I was listening to a conversation in one of my LinkedIn groups on the subject. Too often, companies spend a lot of time, cost and effort in the "innovation" of no return. The CEO is inspired by the idea of innovation, persuaded by an article, book, speakers, etc., and suddenly no budget for "making innovation." All the stops are pulled and things are going up. But he did not stick ...
Here are top 50 barriers to innovation identified for their peers who were often trampled in the stampede.
Invention Confused: turning money into ideas, innovation, turning ideas into cash, in order not to treat each accordingly.
The cost of innovation. Given that, on average, more than 90% of innovative projects fail and never rich ROI, it is clear that senior management will try to avoid "too much innovation." This leads to play it safe and focused on external acquisitions rather than pursue internal innovation.
Culture. "Man" is a creature of habit to innovate must break old habits - and that's not easy.
Culture. Innovation is a mystery, not a way of life for most organizations
Fear of change. Human beings in their souls they do not like change.
Fear of failure (9 out of 10 new businesses fail by leaders reluctant to bet on risky projects ... there is an Italian proverb, The dog is burned in the first hot water bath fears ;. Then everyone wants to emulate cold Like other Japanese and cook R & D)
The fear of the new.
Focus on ideas, not the needs inventors / innovators distracted by the cunning of your idea (s), without worrying enough about the realities of marketing and the value (innovation) to clients / customers.
Focus on departure. Organizations are created to produce repeatedly outputs.
Focus on the beauty of the idea, product or service without thinking about how to monetize
Intellectual laziness: Not everyone enjoys all forms of "thought." In addition, some ideas require expertise.
Internal political agreements between the agents of corporate power. Innovation, once identified, must go through an internal selection process, one that is getting a sponsor or not, funding or not, etc ... Once through this selection process, processing engines work established to minimize risks. Too process can create a condition where innovation can become so laborious is no longer sustainable / desirable. M & R allows circumvention of the current situation, but is preserved?
Junior Management be too focused on "justice of his idea" instead of thinking how to build support from senior management to suit their needs
The lack of a balanced perspective and a systems approach. (We're in the way ...)
The lack of activists to lead the innovation process: As someone innovation through an odyssey from design to distribution. In many larger organizations, it seems that someone with energy, insight, foresight, intelligence, persuasiveness to conduct innovation projects is "promoted" to the business management.
The lack of a clear vision of the company
The lack of a collaborative environment
The lack of commitment from all parties concerned.
Miscommunication
The absence of criteria for the selection, implementation and define what the company wants the outside world. What we collect? What kind of ideas or projects? What stage of development? We want ideas? Projects? Patents? Small businesses?
The lack of diversity.
Lack of financial support to older ideas from employees
The lack of attention to continuous innovation
Lack of funding: I always promised never materialized, almost always gets reassigned!
The lack of leadership of people: make a good team, size and talent
Lack of leadership: Waiting for someone else to drive. Many "leaders" are actually "managers". Leaders inspire, challenge, vision cast, the opportunity to encourage and ... lead. Administrators manage resources and doing things. Both are necessary, but not that many true leaders who see the future and plant their dreams in the heart of others to grow into reality.
Lack of organizational culture to foster innovation employees
The lack of passion, without passion never gives 99% perspiration for innovation, the other 1% comes from your interior
The lack of priorities: Fast, cheap and quality. What defines the acceptable time, price levels and expectations of quality? The question is what do you pursue, market share and customer loyalty.
The lack of process (method lacks innovation, refinement and application)
Lack of reason (imperative, vision, mission, etc.) to innovate: Many organizations are quite successful as the first disciples, I also producers, and in cooperation with market dominance. An innovation strategy is risky.
Lack of reward innovation: companies can get a reward for successful innovation, but it seems that individuals can not be rewarded financially or otherwise financially efficient.
The lack of understanding of what is really innovation
The lack of understanding that innovation requires a different set of skills than technical and business skills. Thus, many organizations believe and invest in the best people, so why not innovation? Let's paint the walls any color of the rainbow and wait until our engineers invent the next iPhone ... Ay, does not work.
Lip Service: people talk about the importance of innovation, but their behavior indicates otherwise.
Managers (and many executives) in large companies focus too much on the allocation of resources without also focusing on strategic planning - which requires innovative thinking for best results.
Fault Process Innovation: The projects to be built in the priorities are in place for the development and opportunities that can be exploited to excellence that all missing the brilliant minds amid bright pre existing modes of thought processes and achievements with relatively limited corners defined with great fear mechanism factors and less motivation of space.
No balance of the pool of vision. Companies that practice open innovation should see their portfolio of projects in different views. Ideas, short or long term projects, mergers and acquisitions, and many other types of initiatives should be considered and evaluated by different perspectives. We have different ways to evaluate these different things?
No risk in itself is a risk of the game: taking no chances with innovations in itself is a big risk for any business or home business or the individual.
