The Innovation Map: A framework for defining innovation outcomes.

in Process & Tools

What are the objectives of your innovation efforts? When talking to executives about innovation or innovation initiatives I very often experience that the objectives are not clear.

To focus the discussion and make objectives clearer, I developed an innovation map featuring 4 prototypical innovation types.

Using the map not only helps to focus the discussion, but also serves as an evaluation tool to see whether innovation efforts are in line with the desired outcomes.

Defining Innovation Types.
View more presentations from Marc Sniukas.

Use the map and tell me how it worked for you. Have a look at The Innovation Map on slideshare.

Thanks to Vincente Centelles for translating the map into Spanish.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Tagged as: Innovation, Management Innovation, Strategic Innovation

  • Pingback: Marc Sniukas » Blog Archive » Driving Innovation: How to get started?

  • http://zephram.de/ Graham Horton

    Thanks for the interesting article – I am a big fan of explanatory visualizations like this one.

    I think there is a little room for improvement. It's too complicated for a comment, so I posted it here: http://bit.ly/baFfJH

  • http://twitter.com/sniukas Marc Sniukas

    Dear Graham,

    thanks a lot for your comments. I like to get feedback and engage in a discussion! :-)

    In general: I think the most important thing is to clarify what one is talking about, when referring to “innovation”. Thus it might not be important that everybody agrees on these 4 types/outcomes or the axis, the purpose should rather be to get the discussion going and build a common understanding among the people talking about innovation.

    To your first point: Yes, I actually do see these 4 types of innovations as outcomes of an innovation process. I'm not totally clear why “types” would be something different than “outcomes” to you. “Types” does include “outcomes” I'd argue, along processes for example. (I'm currently working on a post to further illustrate this.)

    Regarding your second point: Of course product and process innovations can be discontinuous as well, but then they belong to what I call strategic innovation and management innovation (by definition). Have a look at the posts defining these two types of innovation on my blog:
    http://www.sniukas.com/2009/12/what-is-strategi… and http://www.sniukas.com/2009/10/what-is-manageme…

    I think they make it clearer why I refer to these types of innovation as being discontinuous. I guess it is important to define the 4 types before we can say whether they are continuous of discontinuous.

    For many companies I work with continuous process improvements are part of their continuous improvement plans, so we needed a new category for the discontinuous efforts. Continuous product innovation is often part of the regular R&D processes within companies. So again it makes sense to have a different category for the discontinuous efforts. More so when R&D does not produce these. That's why skunk works for invented for example.

    It has also been argued in the innovation, strategy and change literature that discontinuous efforts necessitate different processes and approaches. So I'd argue it makes sense to separate the two.

    I don't see why “Value Creation” is the opposite of “Structure”? Can I not create value by innovating my organizational structure?

    I would argue that organizational performance can also be achieved through process improvements and not only through structural innovations. Just like value can be created through enhanced organizational performance.

    Your 4 types and axes clearly have a different purpose than my initial Innovation Map.

    So much for now…let's keep the discussion going. Anybody else wants to join in? Looking forward to your response.

  • http://zephram.de/ Graham Horton

    Marc,

    Regarding types and outcomes: What I am getting at here is the difference between tasks and goals. Product innovation is a task (it is something that you do), and an improved product is the goal (the outcome you are trying to achieve.) Innovation is not a goal in and of itself – it is just a means to an end.

    I do understand your definitions, but I think they are misleading. This is because of their implications. Both product and process innovations can be discontinuous without needing to reclassify them as management or strategy. When Sony replaced the cassette-based Walkman by the CD-Walkman it was a discontinuous product innovation, but not a innovation in their strategy. (In fact, I would guess that their strategy was completely unaffected!) Similarly, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of innovations in management that do not qualify as discontinuous.

    I certainly agree that discontinuous efforts necessitate different processes and approaches to incremental ones and that it therefore makes sense to distinguish them.

    I don't want to claim that “Value Creation” is the opposite of “Structure”!

    I was using “value creation” in the sense that Alex Osterwalder uses it in his business model template.

    I agree with you that organizational performance can also be achieved through process improvements and not only through structural innovations. I should replace that term by something more appropriate.

    My map isn't intended to have a different purpose to yours; I am just trying to make it clearer (at least, to my way of thinking!)

    Cheers

    Graham

  • http://twitter.com/sniukas Marc Sniukas

    Hi Graham,

    referring to the walkman: I would classify it as a completely new value proposition and as such it's part of what has been termed “strategic innovation” in the literature. Also Osterwalder's value creation is part of strategic innovation, which in it's very nature is discontinuous. The walkman has created an entirely new market for a product that didn't exist before.

    Think of the Nintendo Wii: it's not a classic case of product innovation, but it certainly fits the criteria of a disruptive innovation that created a new market, which again would be a case of strategic innovation.

    But as I said…it's best to use the model however it suits you. ;-)

    All the best,
    Marc

  • http://zephram.de/ Graham Horton

    Marc,

    You wrote: “referring to the walkman: I would classify it as a completely new value proposition and as such it's part of what has been termed “strategic innovation” in the literature. [...] The walkman has created an entirely new market for a product that didn't exist before.”

    There we disagree: Replacing the cassette-based Walkman by the CD-based version does not qualify (to my mind) as a new value proposition. Why not? Because the product based on the new technology is doing exactly the same job as its predecessor (providing mobile music). It just does it a lot better. And I don't see how the CD Walkman created a new market: it just inherited the market that had been created by the original (cassette) Walkman.

    Graham

  • http://twitter.com/sniukas Marc Sniukas

    I was talking about the invention of the walkman as such (e.g. as a product category if you like), not the CD version. I agree that the CD version is “just” continuous innovation.

    Cheers,
    Marc

  • Pingback: Driving innovation through a series of workshops

  • Pingback: Marc Sniukas » Blog Archive » Driving innovation through a series of workshops

  • Pingback: Quora

Previous post:

Next post: