Why most corporate innovation programs fail?

innovation programs
Written by ARN Expert

During most of the twentieth century, large firms could predict the next five years with a high degree of accuracy programs. However, technological advancements have changed the rules of the game in the twenty-first century, resulting in a more ambiguous and befuddling corporate climate. These same organisations are now being compelled to adapt to these changes in order to continue to be a force in the future while without jeopardising what makes them a force now.

Do you wish to conduct interviews with potential clients?

Sales won’t let you speak with their clients because they don’t want to jeopardise the relationship between the two parties.

Do you want to try out a brief experiment on yourself?

Sorry for the inconvenience, but in order to be considered for funding, you must submit this 10-page business case, and the investment committee will not meet for many weeks after that. How about a return on investment for your experiment?

You want to put your prototype on the cloud, don’t you?

Sorry, but you’ll have to host it on our servers for privacy reasons, which means the risk, effort, and money associated with getting this done will soar. Are you sure you want to proceed? These common occurrences are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what lies ahead. Processes, processes, and attitudes must be aligned with the behaviours and realities required to really innovate such as speed, experimentation, cross-functional teams, customer access, and so on in order to have a chance of succeeding in the long run.

Doesn’t it seem to be a significant amount of effort? This is due to the fact that that is the case. Because of this, most innovation initiatives fail before they ever get off the ground, as shown by the following three main errors that I often see when working with field executives. In contrast to current programmes, an effective innovation programme adds to them rather than replaces them.

It goes without saying that Alphabet is one of the most powerful businesses on the globe. Despite this, it has a drawback that is often overlooked. This company is heavily dependent on a single source of revenue, similar to how Xerox and Kodak were decades ago. For the year 2018, advertising contributed 86 per cent of the company’s revenue, with the vast bulk of that revenue coming from its Google search segment.

This was the motivation for the creation of the company’s X division. Because the subsidiary was established to examine the potential outside of the company’s primary search business, it did not encounter significant criticism. This division is often seen to be a continuation of the characteristics that made Alphabet so successful in the first place.

Another important characteristic is that the X division acts as a platform for the incubation of internal projects inside the organisation. For example, Google Brain started as a “20 per cent time project,” according to the company. The project was shifted to the X division as it grew in complexity and demanded more resources, where it was expanded even further up. It ultimately found its way back to the mothership, where it is now a crucial part of the primary mission.

Take note of how the X division’s goal was to complement, rather than replace, the innovation ambitions of the core company. That has played a crucial role in its growth, leading to innovative new enterprises like Waymo driverless vehicles and the Verily health-care subsidiary.

Rather of focusing on the differences, try to find the commonalities.

All too often, the ability to distinguish oneself from the crowd is the lifeblood of innovation attempts. A group of outliers and disruptors who think in a different way than the rest of the firm is put together by them as part of their job. However, although this may be beneficial in terms of building a strong feeling of community among those involved in the innovation programme, it is likely to alienate others who are not involved.

In order to be successful, every change effort must be based on shared goals and values, as I outline in the Cascades. This is how you build trust and provide the framework for fruitful collaboration between the innovation programme and the rest of the organisation. It is certain that every effort at innovation will fail unless and until such ties of trust have been created.

You can see how this works at the X division of Alphabet Corporation. While it is not regarded to be a fundamentally different business from Google’s principal business, it is seen as a means for the company’s assets to be channelled in new directions. It is looking for a range of business opportunities, but its fundamental values have not changed.

In order to answer the first and most significant question, we must first determine why a corporate innovation programme is required in the first place. If your argument is that you do not feel your organisation is sufficiently inventive, you must first address this problem head-on. A well-designed innovation programme cannot be exploited to cover up bigger issues inside the main company’s operations.

It Is Not Enough to Have an Executive Sponsor to Get Things Done

No firm innovation programme will be successful unless it has significant management support. The commitment must start at the top of the organisation. Executive sponsorship, on the other hand, is woefully inadequate. You will lose support from the top unless you can build support among crucial stakeholders both inside and outside of the organisation.

When Eric Haller started Datalabs at Experian, he prioritised the needs of customers above the needs of the company’s internal concepts. In his words, “we sit down with our consumers on a regular basis to try to figure out what’s upsetting them,” because “we understand that solving problems opens up huge economic opportunity for us.”

Leave a Comment