The only detail that will be presented here (for interest sake) is that of the strongest and weakest Innovation Capability Requirements. They are as follows:
Strongest – Continuous research (4.11)
Weakest – Measuring Innovation (1.09)
The strongest requirement correlates with the Discover & Absorb innovation capability construct item and the Internal – Data & Information organisational construct item, while the weakest with the Resources & Measurement innovation capability construct item. This is fairly consistent with overall picture depicted in Figure 47, remembering however that the response-normalisation and aggregation process affects the values projected therein. Thus, the strength from Figure 47 appears to intersect at the Structure & Infrastructure and Internal – Data & Information construct items.
2.65 2.67 2.67 3.20 2.82 2.26 Explore & Converge 2.84 2.74 2.76 2.76 3.02 2.83 2.53 Portfolio Management 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.91 2.73 2.45 Consolidate & Exploit 2.68 2.66 2.68 2.68 2.93 2.75 2.46 Process Control & Risk Management 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.91 2.73 2.45 Discover & Absorb 2.90 2.77 2.79 2.78 3.05 2.86 2.56 2.52 Consolidate 2.38 2.51 2.52 2.52 2.76 2.59 2.32 Core Competency & Technology 2.27 2.45 2.46 2.46 2.70 2.53 2.27 Innovation Strategy & Leadership 2.60 2.62 2.64 2.64 2.89 Structure & Infrastructure 3.24 2.93 2.94 2.94 3.22 Environment & Climate 3.06 2.85 2.86 2.86 3.13 Resources & Measurement 2.32 2.48 2.49 2.49 2.73 Innovation Process 2.72 Knowledge & Competency Organisational Support 2.75
considering the specific needs of the organisation, and what was intended to be a major discussion point (leading to possible further discussions on the detailed results), was:
Formalise and make explicit a relevant innovation strategy that is aligned with the overall business strategy.
This would provide the framework to establish, improve and/or clarify:
o The testing, screen and prioritising of opportunities and concepts
o Development and/or acquisition of new competencies and technologies
o The identification, reduction and mitigation of uncertainty and risk
o The intellectual property policy and the management thereof
o The measurement of innovation-related outputs.
Communicate and clarify the differing perspectives pertaining to skills and competency alignment.
Basically, this was the initial plan of action that was recommended to address the most pressing issues (which was similar to the initial summary presented to management in Section 7.1.2.2).
7.1.4 Plan procedure
This section will briefly describe the various activities undertaken during the Plan stage of the case study. This includes presenting and discussing the results with participants, prioritising the opportunities for improvement and identifying the necessary actions to be taken.
7.1.4.1
Presentation of summarised results and discussion
As discussed in Section 6.2.2.1.1, the presentation of results is an essential part of the process that will eventually determine the success thereof. It is vital that this session be an interactive one; involving all the evaluation participants. The analyst who interprets the responses and presents the summarised results only knows the organisation from the perspective of the questionnaire. The individuals therein are required to complete the picture using the results presented to them.
The consolidated and summarised results were presented in 3 sessions: first to management, then to the clinical psychologist, and finally to all members of the organisation. In each of the sessions, many points were discussed and debated in an effort to understand, clarify and put into context the results. For the purpose of privacy, details pertaining to these discussions will not be discussed. However, the most
respondent groups: management, the psychologist and the remaining members of the organisation.
7.1.4.1.1 Management
Management concluded that the results remained consistent and accurate with the inclusion of all organisational members. Further, the added perspective, and differences therein, could highlight potential gaps in communication. This would be true even though it was not made explicit by the group with the communication-related questions. What was concluded was that the majority of organisational members, both management and other, were previously unaware of these communication gaps.
It was mentioned that it would be interesting to note whether other case studies presented similarly accurate results. In particular, the effectiveness of the roles-based normalisation mechanism to reduce overall variance in the results was commended – whether it would prove so successful in other cases studies remained to be seen.
7.1.4.1.2 Clinical psychologist
As mention previously, the clinical psychologist was tasked with taking 2 perspectives: the first, as a psychologist with experience in similar procedures, and the second as an HR-based role within the organisation. The conclusions from the first perspective were discussed in Section 7.1.2.3. The general conclusion, from the second perspective, was that the results were representative of expectations, highlighting specific aspects that were difficult to pinpoint, articulate and motivate without such an exercise.
The most prominent benefit of the approach was the manner in which both the evaluation and presentation of results could stimulate discussion within a team. As mentioned on several occasions, to truly interpret the results and extract value there from, the respondents are required to complete the picture developed by the interpreted responses.
Based on this point, the approach also provides a mechanism of communicating the different individual perspectives without it being brought up by, or directed at, any particular individual. This could avoid potential conflicts, as the responses remain anonymous and the results aggregated and normalised on the basis of the roles. Therefore, the results that emerge are not attached to any particular views, but rather to the aggregated view of the respondents (although specific views, like a “management” perspective, can be determined if requested and approved by respondents).
7.1.4.1.3 Remaining members of organisation
The discussions and conclusions were much the same from the remaining members of the organisation, highlighting the fact that the approach clarified what may have been known subconsciously, but had yet to be made explicit. Furthermore, this clarity was improved by the framework describing the links between the various aspects and their impact on organisational innovation capability.
Having seen and interpreted the results, management approved the recommendations made to improve innovation capability within the organisation (discussed at the end of Section 7.1.3). This would begin with an effort to “Formalise and make explicit a relevant innovation strategy that is aligned with the overall business strategy” – the first recommended action from Section 7.1.3. Only once this had been performed, should the other opportunities be pursued. Management then requested that the following be presented at the next interaction:
The basic components of an innovation strategy and the most appropriate way of linking it to business strategy.
A basic plan to address the prioritised opportunities.
In fulfilment of the second request, the management team was introduced to the remaining activities of the improvement methodology as discussed from Section 6.2.2.3 and on, and underlined in Figure 48.