Deep sights and analysis of existing frameworks

No matter what the size of a company is, it is always important to ensure a steady curve of growth, improvements, and success of the business, which is usually measured and evaluated periodically to

ensure things are moving in the right direction. This process can be done in many ways, and for that we find different methods, frameworks, and models that do exist in the industry and are used by many companies for this purpose.

The following section will build an additional layer for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the major current frameworks; looking into some of these frameworks that exist in the industry shall help the study find better ways to improve while designing Innoframe. Most probably the ones that will be covered are the ones that address the concepts of innovation management and portfolio management, either addressing each of the concepts alone or that address both concepts together.

This section will try to understand also the scope of each of the listed frameworks. The scope represents a main factor for judging the impact of this framework on the business. For instance, no one will expect a framework that is designed to help measure the performance of employees in certain process, to be used in measuring the turnover rate of these employees in the company. This is a matter of scope, and for that it is important to define and specify what should be expected from any framework to do and how.

In addition, the below section will not only list these frameworks, however, it will explain briefly the way the work or the concept behind designing them and establish a solid foundation for the next section that will explain in detail the designing, importance, and added value of Innoframe.

Before listing the frameworks and their corresponding explanations, it should not be forgotten that each framework has a certain motive behind its creation, which means that there is a unique and specific flavor for each one of it depending on its purpose and usage. This means that comparing them comes for the sake of shedding the light on their main functionalities and effectiveness for what they were designed for, yet not for the sake of ranking them from weak to strong or vice versa. It might be noticed that these frameworks integrate a combination of different factors and different items that does not necessary relate always together, however, the integration of these items would help the overall rational of the problem-solving process. Yes, many methods might come out integrations, which may be perceived as complex, yet the application of it would take things down into simpler steps, which are reasonable and actionable. The process of getting from complexity into simplicity in business requires a typical framework - sometimes called model - that shows the breakdown in the easiest way possible. It will be noticed in some of the following frameworks that there has been a focus to eliminate the integrity of more than two concepts at once. This fact comes from the belief that trying to eliminate complexed integrities would help keep the roles and tasks of the team clear on one hand and help prevent

duplicated efforts and redundant tasks on the other hand. The below analysis will try to shed the light on this fact, the extent of its impact, and how could it help in achieving the overall purpose of the framework.

 Channelvation Innovation Framework – By Mark Dancer

The first framework that will be discussed is a framework designed by Mark Dancer called Channelvation. This innovation framework has the same name as the company he founded back in 2012 and of which he is currently the president (Dancer, 2017). Channelvation is intended to help businesses, leaders, and teams to create visions, solve problems and strengthen their capabilities (Dancer, 2017).

Mark Dancer took his bachelor’s degree at the United States Naval Academy in Mechanical Engineering from 1975 to 1979, and then received his MBA (Master of Business Administration) from North Western University’s Kellogg School of Management in Marketing and Finance from 1987 to 1989 (Dancer, 2018). Throughout his career he has worked at a variety of companies including as Vice President at Henkel, a Principal at Pembroke Consulting, and a Strategic Advisor at Delight ME Inc.

(Dancer, 2018). He is one of the leading authorities on both channel innovation and business transformation and is a published author on the topics (Future of Channels, 2018).

Channelvation Framework is a visual representation of the innovation framework Mark Dancer designed. The framework is divided into four sections which feed into the wheel of innovation. These four sections are development, management, design, and vision. Within each section are sub-sections that apply to each broader category. As can be seen in Figure 3, the section of ‘Design’ refers to the set-up of the organization itself, the processes and systems in place within the organization, and the design of performance measures. The section entitled ‘Manage’ refers to management of the rewards systems in place, the education of employees and hiring of individuals with the required skills, as well as the deployment of resources and opportunities throughout the firm. In terms of the section

‘Develop’, this is about the development of things such as the culture within the organization, the partnerships with other organizations, and the capabilities of those working for the firm. Finally, the

‘Vision’ is about forwarding the mission of the company, identifying and striving to achieve the strategic goals, and ensuring the knowledge level of the intended customers the firm is targeting.

Figure 3: Channelvation framework (Future of Channels, 2018)

Each of these sections as well as the sub-sections within them play a role in innovation within the firm and all four are employed together to achieve a state of continuous innovation. In Figure 3, the ongoing process of innovation is represented by the center wheel in which a constant circle of arrows is depicted, indicating this connection.

