This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In the course of this first month of 2016, I was asked a couple of times what my prospects are for the year ahead when it comes to key innovtion issues. Hence, I gave it some thought, starting by revisting an earlier reflection: Beginning of 2013, Tim Kastelle and I identified four key issues in innovation management for the time to come.
The aim was to understand how Musk makes these radicalinnovations possible and how exactly he propels innovation. Less than 10% of all innovation falls under this category. The typical innovationprocess involving in-house R&D is not sufficient to crack a radicalinnovation of such magnitude.
Those tools are often organized as independent units or activities within the corporation or are ideally embedded in a single unit dedicated to explorative innovation altogether along with internal ventures. This connection between the front end of the innovationprocess and the back end […] is an area that really needs a lot of attention.
Some studies indicate that up to 99 percent of businesses are trapped there because of “spiral staircase” leadership and not-invented-here-syndrome at the same time they claim that innovation is important for both growth and profit. AI and digitalization is and will continue to be a powerful engine for innovation in the years ahead.
The upper right quadrant (ME) in Figure 2 is where offer innovation takes place. It is typically based on sales innovation (see below) and market innovation. Examples are all the companies with a structured new product development (NPD) process. This was also something pointed out at the Davos meeting in 2016.
The upper right quadrant (ME) in Figure 2 is where offer innovation takes place. It is typically based on sales innovation (see below) and market innovation. Examples are all the companies with a structured new product development (NPD) process. This was also something pointed out at the Davos meeting in 2016.
Some studies indicate that up to 99 percent of businesses are trapped there because of “spiral staircase” leadership and not-invented-here-syndrome at the same time they claim that innovation is important for both growth and profit. AI and digitalization is and will continue to be a powerful engine for innovation in the years ahead.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 29,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content