Without knowing what you do not know.
Number accent; Assigning Cost / Resources Innovation: fear allocation of costs is negligible success really get to innovation, but the creep in the minds of financial stakeholders analyze and forecast the current financial trends in the transformation to unexpected results and apply sometimes pauses before starting a good innovative work.
Number accent; Strategic ambitions tempered quarterly issue by a projector. The street will be rewarding and punishing, depending on what they can risk and make a profit, which sometimes does not match the risk necessary for the pursuit of innovation. This leads to the internal measurement value. How can you be innovative in a quarter or two?
Numbers focus: Nobody knows exactly how to accurately calculate the amount of time and money it takes to turn a good idea into a commercial success. Result: avoid responsibility. It is safer to play with things known and predictable.
Antibodies organization!
People (no understanding of the main types: innovative companies, refiners, performers and presenters and their respective roles in the process)
Senior management (or administrator) invested serious money, time, emotions (including me) in equipment, systems, and probably many existing processes were promoted on the strength of some of these initiatives.
Executives get in: its particular role in large organizations is generally in the allocation of any deep understanding of the needs of customers not satisfied, the main force for innovation resources effectively.
General Management: always under the impression that there is enough innovation in your business. They also suffer the terrible myopia numbers of illness.
Short-term thinking - the way we do business today: To innovate, we must look to the future and consider the possibilities. This implies that the plan to be there for some time. So many companies these days are purchased by investors with the intent to empty and make 3-5 years. Innovation is not part of the plan. Because people want immediate results and do not think or planning a long-term future, demonstrating innovation is not even considered a desired outcome. Rewards must be pretty close an option to consider.
Silos and cliques who defend the status quo.
And here are some outtakes CEO Innovation:
"We have enough time to think about innovations! We have lots of ideas, but we can not go through the draft and finalize it."
"Usually not allowed engineers to try new things, because then they feel safe, begin to try many new things for regular work suffers, capabilities and better opportunities without leaving their job growth."
I wonder what he thinks and what experience he had with innovation. What made their efforts succeed? What did he do wrong?
Margaret Manson is a broker of knowledge - a mission to inspire, inform and connect businesses with a focus on two things: marketing and innovation.
Margaret Manson is the founder and director of InnoFuture Inspirer, an Australian innovation leading thinking and business network. Margaret is a recognized innovator in business as well as an experienced marketing strategist, educator and inspirational leader.
Thanks to free content, training and webinar events, Margaret moved to put the power of innovation in the hands of the masses to direct the future of an entire nation business on track. One such event is the plan for productivity, innovation and growth.
Here are top 50 barriers to innovation identified for their peers who were often trampled in the stampede.
Invention Confused: turning money into ideas, innovation, turning ideas into cash, in order not to treat each accordingly.
The cost of innovation. Given that, on average, more than 90% of innovative projects fail and never rich ROI, it is clear that senior management will try to avoid "too much innovation." This leads to play it safe and focused on external acquisitions rather than pursue internal innovation.
Culture. "Man" is a creature of habit to innovate must break old habits - and that's not easy.
Culture. Innovation is a mystery, not a way of life for most organizations
Fear of change. Human beings in their souls they do not like change.
Fear of failure (9 out of 10 new businesses fail by leaders reluctant to bet on risky projects ... there is an Italian proverb, The dog is burned in the first hot water bath fears ;. Then everyone wants to emulate cold Like other Japanese and cook R & D)
The fear of the new.
Focus on ideas, not the needs inventors / innovators distracted by the cunning of your idea (s), without worrying enough about the realities of marketing and the value (innovation) to clients / customers.
Focus on departure. Organizations are created to produce repeatedly outputs.
Focus on the beauty of the idea, product or service without thinking about how to monetize
Intellectual laziness: Not everyone enjoys all forms of "thought." In addition, some ideas require expertise.
Internal political agreements between the agents of corporate power. Innovation, once identified, must go through an internal selection process, one that is getting a sponsor or not, funding or not, etc ... Once through this selection process, processing engines work established to minimize risks. Too process can create a condition where innovation can become so laborious is no longer sustainable / desirable. M & R allows circumvention of the current situation, but is preserved?
Junior Management be too focused on "justice of his idea" instead of thinking how to build support from senior management to suit their needs
The lack of a balanced perspective and a systems approach. (We're in the way ...)
The lack of activists to lead the innovation process: As someone innovation through an odyssey from design to distribution. In many larger organizations, it seems that someone with energy, insight, foresight, intelligence, persuasiveness to conduct innovation projects is "promoted" to the business management.
The lack of a clear vision of the company
The lack of a collaborative environment
The lack of commitment from all parties concerned.
Miscommunication
The absence of criteria for the selection, implementation and define what the company wants the outside world. What we collect? What kind of ideas or projects? What stage of development? We want ideas? Projects? Patents? Small businesses?
