Lifecycle Execution

Lifecycle Execution is the Innovation Capability Area (discussed in further detail in Section 4.4.7) tasked with ensuring that all the lifecycle phases of innovation initiatives from conceptualisation through disposal are sufficiently executed to ensure both the success of the initiatives and the sustained competitive advantage of the organisation.

The categorisation of requirements and practices in the following three sections is not the in format in which it was found in the literature. The requirements of a particular capability area and the practices of a particular requirement were often found in seemly-unrelated texts, but were matched because of their shared fundamental contribution to innovation capability. Furthermore, on many occasions the identified innovation best practices were common to several texts. In such cases, a list of the different references is provided. In an effort to keep the summary as concise as possible, the requirements and their associated practices will be briefly mentioned and then the references thereto provided. If more detail is required of a particular requirement or practice, then the referenced text should be consulted. Note that the innovation best practices of these sections are not necessarily in the generic format required for the Innovation Capability Maturity Model, and are presented in no particular order. They therefore required varying degrees of reverse engineering to identify the fundamental aspects that contribute to innovation capability.

The first requirement is a process that addresses all the phases necessary to ensure the successful fruition of an innovation initiative (Tidd et al. 2001; Cormican & O'Sullivan, 2004; O'Connor & Ayers 2005; Assink 2006). This process may take on the form of a lifecycle (Ahmed 1998(1); Leseure et al. 2004; Dismukes 2004, 2005; Du Preez et al 2006). Practices include understanding the lifecycle (Oke 2004; Cormican & O'Sullivan 2004), planning based on a lifecycle approach (Cormican & O'Sullivan 2004, Du Preez et al. 2006), managing that lifecycle (Tidd et al. 2001, Dismukes 2005, Du Preez et al. 2006), deploying facilitative tools and techniques (Dismukes 2005, Du Preez et al. 2006), and integrating the phases and activities of the lifecycles within the organisation to improve the likelihood of successful output (Cormican & O'Sullivan, 2004, O'Connor & Ayers 2005, Du Preez et al. 2006).

The next requirement is the need to have an initially flexible approach to innovation initiatives, and then to appropriately formalise the initiatives to ensure follow-through and completion (Damanpour 1996; Baker 2002; Wycoff 2003; Cormican & O'Sullivan, 2004; Williams 2005; Katz 2006). Practices include distinguishing between the flexible and nebulous (vague) phase and the systematic (formalised) phase (Baker 2002; Cormican & O'Sullivan 2004; Katz 2006), determining the innovativeness of the initiative (Ahmed 1998(1)), identifying and deploying tools and techniques that facilitate each of the phases (Katz 2006), performing regular project appraisal (Rothwell 1992), and structuring the initiatives for effective communication and flexibility (Katz 2006).

Managing the risks associated with innovation initiatives has been identified as crucial (Ahmed 1998(1); Wycoff 2003; Dismukes 2005; Katz 2006). Practices include: encouraging a willingness to take risks (Ahmed 1998(1); Wan et al. 2005), distinguishing between programme and project risk and ensuring there is an

appropriate balance (Ahmed 1998(1); Katz 2006), establishing risk mitigation strategies (Katz 2006), and learning from failures (Wycoff 2003; Katz 2006).

Effective means of identifying opportunities, and developing ideas and solutions for those opportunities, has been recognised as vital to the successful execution of innovation initiatives (Hamel 1996; Ahmed 1998(1); Hargadon & Sutton 2000; Coulson-Thomas 2001; Tidd et al. 2001; Baker 2002; O'Connor & Ayers, 2005; Wind & Crook, 2005; Du Preez et al. 2006; Arciszewski & Zlotin, 2006). Practices include scanning internal and external environments for opportunities (Tidd et al. 2001; Baker 2002; O'Connor & Ayers 2005), effectively generating ideas (Hargadon & Sutton 2000; O'Connor & Ayers 2005; Arciszewski & Zlotin 2006), understanding and managing the stream of ideas (Ahmed 1998(1); Neely et al. 2001; Baker 2002; Reid & de Brentani, 2004), taking new perspective, challenging presuppositions, and dismissing convention (Hamel 1996; Coulson-Thomas 2001; O'Connor & Ayers 2005; Wind & Crook 2005).

