Archive for June, 2011|Monthly archive page
Drive innovation by unlocking middle management
For many companies across a variety of industries, the rate of product innovation is a major driver of competitiveness and shareholder value. When high levels of R&D spending and new innovation strategies do not turn into product wins, leaders will naturally question how innovation is spawned, cultivated and commercialized. While idea generation and marketing are crucial, one important way to increasing innovation may lie with the R&D process itself. New research on the drug industry from the consultancy Booz & Co. suggests that midlevel managers may hold the key to improving the odds of innovation success.
Despite dramatically rising R&D spending over the past decade, drug companies have little to show for it. Moreover, increased pharma consolidation has saddled large firms with bloated R&D departments that suffer from cumbersome bureaucracies and diseconomies of scale. A variety of process, structure and collaboration strategies have been tried to improve R&D productivity – the ratio of R&D inputs to product outputs. Unfortunately, most of these initiatives have not met expectations. Not surprisingly, one industry leader dubbed the past 10 years the “lost decade.”
Booz studied R&D productivity in 15 leading academic-based pharmaceutical firms. The study concluded that breakthrough innovation and problem solving occurs when individual scientists connect their own subject matter expertise to similar work being undertaken by their peers. One example of this was when Albert Einstein credited the discovery of his theory of relativity to his discussions with his peer, the engineer Michele Besso.
Typically, organizations attempt to generate rich scientific interactions by executive decree, through traditional networking activities or by changes in their management systems, such as new measurement tools or reward schemes. Unfortunately, these strategies often fail to meet expectations, for a variety of reasons. For example, in large companies the R&D leaders who set priorities and control resources are often too far away from the action: the most creative scientists; high potential opportunities in technology adjacencies and; the mechanisms that generate deep and regular collaboration. Furthermore, even the most cutting-edge innovation strategies will suffer if the people implementing and managing them can not (or do not) exert the right kind of leadership. I’ve witnessed these subtle organizational barriers in such diverse industries as consumer goods, software, telecom, aerospace and healthcare.
According to Booze, firms should focus on elevating the performance of middle managers in order to trigger serendipity-based innovation. This key group has the mandate and ability to identify, connect and manage the crucial interactions between scientists, product developers and customers. Business leaders can optimize middle management performance through a variety of measures, such as:
Enable and empower midlevel leaders
- Remove overlapping roles and responsibilities to avoid duplication and political strife while ensuring key activities are being executed;
- Ensure senior, middle and project managers have the appropriate authority and autonomy to avoid decision making paralysis;
Optimize information rights and collaboration
- Given that information fuels innovation efforts, companies must ensure the right people have full access to the necessary data including customer access;
- Empower key midlevel managers as ‘connectors’ to bridge different R&D programs, teams and partners in order to share knowledge and foster collaboration;
Enhance the function
- Require middle managers to possess sufficient domain expertise and management skills so that they can add – not subtract – business value as well maintain sufficient credibility with the R&D teams;
- Create opportunities for middle managers to think and act innovatively themselves by making innovation part of their role and measurement system.
Improving middle management productivity is a tall order for any organization, but especially for those in dynamic, knowledge-intensive sectors. To be successful, senior leaders will need to adopt an innovation approach that combines talent management, organizational design and cultural tweaking.
For more information on our services and work, please visit the Quanta Consulting Inc. web site.
Great service does not always lead to customer loyalty
Conventional wisdom says that consistently providing service excellence will deliver high levels of retention. According to new research from the Harvard Business School, this is not always the case. Companies that offer high levels of customer satisfaction may still experience loyalty problems if competition offers even better service. In fact, the research suggests that the customers you think are your most loyal are likely to be the first to jump ship when a challenger to your service superiority enters the market.
The researchers, Harvard Professors Dennis Campbell, Frances Frei and doctoral student Ryan Buell explored the link between service levels, customer loyalty, and competitive strategy in the U.S.banking sector. The 2002 to 2006 study analyzed data collected from a large U.S.domestic bank that competed in more than 20 states.
The study’s findings confirmed some earlier research on the impact of corporate and service strategy on retention. In a nutshell, companies who generate high customer satisfaction scores remain at risk when competition raises the service stakes. Conversely, the research indicates that firms rated low in service quality are relatively immune to premium competitive service offerings.
The reasons for these counter-intuitive findings have a lot to do with the customer expectations established in part by the incumbent provider. The longer a firm has held a service advantage in a local market, the more sensitive are its customers to it service levels relative to those of competitors. Given their higher expectations, service-driven customers are more willing to try other firms and products that trumpet and deliver service excellence.
Despite these conclusions, managers should be mindful of throwing out the service baby with the bath water when setting strategy. The study found that even though high-end customers can be fickle, a company can still attract and retain customers in a variety of markets with a superior customer experience. There are a number of ways to do this:
Avoid complacency
Firms can avoid resting on its service laurels by staying abreast of customer needs, focusing on continuous improvement initiatives and proactively investing to significantly enhance their customer experience.
Consider each product category separately
Customers will trade off price and service depending on the product they are seeking and the importance they attach to it. In general, customers – in the long run – purchase the goods that represent their ideal combination of price and service. As such, delivering more service than is needed (or is willing to be paid for) would be sub-optimal.
Understand that service sensitivity varies by market…
According to the researchers, there are considerable differences in the type of customers you attract and retain between markets. This variance suggests that managers should tailor their service and marketing strategies depending on local market conditions, competitive threats and customer needs.
…But be wary of too much customization
Local market service strategies come with considerable costs in terms of operational complexity and brand dilution. Firms need to carefully weigh the pro and cons of service customization for each market.
Make it difficult to leave
If high service levels by itself won’t ensure loyalty maybe raising a customer’s switching cost or providing loyalty-based incentives would do the job. For example, managers could offer discounts for long term contracts, extend warranty periods or launch high-value loyalty programs.
For more information on our services and work, please visit the Quanta Consulting Inc. web site.
Making Open Innovation work: the case of 3M
Open Innovation is a proven paradigm for generating higher levels of innovation in products, processes and capabilities. As opposed to the “closed” nature of many company’s R&D efforts, OI looks to open up a firm’s innovation process to outside ideas, collaboration and partners. Because technical knowledge is widely distributed and dynamic, organizations will not be as innovative when they rely entirely on their own research. Instead, managers should actively search out and buy or license technology, patents or inventions from other companies, individuals or research institutes. At the same time, technology not being used in a firm’s business can be offered outside the company. OI is not only about big science projects. One of the most common applications is problem solving for challenging technical issues.
Many market leaders like GE, Cisco, Adobe and P&G have successfully used OI to improve their products, reduce R&D costs, solve difficult technical problems and accelerate time to market. One of the best exploiters of OI is the manufacturer, 3M.
In 2010, 3M was voted the World’s third most innovative company in a survey by consultant Booz & Co. How does 3M use a paradigm like OI to regularly create successful new products and capabilities? Fred Palensky, 3M’s Chief Technology Officer, shared some insights in a recent edition of strategy+business magazine:
- 3M stresses internal sharing of new innovations. New technologies and capabilities that are developed in one R&D centre must be shared – cross pollinated – across product lines, markets and technology platforms;
- Cross pollination is enabled by a cultural trait known as “dual citizenship.” Employees are responsible both to their market and department as well as the global 3M technical community. Key people are often moved around to different sectors, roles and geographies enabling them to share ideas and skills while bringing them a holistic view of the business.
- 3M encourages regular collaboration with outsiders. For example, 3M’s R&D labs are presently collaborating with universities and business partners in over 300 projects. To better address user needs, 3M has developed 30 customer technical centers that bring users directly into the product development process.
Palensky attributes 3M’s innovation success to culture, not structure or process. OI has been practiced for years and is part of the firm’s DNA. According to Palensky, OI works because “everyone has skin in the game.” In particular, employees must spend 15% of their time outside of their area of responsibility, collaborating, visiting customers or brainstorming.
In our experience helping firm’s germinate innovation, strategizing on OI is a lot easier than making it work. The following are some of our best practices:
Cultural considerations are paramount
Within closed R&D organizations, the “not invented here” phenomena is very strong. Overcoming this requires managers to regularly reinforce a culture of external collaboration, information sharing and trust and back it up with reward schemes.
Management systems must align
Key elements like structure, information rights, roles & responsibilities and measurement systems must be congruent with an external-facing, sharing-based philosophy.
Seek and ye shall find
Serendipity is most likely to occur when a range of technical problems is exposed to a large number of diverse participants. Sufficient resources, time and mandate must be designed into the OI process: innovation discovery & synthesis, partner identification and relationship management.
Governance is critical
OI programs must be carefully designed to protect intellectual property, designate decision rights and reward distribution in advance.
For more information on our services and work, please visit the Quanta Consulting Inc. web site.
Comments (5)