Comments on: Evolving from Delivery to Growth. Ideation, Innovation, Marketable Innovation

By: Venkat kotha

Venkat kotha — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:24:31 +0000

In general all these large companies were expected to do performance consistently well by the market. Any kind of change can’t be rolled out easily across the company because of accountability issues. delivery is important to meet the market expectations. But for a company to excel in the industry and wants premium for their stock it is important to innovate. All these large companies should think about having a way to communicate new ideas, innovations which should be reviewed by the expert team and decide which can be taken further along or leave it. Without innovation and adopting the change any large company will die just like Kodak. Better react and do work when needed sometimes reacting late won’t produce results.It is not uncommon that many companies have research groups for innovation, it doesn’t others are not allowed to innovate, but at-least people work in research labs will have more time to experiment and innovate.

By: Tonny

Tonny — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:10:39 +0000

From my understanding for any company to be successful with its products it has to optimize its mix of delivery and innovation because different stages of product development demand different mix of delivery and innovation. These two have a symbyitic relationship where they both need each other rather than just one

By: Colin Skone

Colin Skone — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:54:09 +0000

I am just having a lot of trouble with the generalization of the terms “disruptive” and “innovation” at this point. We talk about things like “investing to succeed” in these conversations, but there is scant detail on what exactly that entails. I understand the point is to make some generalizations in this type of space to focus on broader topics, but sometimes this leads the point to being extremely vague. I would just prefer that we stay away from the desire to throw in catch phrases when ever possible to describe things that need more in depth discussion.

That being said, the need to be mindful of your delivery while enabling growth is a sticky point. Enough resources must be maintained to allow innovation to succeed, while serving the market you already have. The question then becomes, how do you position your company to devote enough resources to both sides of this argument, while fostering a culture that allows employees to be innovative? I think the answer lies somewhere in the void of what disruptive technologies existing and potential clients are willing to discuss with those who are delivering their products.

By: Sarbajit Banerjea (Shorbo)

Sarbajit Banerjea (Shorbo) — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:01:15 +0000

It’s clear that both delivery and growth are necessary in order to continue to compete in today’s marketplace. Delivery is critical to current revenue streams; without delivery a firm will not even be around to compete tomorrow. Growth is about continuing to evolve and looking ahead to the future.

What may not be immediately obvious is the tension between the two. There is competition for resources within the organization. Which should the culture address – delivery or growth? They require mindsets which can be significantly different. I believe they can be balanced and that the organization can create a culture that values and rewards both.

The other aspect is that sometimes growth will impact delivery, which creates more tension between the two. Current product lines will be impacted by the introduction of products driving future growth. For example, Microsoft knows that launching Office 365 will affect sales of its Office desktop software; however if Microsoft had not launched a cloud-based offering it would continue to lose market share to Google. The challenge is to balance growth and delivery, especially in large enterprises.

By: Noah Hostetler

Noah Hostetler — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:00:46 +0000

This is a common issue in my own company that is fairly innovative itself. Too often ideas are generated that have not been fully planned out, or don’t provide the financial support and backing to make a compelling arguement for change. Getting senior management to even listen to an idea without the full backing of a business plan is an exercise in futility. But I think therein lies the problem; many of the employees that you’re directing this to don’t have the resources or knowledge to create a business plan to generate the buzz needed to bring their idea to the right audience. Organizations should offer some framework that requires employees to provide this information so they can start building a business plan wihtout even knowing that they’re doing so. This would allow grass root ideas in large organizations to come to the surface further developed, garner more interest and help develop the strategic thinking of the employees attempting to innovate.

By: Eric Blow

Eric Blow — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:06:25 +0000

I have looked into some European Corporations and noticed they have 2 CEO’s. A good test would be to have one CEO that excels at delivery systems have their job objectives tooled to that component of the company only. On the flip side the other CEO would be in charge of creative/innovative ventures and only handle tasks associated with those activities. This way you get innovation focus with the experience to scale it to market. The CEO’s do not have to worry about being assessed on something they do not do well. Problem with doing that here is no one wants to power share.

By: Tonny

Tonny — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:39:30 +0000

large companies could also be reluctant to innovate in some cases because they does not intend to innovate above the threshold. Or large companies know there threshold innovation and thus need to focus on a mix of other elements to become a 10X company. The mixture of innovation, creativity and discipline. Companies could provide reasonable budget & resources within several departments that encourage diversification and growth without impacting productivity.

By: Joe Nalley

Joe Nalley — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:29:47 +0000

The bridge from delivery to growth depends on if there is in fact a tradeoff between growth and discovery. That primarily depends on industry, competitive forces and internal environment. There is also a time element, delivery is short term and table stakes for any business. If you can’t deliver you won’t be in the game at all (R&D think tank groups aside), however, if you don’t discover you won’t grow and you won’t be in the game for long. Successful delivery = short term growth, successful discovery + delivery = longer term sustained growth, but our quarterly performance driven economy prioritizes the former.

By: Jenni French

Jenni French — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:04:03 +0000

Like I say below, Steve, it’s often all in the timing. Picture phones didn’t come to market on their own right, or even from within telephony; it took the confluence of cloud, video streaming, and millenial’s appetite for online communication to make technology like Skype main-stream, and for wireless carriers and Apple to develop integrated hardware that can support apps like Facetime.

By: Rowen Vishwa

Rowen Vishwa — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:45:05 +0000

Linda, another thing to think about as you move from a culture of Delivery to one of Growth and Innovation is the optimum speed of innovation that your customers are willing to withstand. Everytime you evolve, your customers will have to too. I think the optimal level of innovation will be very different depending on the industry you’re in. Software as a industry is full of rapid adaptors. A healthy paranoia exists to adapt or die out. On the other hand Aviation as an industry tends to make slow and incremental adaptions and change. You’re right, the crossroads of Delivery and Growth is facinating but how companies, large and small, make this transistion to Growth and Innovation will depend highly on the customers they serve.