Loading...
Answers
MenuWhy don't companies practice innovation more regularly?
This question has no further details.
Answers
1.They don't think strategically long term
2.They don't understand that their true assets are their people and are afraid of excellence instead of promoting it
3.Their leadership lacks development
Having worked with a variety of technology companies, most of them claim to be innovative but it is very difficult to be truly innovative.
In general, companies don't practice innovation more regularly because often times, they are bogged down with operational, revenue, or engineering issues. Technical debt built up by previous engineering practices can hamper innovation. Broken operational issues to keep business processes in place can destroy innovation by the "we have always done it this way approach." Companies often times are also focused on revenue issues and are trying to find that stability before they can truly practice innovation.
Long story short, a lot of companies need to be in a stable state of mind with an agile culture (not necessarily cash flow positive or profitable) to practice innovation. In my 7 years of experience speaking with hundreds of companies, only a handful have been truly innovative. Happy to jump on a call to talk through more detail with you.
Innovation in my experience is not something a company can practice as a whole it grows more in the culture and in the people that work for the company. The senior leaders of a business can encourage innovation by allowing for more "free" time to explore passions and by creating a safe space to challenge the norm. However, they need to hire people who are curious and creative thinkers to allow for innovation to occur. I have watched several documentaries and researched this. A lot of this stems from how we are raised and our education system where we are limited in any generation with how manny truly innovative thinkers exist. Although companies says that they want to be innovative, they need to hire the right people and build the right environment for people to be innovative towards the business.
In the book "Loonshots", author Safi Bahcall indicates that looming barriers to innovation include:
Organization size
Structure
Reward systems
In his theory, organizations above a certain size threshold (roughly about 150 people, not very big) shift in a couple of key ways that tend to put the brakes on innovation.
First, they'll notice a change in motivation. Larger companies tend to have a more hierarchical structure, leading to more opportunities for promotion. As a result, employees' thinking shifts away from the "mission" of the job and company, and toward how to get promoted, get the bigger bonus, and so on. As a part of this, the influence of, and opportunity for, organizational politics increases as well.
Second, the hierarchical structure creates a few barriers in itself - more red tape, more silos, and more job specialization. Employees become more narrow in their focus and spend more productive time working on organizational requirements than on their jobs, much less on ways to innovate within their job, organization, or industry.
With smaller organizations, innovation is not guaranteed - it must become a part of the collective culture or focus of the organization, and time and latitude for innovative and creative thinking must be accommodated (but not mandated or fenced in, like the mythical 15% of the workweek allocated by certain tech companies). However, with less time spent focusing on politics, red tape, getting promoted, and more time "cross-pollinating" with others in the organization, there is far more opportunity and success in innovative thinking.
I'd love to discuss this further with you by phone - please don't hesitate to reach out.
A lot of companies like to PLAY IT SAFE and innovation is everything but that. Innovation takes risk and that scares people.
It’s not easy to move fast with a large team. Innovation is the result of processes and processes are run by people.
Companies that regularly perform SWOT analysis are more innovative contrary to those who do not perform any SWOT analysis because SWOT analysis gives businesses a unique way of re-evaluating their positions encouraging companies to involve in innovation more regularly.
Besides if you do have any questions give me a call: https://clarity.fm/joy-brotonath
Related Questions
-
How to go about developing a hackathon?
Start by organizing a Startup Weekend event. It is more like the franchise model, and they will provide lots of support for you, collateral, etc. The second time you can spin off into your own thing once you have the experience.JS
-
Would you present the complete picture to a big investor or segment it and follow smaller more manageable investors?