The lack of diversity.
Lack of financial support to older ideas from employees
The lack of attention to continuous innovation
Lack of funding: I always promised never materialized, almost always gets reassigned!
The lack of leadership of people: make a good team, size and talent
Lack of leadership: Waiting for someone else to drive. Many "leaders" are actually "managers". Leaders inspire, challenge, vision cast, the opportunity to encourage and ... lead. Administrators manage resources and doing things. Both are necessary, but not that many true leaders who see the future and plant their dreams in the heart of others to grow into reality.
Lack of organizational culture to foster innovation employees
The lack of passion, without passion never gives 99% perspiration for innovation, the other 1% comes from your interior
The lack of priorities: Fast, cheap and quality. What defines the acceptable time, price levels and expectations of quality? The question is what do you pursue, market share and customer loyalty.
The lack of process (method lacks innovation, refinement and application)
Lack of reason (imperative, vision, mission, etc.) to innovate: Many organizations are quite successful as the first disciples, I also producers, and in cooperation with market dominance. An innovation strategy is risky.
Lack of reward innovation: companies can get a reward for successful innovation, but it seems that individuals can not be rewarded financially or otherwise financially efficient.
The lack of understanding of what is really innovation
The lack of understanding that innovation requires a different set of skills than technical and business skills. Thus, many organizations believe and invest in the best people, so why not innovation? Let's paint the walls any color of the rainbow and wait until our engineers invent the next iPhone ... Ay, does not work.
Lip Service: people talk about the importance of innovation, but their behavior indicates otherwise.
Managers (and many executives) in large companies focus too much on the allocation of resources without also focusing on strategic planning - which requires innovative thinking for best results.
Fault Process Innovation: The projects to be built in the priorities are in place for the development and opportunities that can be exploited to excellence that all missing the brilliant minds amid bright pre existing modes of thought processes and achievements with relatively limited corners defined with great fear mechanism factors and less motivation of space.
No balance of the pool of vision. Companies that practice open innovation should see their portfolio of projects in different views. Ideas, short or long term projects, mergers and acquisitions, and many other types of initiatives should be considered and evaluated by different perspectives. We have different ways to evaluate these different things?
No risk in itself is a risk of the game: taking no chances with innovations in itself is a big risk for any business or home business or the individual.
Without knowing what you do not know.
Number accent; Assigning Cost / Resources Innovation: fear allocation of costs is negligible success really get to innovation, but the creep in the minds of financial stakeholders analyze and forecast the current financial trends in the transformation to unexpected results and apply sometimes pauses before starting a good innovative work.
Number accent; Strategic ambitions tempered quarterly issue by a projector. The street will be rewarding and punishing, depending on what they can risk and make a profit, which sometimes does not match the risk necessary for the pursuit of innovation. This leads to the internal measurement value. How can you be innovative in a quarter or two?
Numbers focus: Nobody knows exactly how to accurately calculate the amount of time and money it takes to turn a good idea into a commercial success. Result: avoid responsibility. It is safer to play with things known and predictable.
Antibodies organization!
People (no understanding of the main types: innovative companies, refiners, performers and presenters and their respective roles in the process)
Senior management (or administrator) invested serious money, time, emotions (including me) in equipment, systems, and probably many existing processes were promoted on the strength of some of these initiatives.
Executives get in: its particular role in large organizations is generally in the allocation of any deep understanding of the needs of customers not satisfied, the main force for innovation resources effectively.
General Management: always under the impression that there is enough innovation in your business. They also suffer the terrible myopia numbers of illness.
Short-term thinking - the way we do business today: To innovate, we must look to the future and consider the possibilities. This implies that the plan to be there for some time. So many companies these days are purchased by investors with the intent to empty and make 3-5 years. Innovation is not part of the plan. Because people want immediate results and do not think or planning a long-term future, demonstrating innovation is not even considered a desired outcome. Rewards must be pretty close an option to consider.
Silos and cliques who defend the status quo.
And here are some outtakes CEO Innovation:
"We have enough time to think about innovations! We have lots of ideas, but we can not go through the draft and finalize it."
"Usually not allowed engineers to try new things, because then they feel safe, begin to try many new things for regular work suffers, capabilities and better opportunities without leaving their job growth."
I wonder what he thinks and what experience he had with innovation. What made their efforts succeed? What did he do wrong?
Margaret Manson is a broker of knowledge - a mission to inspire, inform and connect businesses with a focus on two things: marketing and innovation.
Margaret Manson is the founder and director of InnoFuture Inspirer, an Australian innovation leading thinking and business network. Margaret is a recognized innovator in business as well as an experienced marketing strategist, educator and inspirational leader.
Thanks to free content, training and webinar events, Margaret moved to put the power of innovation in the hands of the masses to direct the future of an entire nation business on track. One such event is the plan for productivity, innovation and growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment