deciding on software driven strategy in 2001. Their hardware is complimentary to the free iTunes software and both are iterated continuously, as they work to lower their prices and offer better performance and features (The-Age 2010).
This strategy has elements of the prescriptive schools and descriptive strategic schools including all of the five D’s and four P’s of innovation. Simply put, they were first mover in 1993 with Newton, it failed, they learned, they studied pirated software/music distribution, introduced iTunes and the iPod (follower), acquired innovative companies and developed a portfolio of products, including hobbies, waiting for the right time (Ireland et al. 2008). Lastly, they incorporated taking the long view (Schwartz 1996) and scenario planning in order to shape the future (Lindgren 2009).
Our contention is if properly executed, strategy and innovation should be intrinsically linked and self-perpetuating. Innovation can be symbiotic to strategy at all levels of the formulation process. The informative nature of both constructs should alert one of threat/opportunity and therefore the other a response. If this ideal can be realised then continual advantage over ones competition may be attained regardless if one is an innovation leader or follower.
List of References
Ambler, SW 2005, Disciplined Agile Software Development: Definition, viewed 8 October 2010, <http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/agileSoftwareDevelopment.htm>.
Barsh, J, Capozzi, MM & Davidson, J 2008, Leadership and innovation, viewed 16 August 2010, <https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Leadership_and_innovation_2089>.
Berkery, D 2008, Raising Venture Capital for the Serious Entrepreneur [Kindle Edition], McGraw-Hill, Amazon Digital Services.
Birkinshaw, J & Gibson, C 2004, ‘Building ambidexterity into an organization’, MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 47–55, viewed 11 October 2010.
Burt, G, Wright, G, Bradfield, R, Cairns, G & Van der Heijden, K 2006, ‘The Role of Scenario Planning in Exploring the Environment in View of the Limitations of PEST and Its Derivatives’, International Studies of Management and Organization, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 50–76, viewed 11 October 2010.
Chesborough, H 2003, ‘The era of open innovation’, MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 35–41, viewed 11 October 2010.
Christensen, CM 1997, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail [Kindle Edition], 1 edn., Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts, Amazon Digital Services.
Christensen, CM & Raynor, ME 2003, The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth [Kindle Edition], 1 edn., Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts, Amazon Digital Services.
De Wit, B & Meyer, R 2005, Strategy Synthesis: Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive Advantage, 2 edn., Cengage Learning, London, England.
Drucker, PF 1985, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Collins Business, New York.
Fahey, L & Randall, RM 1997, Learning from the future: Competitive foresight scenarios [Kindle Edition], John Wiley & Sons, Amazon Digital Services.
Govindarajan, V & Trimble, C 2004, ‘Strategic innovation and the science of learning’, MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 67–75, viewed 11 October 2010.
Grove, AS 2010, Only the Paranoid Survive: How to exploit the Crisis Points that Challenge Every Company [Kindle Edition], Crown Business, Amazon Digital Services.
Hamel, G 2006, ‘The Why, What and How of Management Innovation’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 72–84, viewed 11 October 2010.
Hamel, G & Prahalad, CK 1994, Competing for the Future [Kindle Edition], Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts, Amazon Digital Services.
Hammer, M 2004, ‘Deep Change: How Operational Innovation Can Transform Your Company’, Harvard Business Review, pp. 84–93, viewed 11 October 2010.
Ireland, RD, Hoskisson, RE & Hitt, MA 2008, Understanding Business Strategy: Concepts and Cases, 2 edn., South-Western Cengage Learning.
Jagersma, PK 2003, ‘Innovate or die’, Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 25–28, viewed 12 October 2010.
Johnson, G, Scholes, K & Whittington, R 2008, Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text and Cases, 8 edn., Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England.
Kiechel III, W 2010, The Lords of Strategy: The Secret Intellectual History of the New Corporate World [Kindle Edition], Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts, Amazon Digital Services.
Kim, WC & Mauborgne, R 2009, ‘How Strategy Shapes Structure’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 87, no. 9, pp. 72–80, viewed 11 October 2010.
Kotter, JP 2001, ‘What Leaders Really Do’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 103–111, viewed 11 October 2010.
Lafley, AG & Charan, R 2008, The Game Changer: How Every Leader Can Drive Everyday Innovation, Profile Books Ltd, London, England.
Liddell-Hart, BH 1954, Strategy, Faber & Faber Ltd, London, England.
Lindgren, M 2009, Scenario Planning – Revised and Updated Edition: The Link Between Future and Strategy, Palgrave Macmillan.
Miller, D 1992, ‘The Icarus Paradox: How Exceptional Companies Bring About Their Downfall’, Business Horizons, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 24–35, viewed 10 October 2010.
Mintzberg, H 1994, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow, Essex, England.
Mintzberg, H & Lampel, J 1999, ‘Reflecting on the Strategy Process’, MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 21–30, viewed 11 October 2010.
Mintzberg, H, Lampel, J & Ahlstrand, B 2005, Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds of Strategic Management, Free Press.
Mintzberg, H & Waters, JA 1985, ‘Of Strategies: Deliberate and Emergent’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 257–272, viewed 11 October 2010.
Pinchot III, G 2000, Intrapreneuring in Action: A Handbook for Business Innovation, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Porter, ME 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New York.
Porter, ME 1985, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Perfromance, Free Press, New York.
Rogers, EM 2003, Diffusion of Innovations [Kindle Edition], 5 edn., Free Press, New York, Amazon Digital Services.
Schein, EH 2004, Organizational Culture and Leadership [Kindle Edition], 3 edn., Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint, San Francisco, Amazon Digital Services.
Schumpeter, JA 1943, Capitalism, Socialism & Democracy [Kindle Edition], 6 edn., Taylor & Francis eBooks, London, United Kingdom, Amazon Digital Services.
Schwartz, P 1996, The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World, Currency Doubleday.
Senge, PM 2010, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization [Kindle Edition], Cornerstone Digital, London, Amazon Digital Services.
Skarzynski, P & Gibson, R 2008, Innovation to the Core: A Blueprint for Transforming the Way Your Company Innovates [Kindle Edition], Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts, Amazon Digital Services.
Swingler, J 2010, Lecture 9: Jeff Swingler’s Entrepreneurial and Innovation Experience, HBS689 Managing Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology, 16 October 2010.
Taleb, NN 2008, The Black Swan [Kindle Edition], ePenguin, Amazon Digital Services.
The-Age 2010, ‘We’re thrashing Google, tablet rivals are dead on arrival’: Jobs, viewed 20 October 2010, <http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/were-thrashing-google-tablet-rivals-are-dead-on-arrival-jobs-20101020-16svn.html>.
Tidd, J, Bessant, J & Pavitt, K 2005, Managing Innovation. Integrating technological, market and organisational change [Kindle Edition], 3 edn., Wiley Publishing, Amazon Digital Services.
Tsu, S 2001, The Art of War, Shambhala Publications Inc, Boston.
Tyson, T 1998, Working with Groups, Second edn., Macmillian Education Australia, South Yarra.
von Hippel, E 2005, Democratizing Innovation [Kindle Edition], The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Amazon Digital Services.
Appendix A: Mintzberg’s classification of the 10 schools or Strategy
Mintzberg et al. (2005, p 5) single adjective to capture each view of the strategy process:
- “The Design School: strategy formation as a process of conception
- The Planning School: strategy formation as a formal process
- The Positioning School: strategy formation as an analytical process
- The Entrepreneurial School: strategy formation as a visionary process
- The Cognitive School: strategy formation as a mental process
- The Learning School: strategy formation as an emergent process
- The Power School: strategy formation as a process of negotiation
- The Cultural School: strategy formation as a collective process
- The Environmental School: strategy formation as a reactive process
- The Configuration School: strategy formation as a process of transformation” (Mintzberg et al. 2005, p 5)
Source: Mintzberg & Lampel (1999)