Below you'll find a list of all posts that have been categorized as “Thought Leadership”
Being among the pioneers (see e.g. here or here) in making the case that dual approaches to modern corporate innovation are mandatory for innovation impact, we have recently been delighted about two things: First, more and more companies are appreciating our arguments as the following data suggest (sources can be provided upon request): Second, two concepts that we’ve been advocating …
As published in a recent post, we have initiated a Peer Group of leading European companies which share our view that Best Practices with respect to scaling up validated concepts (successfully emerging from the “Fuzzy Front End”) to business impact need to be in place to sustainably increase overall corporate innovation performance. It has become obvious that Scaling-Up really seems …
Recently, I’ve come across a couple of posts and articles debating on the question: In order to increase agility, should organizations aim to become more nimble across their existing structures or should they capitalize on separated units/ventures – such as innovation or digital labs – being dedicated to initiate and develop explorative ideas and opportunities? Let’s define agility as an …
In previous posts, I have shared my view on important cornerstones for successful innovation management systems. As pointed out several times, balanced and up-to-date innovation management requires organizational ambidexterity, i.e. the capability to explore novel offerings and capabilities while simultaneously exploiting existing ones. In the following, I would like to summarize and complement these thoughts by suggesting an innovation management …
The first time I was advocating the idea of a dual innovation approach, here also referred to as organizational ambidexterity, is now more than 5 years ago. At this time it became pretty obvious to me that this concept – academically worn-out but deficiently or not at all put into practice in most organizations – would be of increasing importance …
dual-innovation.net’s mission is to help companies solving their Corporate Innovation Problem™ which means that the Return On Innovation is too low. As we have outlined HERE, we see three root causes for the Corporate Innovation Problem (for easier readability, we skip the ™-sign in the rest of the article): The complexity problem – Conducting innovation in a globally dispersed set …
As we have pointed out in earlier posts (see HERE and HERE), we are forming a peer group process with Process Industries VPs from Innovation, Marketing and Sales within larger companies: “Digital Transformation – What it really means at the VP level”. Companies from Chemicals, Paints, Health&Nutrition, Oils&Additives, Food, Dairy, Beverage and Life Science industries are lining up for participation …
This is the fourth post in our series about what we call the Corporate Innovation ProblemTM and how to go about solving it. We started the series by spelling out the problems experienced by corporate innovation starting here. Despite large and growing investments into innovation, the results remain disappointing. In this post, we show that firms are investing heavily into achieving excellence in the early phase …
This is the third post in our series about what we call the Corporate Innovation ProblemTM and how to go about solving it. We started the series by spelling out the problems in corporate innovation here. Despite large and growing investments into innovation, the results remain disappointing. The overall process of innovation spans the chain of activities from discovering insights into valuable …
In our last posts we have built a case that large organizations should invest energy in actively designing their early phase of the innovation process – the so-called “Fuzzy Front-End” (FFE) in a way that it delivers meaningful and promising innovation ideas and concepts. It is emerging practice that there are some key design parameters (see our last post for more …
