Serious about innovation

In 2010, 142 patent applications were submitted in South Africa [1]. In that same period, the state of California had 30 080 submissions. It may be an unfair comparison, given the scale of economies, with the US being an economic powerhouse while South Africa is still often regarded as that area at the bottom of Africa.

So, with SA's inclusion as a country with an emerging economy to BRICS, maybe I'd be safer comparing ZA to the other BRICS nations. In the same period, their patent application figures were: Brazil - 219, Russia - 287, India - 1 137 and China - 3 303. In short, SA is trailing, and if the country is not taking innovation seriously, somebody else is.

Everyone agrees that innovation is a key driver of competitive productivity and economic growth, and there's no information shortage relating to how people should go about innovating. The process is certainly well documented; however, identifying innovation opportunities may still be elusive.

Let's get this clear, no innovation strategy that's been adopted from one company is going to yield the same results for another. That's the long and short of it, and the sooner that fact is recognised, the easier innovation is going to get. Companies like Google, Apple and Proctor & Gamble (each with highly successful innovation strategies) have yielded positive results partially because they don't directly rely on their competitors to make the first move, and neither should any other company. No two organisations are the same, even if they're competing for the same market with the same product.

Every decision that led to its current state has effected subtle nuances in organisational evolution. This makes every company unique, so why should its innovation strategy be any different? The selection of innovation process is simple enough these days, but the task of choosing an innovation direction in a specific industry or organisation is still daunting. Every company that's serious about innovation is going to need an innovation strategy:

Here are a few tips that will hopefully assist in alleviating some of that uncertainty, and help decide on innovation spend...

Firstly, consider the organisational strategy.

No innovation strategy that's been adopted from one company is going to yield the same results for another.

Viren L Maharaj is founder and principal consultant at King StraTech Consulting.

If an innovation strategy isn't supporting the organisational strategy, then its purpose is questionable. Coming from a technical background, I've seen a few humdinger innovation strategies, and in my professional opinion, the good ones always support the overall company strategy, which is already heavily influenced by business trends, market moves and consumer spend, so this is a great place to start.

Much of the homework has been done by the business analysts back at HQ; now it's the company's job to develop the innovation strategy. Any strategy, even an innovation strategy, must consist of strategic objectives. Now I can't offer advice on what they should be, but I can say that each must support (in some way or the other) the organisational strategy with a measurable timeframe attached to it. Once these are identified and prioritised, the company is well on the way...

Secondly, honestly evaluate the company's current technology stack capability.

An honest evaluation of an organisation's technology stack is going to yield solid results, as this will assist in identifying which assets can be scaled to support the innovation and ultimately, the organisational strategy.

That highly focused group of analysts back at HQ may want the graphics and user experience of the most widely used mobile street-view application on the market, but a sober look at the tech will identify where to spend an innovation budget. Rate technology assets against its ability to support the innovation strategy, and the company will quickly identify which are going to make the cut.

Third, and in my experience, probably the least considered factor in innovation spend in SA, evaluate the target client base. The Diffusion of Innovation bell curve is probably the most useful model available when targeting prospective customers with innovation. Made famous by Everett Rogers (he actually introduced the term 'early adopter') in 1962 [2], much research has been done regarding consumer adoption, and the results are quite telling.

Innovators (2.5% of the consumer market) are more willing to accept experiments with incomplete products and accepting of setbacks than any other consumer demographic.

Early adopters (13.5%) are easy to sell to, once they see the advantage. They have the most social participation, are less fatalistic, and have the greatest exposure to mass media and interpersonal communication. They are, however, the most difficult consumer demographic to please.

The early majority (34%) will deliberate before adopting; prefer to buy from market leaders. They care about quality, service and support.

Late majority (34%) consumers are conservative, less open to change and adopt as a result of social or economic necessity. They are risk-averse and are motivated by cost, security and capability.

Rounding up the curve are the laggards (16%), who are the least active in social networks; suspicious of innovation. Generally though, these consumers purchase technology with high capability and maturity at low costs, even if they're a cycle behind.

Rogers' bell curve offers benefits by assisting companies to correctly identify and service client needs. If a client base cares more for security and efficiency, then providing a product that is slow and unproven won't win any favour. However, if a client is comfortable with risk and cost, only the latest and greatest will do. Either way, used properly, this model will surely assist the innovation process. Remember, if a company wants to get serious about innovation, it is going to have to take innovation seriously...

References:

[1] All Patent Types (December 2010), US Patent and Trademark Office Patent Technology Monitoring Team http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_all.htm
[2] Rogers, Everett M (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, Macmillan Company.