The Innovative Company E-Book

Daniele Chauvel

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 206

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

The concept of innovation is the result of human activities carried out to produce a new product, service or something new that creates value. More recently, the idea of an innovative enterprise, organization or company has emerged, thanks to an increasing interest in innovation as an essential process in a variety of economic, technological and sociological contexts. This book is part of a set on Innovation between Risk and Reward and focuses on the close relationship between innovation and knowledge. It provides the reader with the outline of an innovative company, focusing on the organizational aspects that contribute to defining it and sketching out the profile of what an innovative company is or should be in the age of knowledge. The authors explore the literary corpus in order to outline the state of the art but also the reality of innovative enterprise in the form of meetings and interviews with both large and small companies.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title

Copyright

Foreword

Acknowledgments

Introduction

1 Evolution of the Concept of Innovation

1.1. Major steps in the evolution of the concept of innovation

1.2. Paradigm shift

2 Innovation: A Knowledge-based Phenomenon

2.1. A knowledge-based view of firm innovation

2.2. Knowledge management

3 Pivots of Innovation in the Age of Knowledge

3.1. Creativity

3.2. Organizational ambidexterity

4 The Various Approaches to Innovation Adopted by Companies

4.1. External approaches

4.2. Internal and organizational approaches

5 Organizational Levers

5.1. An innovation-oriented strategic posture

5.2. A culture of innovation

5.3. Innovation management

5.4. The innovative company, a concept that applies to small or large companies?

Conclusion

Bibliography

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

1 Evolution of the Concept of Innovation

Table 1.1.

Comparative study of theories of innovation between the industrial age and the age of knowledge [CHA 13]

List of Illustrations

1 Evolution of the Concept of Innovation

Figure 1.1.

Paradigm shift in the years 1990–2000 [DES 01]

2 Innovation: A Knowledge-based Phenomenon

Figure 2.1.

Innovation: a knowledge management process [CHA 13]

5 Organizational Levers

Figure 5.1.

Illustration of the constituent parts of the aggressive and proactive entrepreneurial attitude (Wordle.net)

Conclusion

Figure 1.

Illustration of the profile of the innovative company (composition of the author)

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

C1

iii

iv

v

vii

viii

ix

x

xi

xii

xiii

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

137

138

139

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

e1

Innovation between Risk and Reward Set

coordinated byBernard Guilhon and Sandra Montchaud

Volume 1

The Innovative Company

An Ill-defined Object

Danièle Chauvel

Stefano Borzillo

First published 2017 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:

ISTE Ltd

27-37 St George’s Road

London SW19 4EU

UK

www.iste.co.uk

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

111 River Street

Hoboken, NJ 07030

USA

www.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2017

The rights of Danièle Chauvel and Stefano Borzillo to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017941106

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-78630-065-2

Foreword

I am delighted to contribute – even if only in a small way – to the study of an ill-defined object.

This problem of definition seems to persist, despite the fact that the practice of innovation is as ancient as the activity of business. This may be explained by the fact that the concepts of “innovation” and “business” are both multifaceted and rapidly changing, and that preconceived ideas and simplistic, erroneous, but reassuring beliefs die hard.

This new series sheds welcome light on the debate. Notably, this second book has the great merit – in my opinion – of approaching the problem of “innovation” through the “right door”: that of knowledge.

A very thorough work

Readers, whatever their position – director, manager, associate, facilitator or student – will find this book to be a source of up-to-date, high-quality information.

In my opinion, this book has four great qualities:

– it incorporates the historical dimension, enabling the various approaches to innovation to be situated within their economic, technological and sociological context (the managerial aspect, in particular) and the links between these various elements to be better understood;

– it is holistic and systemic, incorporating and comparing the perspectives of various disciplines;

– it is scientific, uniting rigor, demand and objectivity;

– it is engaged, enabling us to share the authors’ conviction as to the prominence of the sociological dimension of innovation and define the role of various parties: directors, managers, associates and facilitators (leaders of communities of practice or interest and groups on social networks, trainers, experts, knowledge managers, etc.).