Effective management of the flexible and often nebulous initial phases is considered essential in bringing exciting opportunities with great potential to pursuable business alternatives (Cohen & Levinthal 1990; Baker 2002; Reid & de Brentani 2004; Leseure et al. 2004; Williams 2005; Pretium Consulting Services 2005; Katz 2006). Practices include managing the complexities and uncertainties associated with the initial phases of an innovation initiative (Williams 2005; Katz 2006), developing trajectory strategies for initiatives in terms of their role and mission (Ahmed 1998(1)), early anticipation and resolutions of barriers to initiatives (Cooper & Kleinschmidt 1996; Cormican & O'Sullivan 2004).

The need to prioritise opportunities, and rigorously test and screen ideas has been identified as vital for ensuring that the organisation reaches a point of selection and furtherance of opportunities (Zairi 1995; Ahmed 1998(1); Hargadon & Sutton 2000; Tidd et al. 2001; Baker 2002; Cormican & O'Sullivan 2004, Dismukes 2005; Moore 2005; O'Connor & Ayers 2005; Katz 2006). Practices include prioritising organisationally aligned opportunities to create a manageable cluster (Ahmed 1998(1); Baker 2002; Moore 2005; Du Preez et al. 2006), rigorous experimental and/or tangible testing of ideas (Hargadon & Sutton 2000; Wycoff 2003; Katz 2006), discarding unsuccessful ideas (Rothwell 1992; Baker 2002; Moore 2005), ensuring rapid idea turnaround (Ahmed 1998(1), Hargadon & Sutton 2000), and incubating ideas with potential and allowing them to evolve into stimulating business propositions (Hargadon & Sutton 2000; O'Connor & Ayers 2005).

Selected opportunities must be rapidly evolved into exploitable initiatives to generate value (Zairi 1995; Ahmed 1998(1); Cozijnsen, Vrakking and Van Ijerloo 2000; Tidd et al. 2001; Brown 2003; O'Connor & Ayers 2005). Practices include consideration of bottom-line profitability, market responses, required competencies, technologies and resources, etc. (Zairi 1995; Tidd et al. 2001; O'Connor & Ayers 2005), consideration of enterprise architecture and infrastructure (O'Connor & Ayers 2005; Du Preez et al. 2006), understanding the networking behaviour within the targeted market (Coetzer 2006), and effective bridging between the nebulous initial phase and the systematic phase (O'Connor & Ayers 2005; Katz 2006).

Discussed in this paragraph are several requirements that were less explicit within the literature, but are considered nonetheless. It is not sufficient for organisations to execute only radical innovations, as the time between launches is generally long. Incremental innovation is thus vital to sustain the competitive edge on operational activities. It is however crucial that an organisation simultaneously searches for the next radical opportunity. Incrementalism will not be indefinitely sufficient (Hamel 1996) – radical, market-changing innovation will be required to ensure sustained prosperity. Practices to consider during this phase may include parallel continuation of all innovation activities, traditional operational activities – optimisation, refinement, effectiveness/efficiency/quality improvement, and cost reduction (within limits – not to the long- term detriment of operations). These traditional activities are, however, outside the scope of this research.

The final requirement for the Lifecycle Execution capability area is the need to know when to dispose of an initiative. This is not a subject generally addressed within innovation literature. One author, Moore (2005), mentions the organisational practice of having what was once a thriving line of business and unrelentingly milking that business until the market is completely saturated. The question is then: Is this the most effective means of utilising the sought-after resources of an organisation? It is the authors opinion that this is not, and that there are far more effective ways to utilise the resources of an organisation, particularly an organisation that was once (and possibly still is) able to generate innovative output. Practices to consider include establishing the point of diminished returns, ensuring that tacit knowledge created throughout the initiative is captured (both in the heads of people and processes) in order to facilitate organisational learning, and the rapid redistribution of resources.