WP - 44 - How To Innovate When The Market Is Mature

Product Development nstitute nc.
2000-2013
Product Development nstitute nc. and Stage-Gate are registered trademarks.
Logo for Product Development nstitute nc. used under license by Stage-Gate nternational
Logo for Stage-Gate used under license where appropriate.
Product Innovation Best Practices Series
Perspective:
The Innovation Dilemma:
How to Innovate When the Market Is Mature
Reference Paper #44
Robert G. Cooper
Compliments of:
Stage-Gate International and
Product Development Institute Inc.

This article appeared in J. Product Innovation Management
Volume 28, ssue S1, pp 2-27

For information call +1-905-304-8797 www.stage-gate.com

Perspective: The Innovation Dilemma: How to Innovate When
the Market Is Mature
Robert G. Cooper
Most companies have ambitious growth goals. The trouble is there are only so many sources of market growth. Markets
in many countries and industries are mature and increasingly commoditized; achieving growth in market share is
expensive; and acquisitions often do not work. For most companies, product development means line extensions,
improvements, and product modications, and only serves to maintain market share. Markets arent growing, so rms
increasingly compete for a piece of a shrinking pie by introducing one insignicant new product after another. The
launch of a truly differentiated new product in mature markets is rare these days. As a result, development portfolios
have become decidedly less innovative since the mid-1990s, and R&D productivity is down.
The answer is bold innovationbreakthrough products, services and solutions that create growth engines for the
future. This means larger-scope and more systems-oriented solutions and service packages. Examples such as Apples
iPod are often cited. (Note that Apple did not invent the MP3 player, nor was this opportunity in a blue ocean; in fact
there were 43 competitors when Apple launched!) What Apple did succeed in was in identifying an attractive strategic
arena (MP3s) where it could leverage its strengths to its advantage and then to develop a solution that solved users
problems. The resultan easy-to-use, easy-to-download MP3 system, which also happened to be cool.
Our benchmarking studies reveal that ve vectors must be in place to undertake this type of innovation to yield bolder
and more imaginative development projects. First, develop a bold innovation strategy that focuses your business on the
right strategic arenas that promise to be engines of real growth. Most businesses focus their efforts in the wrong areason
at markets, mature technologies, and tired product categories. Break out of this box towards more promising strategic
arenas with extreme opportunities. Next, foster a climate and culture that promotes bolder innovation. Leadership is vital
to success. If senior management does not have the appetite for these big concepts, then all your efforts and systems will
fail. Senior management plays a vital role here in promoting an innovative climate in your business. Next, create big
ideas for integrated product-service solutions. The best methods for generating breakthrough new product ideas are
identied in this paper. Then drive these big conceptsto market quickly via a systematic and disciplined idea-to-launch
system designed for major innovation initiatives. Just because these projects are imaginative and bold is no reason to
throw discipline out the window. In fact, quite the reverse is true. Finally build a solid business case and focus on the
winners. Most innovation teams dont get the facts, and consequently build weak business cases; the result is that many
worthwhile innovations dont get the support they need to be commercialized. Its essential to do the front-end homework,
and so build a compelling business case. Then make the right investment decisionsevaluating big concepts for
development when little information is available. Note that nancial models dont work well when it comes to evaluating