The framework, and the company that uses it to help their clients, is intended to be a tool to improve the effectiveness of channels in an organization (Dancer, 2017). They also work to improve the level of innovation in businesses (Dancer, 2017). As the firm puts it, there are a variety of disruptive threats and transformations in channels that make the traditional assumption about business models much less useful (Dancer, 2017). This means that having an innovation business framework is of high importance, especially since consumers are found to be more open to changes in the way they acquire goods and services. This in turn means that disruptors are able to infiltrate a market (Dancer, 2017).

The Channelvation framework works best with specific regards to innovation with the channels, or pathways, that an organization employs. This is simply because that is the focus of the company itself (Channelvation Inc.) with regards to how they help improve other businesses when they work as consultants. On their website, Channelvation states that they welcome complex challenges to work with, and that their solutions are delivered through intensive workshops and fast-paced, focused, and

collaborative engagements (Dancer, 2017). From this, it would seem that while the framework is effective in a variety of different sized organizations, it may be better suited for those that are slightly larger in nature (medium to large organizations) as they will have more available employees who can sacrifice their regular work for a period of time in order to attend these workshops. Based on the numerous publications and the lean towards technologies as the main driver discussed as being disruptive forces, the industries which would work best for this framework would be those where technology and online presence are a major force. Of course, as we continue to head towards an increasingly high-tech world, the industries that would fit under this description continue to grow.

This framework is integrative in that it aims to include all of the various factors of an organization into its employment. This is important when considering innovation because often innovation is seen as solely from a technological standpoint and organizations get stuck in this viewpoint (Mcadam et al., 2007). This being said, the framework does have its drawbacks. As a framework, it is very vague, offering more of a general direction than any real structured system that can be followed. As well, the system does have a more pronounced focus on technology when described by the company who designed the framework. While they focus on the organization’s innovation as a whole, this technological framing does lead to a bias in terms of what pieces of innovation will be taken more heavily into account.

 Business Model Innovation – By Koen Klokgieters

Koen Klokgieters is a strategy and innovation consultant and an entrepreneur who has been in the industry for over 25 years (Klokgieters, 2018a). He started out working for AT&T (American Telephone

& Telegraph), then some start-ups out of Universities before he worked for CapGemini Consulting as their Vice-President of Strategy and Innovation in 1999 (Klokgieters, 2018a). In 2013 he founded Business Innovation & Entrepreneurship which is a network organization (Klokgieters, 2018a). He himself works to support organizations from Start-ups, all the way to Global Corporate companies and Non-profits, and he is also a formal member of numerous non-executive boards for both innovation organizations and non-profit organizations (Klokgieters, 2018a). Finally, he sees business innovation as a process of creating, developing, and capturing added value for a company that their customers can adopt, and he looks at success as a holistic and lean approach encompassing vision, strategy, organizational structure, and the dynamics of people all being put into action (Klokgieters, 2018a).

As can be seen in Figure 4: Business Model Innovation Framework, there are three sections to Mr.

Klokgieters framework: The Emotional Value Performance, the Rational Value Performance, and the Key

Building Blocks to achieving the value proposition. The rational value performance has to do mostly with the financial indicators and outcomes (Klokgieters, 2018). The emotional value performance on the other hand is the more intangible but equally important indicators such as reputation, experience and sustainability (Klokgieters, 2018). These indicators are more difficult to calculate in their impact on the business, but they are highly important factors and should not be left out of the equation. The middle section are the building blocks that help both of these things to occur. There are two key sections of building blocks, one section more related to the relations outside of the company (i.e. the customers and distribution channels), and one section that is more related to the internal streams and business units (i.e. core capabilities, networks, and business functions). Through calculating the performance values and using the building blocks, a value proposition can be identified (Klokgieters, 2018).

This framework can be useful to organizations in a variety of industries and is fairly broadly applicable.

As it incorporates both financial and other indicators, it is well-rounded in its approach and can apply to organizations of a variety of sizes. This is more believable especially considering the fact that its designer, Mr. Klokgiester, has experience both in large corporate entities as well as start-ups.