Thank you for asking your question here on Clarity. The healthy discussion will also benefit many members of the community. The first company that I built and successfully sold, a BBS turned ISP (aka "Internet Service Provider", more here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/exitcoach), was indeed a "radical new approach". The internet back in the mid '90s was so "radical" that Elon Musk said this about it: "Back in '95 there weren't very many people on the internet, and certainly nobody was making any money at all. Most people thought the internet was going to be a fad." (video here: http://ElonMusk.fyi.to/YoungMillionaire). That company took me 7 years to build and sell, VERY painful first few years. No money for new tyres, then no money for petrol, eventually no money for public transportation. My second company, a free web hosting service, provided a radical new user experience. Rather than hosting your free web page on an "ugly" Geocities URL you could use an elegant www.yourname.hpg.com.br, among other clever enhancements. But at the core, hpG was no different than Geocities, Tripod or many of the other contenders. Apart from the enhanced user experience it was because we had a SOUND exit strategy from day 1 that we sold that company in 18 months and with a valuation 3X higher than my first company. BOTH with NO outside investors btw. Personally, I prefer the kind of "radical new approach" that enhances the user experience, zooming on an image by spreading 2 fingers over the screen (thank you Steve Jobs), than the radical kind of time/money that goes into the R&D required to create a palmtop, only for another clever entrepreneur to come along and leverage on your previous investment and reap the rewards thereof. Like what happened to Xerox, the inventor of the GUI, when Microsoft/Apple had a sneak peak at it. As far as investors go, it's a zoo out there. And "marrying" the wrong one can have grave consequences for the unexperienced entrepreneur. Most of the "big investors" are taking a portfolio approach (not that you cannot extract value from such a relationship) and many of the "smaller more manageable investors" bring little or no value other than financial capital. What you really want to find is intellectual capital, investors that have previously built and sold successful companies themselves before. The Marc Andreessen's of the world. Investor's that care much more about WHO you are, WHY you are pursuing entrepreneurial success, and that are asking themselves WHAT they can do to help you make your dreams come true. Investors that invest in true founders and not fundraisers. You may want to also look at this other related question here on Clarity: https://clarity.fm/questions/4857/what-is-the-ideal-time-to-reach-investors If there's anything I can do to help you build and sell a successful startup, feel free to engage me here on Clarity. Thank you!RM
-
How do I calculate the value of my startup if there are people interested in investing before the launch?
Ugh. Investors. Here's the harsh or maybe happy truth. If your Startup offering (product, service, information, courseware, consulting, etc) provides stellar value, then you require no investment. Do your launch + if money starts pouring in, either skip the investors of if you really must use investors (doubtful, if you're providing stellar value), then the more revenue you have, the better terms you'll get from investors.DF
-
How to do internal hackathons the right way?
The best ones are done over the weekend. My favorite schedule for it is from Saturday morning until Sunday noon. You could make it a competition for people to build something to solve something specific. They have the liberty to do whatever tool they think best to solve that problem. Also, make sure the prize is useful for them.RD
-
What is Xiaomi truly selling?
Assuming links work here, a couple good articles: http://www.techinasia.com/xiaomi-reports-monthly-revenues-49-million-miui-android-ecosystem/ http://thenextweb.com/asia/2013/09/06/heres-why-you-should-care-about-rising-chinese-smartphone-firm-xiaomi/ http://www.rioleo.org/xiaomi-miui-and-the-android-ecosystem-within-china.php In short, everyone wants a piece of the ecosystem game. Some is poorly thought out (Leap Motion is doing it badly) but for the core concept I refer you to Motorola's mobile phone business. Several times they have been the absolute dominant force in the industry. But, when you sell consumer hardware only, busts can follow booms. And did for them, many times. An ecosystem means ongoing revenue, not just periodic hardware sales. It means secondary market sales are the same to you, as the ongoing revenue is what you want, and it means increased stickiness. Apple lives by this, and embraces their customers being stuck on their products. There is almost no such thing as an apples-to-apples comparison consumers can make when the get used to your ecosystems. Perceived or actual switching costs muddy the waters for them, so you have them longer. Xiaomi is getting this sort of loyalty. There's other interesting issues having to do with their market. Play store, for example, is not really a thing in China. I can go on and on about this, so ask me if you have additional questions.SH
the startups.com platform
Copyright © 2025 Startups.com. All rights reserved.