Finally, it discusses the issue of SMEs (Small Medium Enterprises), whereas most books are restricted to large, usually American corporations.

Multifaceted subjects

– Innovation was initially an industrial approach to production, and this remains true in the incremental innovation of production processes.

– It is a strategic approach that makes it possible to anticipate changes in all kinds and adapt quickly.

– It is also a market dimension: new products, new services, management of input–output channels, development of business models;

– Innovation is a mindset, a capacity for questioning, a flexibility, an openness toward associates (other than innovation experts), clients, partners, allies…. It should not be the kingdom of the solitary innovator, fashion or imitation (metoism).

– The managerial dimension of innovation is fundamental: it gives associates the chance, the permission, the task to suggest, even to decide on organizations and practices locally, drawing inspiration from examples of other entities inside or outside the company. This is the field of collective intelligence.

– This also covers the processes and practices to develop, create, capture and implant in the company in a lasting but modifiable way. We are already engaged in change management.

– Innovation also requires means, tools, methods, structures, funding and taxation; “trees” that can prevent us from seeing the wood and sometimes cause dramatic decision-making errors.

Changing subjects

Many causes of change are sometimes brutal and often coincide:

– the major development of the value chain for some activities (e.g. uberization), causing ruptures in strategies and financial negotiations;

– the appearance of various innovation philosophies, adapted to varying degrees to the specifics of a given company;

– the emergence of new technologies with a highly variable, even random, power increase and lifespan;

– the appearance of new competitors who affect a particular positioning on the value chain – often interposed between the incumbent supplier and his client – using new technologies and affecting the variety of availability and production cost factors, as well as the diversity of fiscal and social regulations.

Difficulties relating to some of our visions of innovation and management and to our business culture

– Successive innovation philosophies are often focused on a lever, a function, without taking into account the reality of needs, uses, etc., relating to the nature of the innovation, the expected benefits and the business context.

– Invention and innovation are often confused (especially in a country with an “engineering” culture), and “innovation” and “the capacity to obtain public aid or specific funding” conflated.

– We are reluctant to include strategies based on “trial and error” and exit (strategic pivot) in the event of non-success in the anticipated timeframes and costs. We are reluctant to devote the necessary time to transformations, we often increase our corrective actions and key process indicators (KPIs) in the short term, and we use a financial approach of return on investment influenced by the financial markets, applied to unsuitable subjects or those with standard requirements. We are also reluctant to invest in constant improvement activities for our structures, which require time and means that are not immediately productive and have an indirect return, especially in knowledge and collective intelligence, although these are determining factors in the sustainable profitability of our companies, and in their economic and financial survival.

– This is all exacerbated by “metoism”, “Not Invented Here” syndrome, the effects of fashion, archetypes (“every start-up is agile”, “every innovation must have strong technological support”, etc.) and the unsuitability of some external advice for the reality of the target company.

– The use of frugal innovation and low tech is often deemed uninteresting for a large business based in a developed country.

– We find it difficult to adopt strategies that combine the global and the local in a relevant way, and to give the situation the leeway to handle autonomously (with, if necessary,

a posteriori

control) changes relating to processes, expertise, local markets or local specificities.

– The potential contributions of collective intelligence and the benefits of interdisciplinarity, creativity, confidence, etc., are not taken into account naturally.

– Maintaining a “command and control” management style based on multiple objectives and KPIs imposed on staff is unsuited to the current context of the company (except – now and then – in the event of a serious and urgent crisis).

Of course, the point is not to pillory companies or directors (criticism is easy, but creation is hard), but to identify – and, if possible, to correct – factors that do not promote innovation.

Advantages and difficulties of entering into innovation through knowledge

Advantages

– good knowledge of local markets and territories;

– high reactivity and capacity to handle many subjects simultaneously (e.g. by entrusting them to groups or communities);

– the power of an action shared by a large number of motivated people;

– human and social impacts that are positive for collaborator engagement and autonomy, well-being at work and employer branding;

– decrease in the number of problems rising unnecessarily up the chain of command, enabling directors to focus on the most important matters.

Difficulties

– need for strong coordination between the various parties, with a validation process suited to the various subjects;

– difficulties in measuring the effect of knowledge development activities on individuals and teams;

– time required for development and sustainable knowledge acquisition in the various sectors of the company;

– difficulties in quickly learning/unlearning a type of knowledge individually and collectively (need for stability for people).

A tip for students…

For students reading this book: analyze the historical development of our innovation management philosophies carefully. Each approach responds or responded to a particular context. Follow the developments closely, because everything changes very quickly.

A nod to managers and directors…

– Invest in a relevant way (in the right things, just enough, just in time) in the company’s knowledge portfolio management process and in a facilitation, management and coordination structure for this process.

– Introduce an evaluation and monitoring system for return on investment, adapting the rules and conditions for those subjects that cannot come under the return on investment used for traditional assets.

– Encourage managers and facilitators to create, organize and assess suitable ecosystems, promoting the success of subjects relating to knowledge and innovation.

– Be enthusiastic, critical and cautious in your choices and reactive in managing them. Any strategy or methodology – as intelligent and attractive as it may be – needs to be tested and, if necessary, adapted to the needs of the company, its specific features, developments in the market and society, etc. (Pierre Dac said: “The only certainty is doubt, however…”) Dogmatism always costs a company a lot, sometimes even its existence…

Thank you to Danièle Chauvel and Stefano Borzillo for giving us these things to think about and providing useful pointers on this subject, which influences the survival of many of our companies and jobs with corresponding added value. Enjoy!

Pierre PREVELAssociation CoP-1 KM et collaboration: http://cop-1.net/L’Observatoire des réseaux sociaux d’entreprise:

http://www.obsdesrse.com/

Acknowledgments

First of all, we would like to thank Pierre Prével, Jardin des Talents, secretary general of CoP-1 KM and Collaboration Association, administrator and scientific director of the publications of the Enterprise Social Network Observatory (Observatoire des réseaux sociaux d’entreprise), for his good advice and for agreeing to write the preface.

We would also like to thank Bernard Guilhon, Professor of knowledge and innovation-based economics, who believed in us and asked us to collaborate on this series, of which he and Sandra Montchaud are the editors.

A big thank you also goes to Ziryeb Marouf, Orange, chairman of the Enterprise Social Network Observatory (Observatoire des réseaux sociaux d’entreprise), and to Martin Roulleaux Dugage, Areva, chairman of CoP-1 KM and Collaboration Association (CoP-1 KM et Collaboration), for their support and recognition.

We would also like to thank Ludovic Dibiaggio, director of the KTO (Knowledge, Technology and Organization) research laboratory at Skema Business School, who has always known how to encourage and intellectually stimulate us.

Our thanks go also to all those who have welcomed and assisted us in our field research, in particular:

– Jean Luc Abelin, Lafarge-Holcim;

– Florence Cariou, Engie;

– Frédérique Chauvel, Amadeus;

– Mélanie Ciussi, Dominique Vian, Skema Business School;

– Olivier Courtade, M2M Solution;

– Gilles Garel, Cnam;

– Karine Gicquel and Guillaume Morice, Alexandre Dingas, SO.F.I.A Cosmétiques;

– Jean Michel Hannetel, Mane;

– Marie Hélène Marcelli, Carestia;

– Frédéric Philippe, Air Liquide;

– Jean-Philippe Poulnot and Bertrand de Frémont, Groupe Up;

– Anne Lise Raffy, ETSI;

– Bertrand Rojat, Technocentre Orange;

– Olivier Roberget, Stéphane Moracchini, Collaboratif Info.

Introduction

This book is the second in a series focusing on “Innovation between Risk and Reward”. To avoid any conflict with the subsequent books, which deal with different aspects of the strategies and problems relating to the development of innovation, our intention is to clearly sketch the outline of an innovative company, focusing mainly on the organizational aspects that contribute to defining its silhouette, although without claiming to provide the definitive definition. Above all, we are establishing the backdrop.

It cannot be denied that the socioeconomic playing field has been profoundly transformed over the past few decades: we refer to a paradigm, i.e. a change in the prevailing belief, in the sense that the sequence of values has itself been altered, knowledge becoming the main source of economic wealth, a resource capable of leading the world toward a new postindustrial era, i.e. the knowledge economy [DRU 85]. These changes, brought about by the accelerated and continuous rhythm of technology deployment, along with the global dissemination of information, then the opening of the marketplace, and subsequently a profound transformation of values in our societies (network logics, diversity, autonomy, horizontality, sustainability, etc.), have rendered the environment turbulent, complex and perpetually transforming. Responding to such challenges requires new ideas, new solutions and multitudes of new combinations of ideas and knowledge as a source of progress, hence the emphasis on innovation.

Innovation has, however, always existed; since the dawn of time, mankind has sought to improve living conditions by innovating. Generally, the concept of innovation is understood to be the result of human activities carried out to produce a new product or service, creating value. For several decades, the literature on the subject has proliferated, providing a range of distinct ways to contribute to the field, dealing with dissemination, sources of innovation and even a variety of theories shedding fragmented but complementary light on the subject [ABR 91, EVE 91, TOM 90, POO 89, WOL 94]. However, it is already clear that, just like society, the concept has evolved, broadening its horizons beyond the walls of the technoscientific research and development laboratories and gaining sociotechnical dimensions that include human, social and organizational factors.

“Innovation is about knowledge, with people as the carriers of this knowledge” [JOR 06, p. 4].

This definition may seem rather direct, but it translates the paradigm mentioned above very well and attempts to capture the very essence of innovation in the age of knowledge, i.e. a tight interplay of innovation, knowledge and the parties who possess it. Drucker [DRU 85] would say that it is the act of knowing that is important, rather than doing itself.

Today, innovation has become an essential necessity, the driver of growth and competitive advantage, for nations just as much as for companies, since any organization needs to adapt, anticipate, transform and innovate to guarantee its performance and navigate the profoundly tumultuous and changeable waves of the market, technologies and competition [BAR 07, GAR 06].

According to the OECD Oslo Manual and echoing Jorna’s opinion, “the most significant innovation capability is the knowledge accumulated by the firm, which is mainly embedded in human resources, but is also in procedures, routines and other characteristics of the firm. Innovation capabilities, as well as technological capabilities, are the result of learning processes, which are conscious and purposeful, costly and time-consuming, nonlinear and path-dependent and cumulative. Knowledge about innovation capabilities and the firm’s efforts to increase these are key to understanding its present and future performance” [OEC 05, p. 160].

Innovation is therefore a strategic approach based on the agile exploitation of the intellectual capital – knowledge, expertise and other inimitable resources – of an organization, consistent with its vision and environment. In other words, transforming new ideas into economic market value is an endeavor that involves all parts of the organization. The challenge lies in the capacity to deploy the strategic vision and organize this set of multidimensional interactions into a unified process with both novelty and value creation.

The concern and need to innovate are very topical in the world of economics, at all levels, internationally, nationally and locally. The opening of the marketplace has increased tension, since an idea developed in one place does not remain unique for long. If it creates a new market, it will quickly become the object of fierce competition, enacted on an uneven playing field.

We therefore wonder how companies tackle this challenge and what organizational strategies and policies should be implemented to score points in this challenge of competitiveness and innovation. And what makes a company innovative?

The label “innovative enterprise” seems to have become rather popular in France, a country with a scientific and technical tradition that still occupies an important place in the world for innovation today. The designation exists in several forms, no fewer than six listed by Noailles [NOA 12] during a colloquium on the innovative company:

– the status of young innovative enterprise (

jeune entreprise innovante

, JEI) was established in 2004 by the French Ministry of National Education, Higher Education and Research to promote the creation of small and medium-sized enterprises carrying out research by ensuring that they receive significant tax benefits;

– the innovative company as seen by Oseo

1

makes it possible through BPI

2

to label small companies capable of “justifying the creation of products, procedures, techniques or services whose innovative nature and economic development perspectives are recognized” and liable to receive financial aid from the

Fonds communs de placement pour l’innovation

3

to encourage research;

– the innovative company as seen by Insee conforms with the European definition, i.e. an organization that has introduced a significant change or novelty in at least one of the four possible innovation categories (products, procedures, organization, marketing);

– the EIP16 (

entreprise innovante des pôles

) label aims to help innovative very small businesses/SMEs in competitiveness clusters to commercialize innovations that they are developing by giving them effective access to equity financing;

– the concept of innovative company creation, defined by Oseo, characterizes a company that is engaged, at any given moment, in an innovation process and can claim innovation aid;

– the innovative company, due to the “research tax credit” (

crédit impôt recherche

) system, must report on activities of a fundamental, applied or experimental research nature.

Although the previous study has produced a French definition of the innovative company, which we might call administrative, emphasizing the company’s youth and the offer of a “new form of value creation” in the shape of a product or service that improves the overall economic efficacy of the organization” [NOA 12], these labels are, nonetheless, still related to a tax status or the ability to obtain financial aid.

The term does not seem to appear much in economics literature, but it is very popular in the international business press, which annually reports the results of studies carried out by institutions, the most famous of which include Forbes, BCG and even Fast Company, who provide rankings of so-called innovative enterprises.

For the last 10 years, based on a study questioning 1,500 senior managers from a wide range of companies all over the world, BCG has established a list of 50 innovative companies worldwide. In 2016, the votes arising from the opinions of these managers were based on four selection criteria – the speed of the innovative exercise, the agile deployment of research processes, the use of a technological platform and the systematic exploration of adjacent markets. This investigation was carried out both inside and outside the nominees’ industrial sector. Alongside these data, there is a factor relating to the growth allowance and another more financial one, concerning income and return on investment.

In the same – still subjective – vein, Fast Company produces a similar ranking, based on an evaluation of companies, obtained by collecting data and analyzing it from a dozen trends, which remain “private” but a priori emphasize the deployment of new agile business models, the philosophy of sustainability and a culture of creativity.

Every year, Forbes produces its list of the 100 most innovative companies in the world, according to a fairly rigorous methodology, including future-oriented financial criteria, to produce an Innovation Premium, which depends nonetheless on the whims of the stock exchange. The method used claims to be more objective, like that used by Thomson Innovation, based on activity and quality relating to intellectual property [MIL 14].

We might mention the many innovation awards organized in France by various institutions, such as Innov'acteurs for participatory innovation, which highlights the quality of the approach, the results and the involvement of the parties, and many others. The Innovation Management Association, however, grants an “Organisé pour innover” (Organized to innovate) label, which is itself significant.

Métissier [MÉT 12] mentions “innovative organizations”, in which innovation is tackled systemically, with its own dynamic, which plays an overall role in bringing together the various domains toward a change that will hopefully be “improving”.

This brief sample of rankings still does not tell us very much about what an innovative company really is, since all the results differ, due to the vagueness as to what is really measured and on the methods used: is it the capacity for innovation, the effectiveness of innovation, or the growth based on innovation? From what perspective are the judgments made? That of users, competitors, or partners? Are they imbued with a certain subjectivity based on popularity, or the result of rigorous evaluation built on an algorithmic pattern? Regardless, they each emphasize a few aspects of innovation, thus making their own contribution, but they also add to the proliferation of opinions that we may have of innovation and the innovative company, a highly ill-defined object!

A Quebecois organization, Créativité Québec