Figure 4: Business model innovation framework (Klokgieters, 2018b)

This framework has some strengths that should be pointed out. First, it is a very well-rounded framework as it incorporates indicators both on a financial basis and on the basis of more intangible or

‘emotional’ factors. Second, the framework is laid out well so that it is easy to understand and apply to an organization. Along the same lines, the framework is broad enough that it can be applied to a wide

variety of organizations, both in terms of the industry and in terms of organizational size. Thirdly, the framework focuses on a different aspect of innovation and a different approach to it, looking at the indicators from a financial and emotional standpoint to achieve a value proposition. This is a unique approach from the other frameworks being discussed, but a valuable factor to include in a framework.

Despite all of the strengths that this framework has to offer, there are still some downfalls with it that should be addressed. To start, it is supposed to be an innovation framework and yet it focuses primarily on a value proposition, meaning it is not a framework that integrates innovation throughout the organization, instead focusing on the R&D aspect of innovation. This is the biggest issue with the framework but not the sole downfall. The framework also does not highlight the interconnections between the different areas or suggest feedback loops to ensure that checks are made. It also does not give any indication of the process by which each of these sections should be implemented. While this can be beneficial, it can also cause less success in innovation if the general flow of steps has not been outlined, especially within organizations where managers/leaders have no formal training in the area of innovation management.

 The Innovation Diamond – By Stage Gate International

Stage-Gate International was founded by Dr. Scott J. Edgar and Dr. Rogert G. Cooper both of whom are published authors in academia and have consulted and advised companies on portfolio management and product innovation around the globe (Edgett, 2013). The organization itself is a globally recognized brand working with companies across all industries and all sizes to enable them to achieve product innovation and product portfolio management success (Edgett, 2013). While the founders have over 30 years of experience with product innovation performance, Stage-Gate International was only started in 2000 (Edgett, 2013). Since then, the consulting firm has been helping other organizations to improve their product innovation performance through key drivers such as product innovation and technology strategy, new product portfolio management, the Stage-Gate idea-to-launch processes, and through culture and leadership initiatives (Edgett, 2013).

As can be seen from Figure 5: The Innovation Diamond, there are four keyways in which an organization can achieve new product performance. These four ‘points’ of the diamond represent the four ways in which Stage-Gate International approaches a product innovation dilemma within an organization. Starting at the top of the diamond, they want to address the strategies that the organization is using in terms of product and technology innovation. This is an important piece,

especially regarding organizations with a focus on product development, but as mentioned by (McAdam, Keogh, Reid, & Mitchell, 2007) should not be the sole focus of an organization.

Figure 5: The innovation diamond (Stage Gate Incorporation, 2019)

This is where the other points of Stage-Gate’s diamond come into play. The second way they look to achieve new product performance is through portfolio management, which as has been noted, is a key technique that should be used in a holistic employment of innovation management (Mavroeidis &

Tarnawska, 2016). In this way, they can ensure that the product mix they are identifying for an organization is the best possible fit given any restrictions that may be in place. The third point they identify is the climate, culture and the leadership. These are all very important drivers of innovation as they allow for an organization wide adoption and acceptance of new processes and approaches to thinking. Finally, the fourth prong of this framework is the use of Stage-Gate’s idea-to-launch process.

This is a process designed by the company, which according to them, is the industry standard for the management of new product innovation. It is a process that integrates a variety of performance-driving practices in a way that is easy to understand and implement. It is a useful tool for any organization looking to launch new products or technologies, and for those who are looking to improve current products and technologies that their organization offers and employs (Edgett, 2013).

The founders and the company itself have used this framework within a variety of organizations in terms of size, from SMEs to large corporate enterprises (Edgett, 2013). In this respect, the framework has a fairly large applicability. However, the focus on product development and innovation means that this

particular framework is only useful in industries that are product-based. A firm that is primarily service-based will only find this framework useful to a certain extent, that being mostly driven from a technological innovation standpoint. Even if the framework would be useful to an extent from the technology innovation aspects of their business, many service-based firms will not wish to employ this framework as it does not fit perfectly with the needs of their firm.

The Stage-Gate Innovation Diamond framework has numerous strengths. To start, it is multifaceted, meaning that it does not just approach its intended goal from one angle. It instead takes into account a number of different aspects of a business that have an impact on that business’s ability to innovate in order to attack the problem from all sides. This allows the framework to be comprehensive. It also has the strength of its fourth prong of attack, that being the idea-to-launch process developed by Stage-Gate International. This particular prong is a specific step-by-step guide which can help to structure an organization’s product innovation. The structure it gives to the fairly fluid and creative process of innovating new product ideas is important, especially given that it is supposed to be an incredibly easy to follow guide, meaning anyone can implement it with some success.

This framework does however have some shortcomings. As previously mentioned, the framework is dedicated to product and technology innovations. The center goal in Figure 5 shows this quite explicitly, as the four prongs meet in the middle where they achieve ‘New Product Performance’. This represents the main drawback of this framework – it is not applicable to any firm who is not looking to work on product innovation specifically. While the consulting firm articulates that they tailor their programs to the client looking for their services, it is unclear how useful much of their framework would be to a client who does not have any need for product innovation help.

 Decision Driven Innovation Framework – By Decision Driven Solutions

The following framework was designed by Design Driven Solutions, a blog and organization developed by John Fitch (Decision Driven Solutions, 2008). He has spent over 30 years as a decision management consultant, primarily for high-technology companies (Decision Driven Solutions, 2008).

The vision of the organization is to become the standard for organizations across the board in proactively managing their strategies as well as for individuals to manage their lives and achieve their visions (Decision Driven Solutions, 2008).

Figure 6: Decision driven innovation framework (Decision Driven Solutions, 2008)

The innovation framework by Decision Driven Solutions can be seen as a visual representation in Figure 6:

Decision Driven Innovation Framework, above. As is apparent from Figure 6, it is an in-depth and specific framework designed almost as a flow chart. It starts with three key methods, those being Technology Core Competencies, the Value Chain Strategy, and Target Markets, and then it becomes increasingly specific with approaches, techniques, and tools the further down the ‘flow chart’ one gets. On top of this, it incorporates a list of ‘ideas’ which appear next to certain flow-chart steps as usable items. From this it develops a number of scenarios combining different options for technologies, behaviors, products, and marketing strategies among other things.

The idea behind the framework was to make and use strategies through decision breakdown structures (Decision Driven Solutions, 2008). This is where each decision is treated as a fundamental question or issue that needs a solution (Decision Driven Solutions, 2008). By using their framework, one develops alternatives to each decision (Decision Driven Solutions, 2008). As baselines are captured, organizations can then look to where the organization’s solution to a question is not performing well so that adjustments can be made (Decision Driven Solutions, 2008). It is essentially a framework for the advanced use of decision patterns (Decision Driven Solutions, 2008).

This framework is useful in organizations who are highly organized and structured, as the framework requires both of those things. It also requires a lot of time and energy spent in a ‘think-tank’ state where individuals can devote large chunks of time to brainstorming (Decision Driven Solutions, 2008). This may pose a problem for smaller organizations who cannot afford to devote so much time and energy away from their day-to-day operations. Other than the complex nature of the framework causing blocks to the use of the framework in certain firms, it can be applicable in a variety of industries and types of firms. As a framework that looks at decision-making as a tool for innovation, it is actually quite useful to any organization who needs to make decisions, which of course is a core piece of business and therefore essentially universal.

Going off of the last point made above, one of the major strength of this framework is that it has a universal applicability to it in terms of the driving factor in innovation. This framework focuses on decisions which is fairly unique considering the other frameworks that have and will be discussed in this document. The framework also has the strength that it is highly focused and efficient in terms of the set-up and processes employed while using the framework. The specific and well-laid out nature of processes within the framework can also be beneficial. Both of these points, however, as will be discussed momentarily, can also be problematic.

As was pointed out, there are also downfalls to this framework. Although the specific and intricate nature of the framework can be helpful in terms of giving a tangible list of specific tasks and initiatives to follow, this framework almost takes it too far, making it confusing and difficult to follow. This is detrimental to organizations with fewer resources that can be devoted to sorting out the framework and it may deter management who want something that requires less intense training and understanding for their employees. The deeply specific nature of the framework also has the ability to create too much structure which can quash innovation rather than foster is. This may occur because employees will get too focused on hitting all of the necessary marks rather than on the creativity and brainstorming required for innovation. It can also lead to a focus entirely on the achievement of making decisions rather than putting the focus on the implementation of those decisions into valuable actions. Finally, this framework requires a lot of time and energy to implement effectively. For firms that do not have the capability to pull employees away from their daily business tasks for extended periods of time to participate in focused innovation think-tanks, this framework becomes useless and unattainable.