major innovations, because the data are often wrong. But other methods can be used to make these tough go/kill decisions.
Illustrations and examples are provided from many industries and companies to show how to implement these ve
vectors.
The Challenge
M
ost companies have ambitious growth goals.
The challenge is that there are only so many
sources of growth. Four of thesemarket
growth, market share increases, new markets, and
acquisitionsare proving difcult or expensive. Markets
in many industrialized countries and industries are
mature and increasingly commoditized; gains in market
shares are expensive; and acquisitions often dont work.
New marketsIndia and China, for examplepose
special problems; moreover, those rms which have
entered Asia have already realized the benets. Even
traditional product developmentfor most companies,
this means line extensions, improvements, and product
Address correspondence to: Robert G. Cooper, Product Development
Institute, Inc., 1425 Osprey Drive, Suite 201, Ancaster Business Park,
Ancaster, Ontario L9G 4V5, Canada. Tel.: 905 304 8798. Fax: 905-304-
8799. E-mail: robertcooper@cogeco.ca.
J PROD INNOV MANAG 2011;28(S1):227
2000-2013 Product Development & Management Association
Copyright 2000-2013 Product Development nstitute nc. www.stage-gate.com
modicationsseems depleted, and only serves to main-
tain market share.
The dilemma is this: shareholders and executives want
a steady stream of protable and high-prole new prod-
ucts, but management practices and the external environ-
ment are steering companies in a different direction:
toward smaller, less risky, and less ambitious initiatives.
Creating truly differentiated new products in mature
markets is rare these days. Research shows that one of the
foremost keys to protability in new product develop-
ment is developing and launching a unique superior
product with a compelling value proposition (Cooper,
2005c). This is easier said than done, as these differenti-
ated products are becoming harder and harder to discover
and create. Markets are mature, and hence its increas-
ingly difcult to create the breakthrough or game-
changing new product. Examples are the food industry
and the engineering/heavy equipment industryhuge
industries, but difcult to nd true innovations. More-
over, disruptive and step-change technologies are increas-
ingly rare in most industries. Even high-tech industries
struggle for the next great innovation: new technolo-
gies emerge as these markets mature, then user needs
change quickly and competitors launch new product after
new product; its difcult to sustain product competitive
advantage in this leapfrog world. Examples are the cell
phone, digital camera, software, and laptop computer
industries.
One result of this innovation dilemma is a drop in
productivity in R&D spending in the United States. Over
a decade, cycle times in product development have
reduced from 41.7 months to 24 months, according to a
PDMA study (Adams and Boike, 2004). This is an
astounding 42% decrease in time-to-market in 10 years!
Why? Could it be that we have become that much more
time-efcient in a decade? Not really, when one looks at
the rest of the facts. R&D spending has remained con-
stant (as a percent of companies sales), but prots
derived from new products are down from 33.2% of busi-
ness prots to 28.3% during the same 10-year period, a
shocking 15% drop (Cooper, 2005a). So time to market is
down, but so is productivity, measured by the sales-to-
R&D ratio. Whats happening?
This productivity drop is a measurable performance
outcome of the innovation dilemma. Simply stated, man-
agements in most companies, facing mature markets,
tough completion, commoditization, and shareholder
demands for short-term prots, not surprisingly have
opted to focus on short-term, low risk, simple develop-
ment projectslow-hanging fruit initiatives. Consider
the portfolio breakdowns in Exhibit 1, a comparison of
this centurys portfolio so far with the breakdown in the
mid-1990s (Cooper, 2005a):
New-to-the-world products are down by almost half, to

11% of the typical portfolio.
By contrast, improvements and modications to exist-

ing company productsthe least innovative category
of developmenthas almost doubled, and now repre-
sents almost 40% of the typical development portfolio.
These data are from 2005, so the situation is likely
even worse today.
Innovative initiatives are missing, so its little wonder that
sales and productivity from new product development are
down.
The Solution
The answer is bold innovationbreakthrough products,
services, and solutions that create growth engines for the
future. That is, in contrast to the same old new product
effortsextensions, modications, upgrades, and
tweakswhich swamp the majority of rms portfolios,
we need some breakthrough, game-changing, bolder
product innovation initiatives in the development pipe-
line. This means larger-scope and more systems-oriented
solutions and service packages. Examples, such as
Apples iPod, are often cited, but seem out of reach for
most corporations. But a more careful examination of the
iPods success reveals no magic here, but simply bolder
innovation at work (Abel, 2008). Note that Apple did not
invent the MP3 player, nor was this opportunity in a blue
ocean; in fact there were 43 competitors selling MP3
players when Apple launched! What Apple did was rst
to identify an attractive strategic arena (MP3s) where it
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Dr. Robert G. Cooper is Professor Emeritus at the DeGroote School of
Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and ISBM
Distinguished Research Fellow, Penn State University, United States.
He is also co-founder and CEO of the Product Development Institute,
and a Crawford Fellow of the PDMA. Dr. Cooper is noted for his
extensive NewProd research series into success factors in product inno-
vation, and is also the creator of the popular Stage-Gate system for
driving new products to market. Bob is also the author of seven books on
product innovation management, including Winning at New Products:
Creating Jalue Through Innvoation, 4th edition, which has
become the bible for new product development, and his recent book
with Dr. Scott Edgett, Product Innovation and Technology Strategy. He
has also written over 100 articles on the topic. These days, Bob is active
in research, writing, and consulting on product innovation management,
and tours the world visiting and helping leading rms and also giving
executive seminars.
3 J PROD INNOV MANAG R. G. COOPER
2011;28(S1):227
could leverage its strengths to advantage, and then to
develop a solution that solved users problems: an easy-
to-use, easy-to-download MP3 system, which also
happens to be cool.
There are dozens of other similar examples of true
innovation, not as well known as the iPod, where the
company created big concepts and bold innovations,
typically an integrated system or total solution package
for the customer, and won.
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters
This company began humbly as a small caf in rural
Vermont in 1981, and soon was doing its own coffee
roasting, selling to local hotels and restaurants. Manage-
ment saw the consumer need, however: an inexpensive
and convenient single-serving coffee-maker at home.
Green Mountain created the K-Cup and Keurig system:
they signed up well-known coffee makers (Tullys in
Seattle, Newmans Own, Timothys in Canada, and
others). The machine itself was simple (unlike some of
the European machines imported by major food compa-
nies into the United States) and relatively inexpensive.
The business model was similar to Gillettes razor-and-
blade model, namely sell the machine cheaply, and make
money on the K-cups. The company has been enormously
successful, achieving 2009 sales of $800 million, and has
been able to win against corporate giants like Kraft and
Nestl.
P&Gs Olay Skin Care Business
Once almost given up by P&G (Oil of Olay was cynically
referred to as Oil of Old Lady), the business was reju-
venated based on the one big concept of preventing signs
of aging in womens faces (Laey and Charan, 2008). The
company searched for and found the needed technology
(much of it outside of P&G) and has relaunched the
business with multiple newproducts: Regenerist, Denity,
Professional, and others (Huston and Sakkab, 2006a).
Olay now does over $2 billion in sales annually. (Open
innovation as a potential source for bold newideas will be
discussed in detail later in this article.)
Corning Glass and LCD Displays and TVs
In the late 1990s, Corning Glass was growing and prof-
iting, driven by the boom in ber optic communications.
Then came the crash of 2000, and overnight, the rms
sales plummeted, and share prices plunged from over
$100 to about $1. Ten years later, Corning is thriving
again. How? Cornings senior management developed a
brilliant product innovation and technology strategy for
the rm, and provided the needed leadership and direc-
tion (Kirk, 2009). They concluded that the repeatable
keys to Cornings success were a leadership commit-
ment, a clear understanding of the companys capabili-
ties, a strong connection to the customer and a deep
understanding of major customer problems, and a will-
ingness to take big but well-understood risks. A number
of new opportunities and strategic arenas were identied,
assessed, and exploited. The biggest growth engine came
from a manufacturing process developed originally in the
1960s for automotive windshields, but which Corning
leveraged to create a glass substrate used for the at LCD
displays (for cell phones initially, then laptops and desk
top monitors, now LCD TVs and larger displays). Major
innovations were developed in each of Cornings busi-
Development Project
Type
2000s 1990s
% of Projects in the Development Portfolio
% Change
11.5% 20.4%
New to world, new to
market innovations
Type
% Change
43.7% decrease
24 7% 20 4%
Additions to existing
d t li i
27.1% 38.8%
New product lines to the
company 30.1% decrease
36.7% 20.4%
Improvements &
modifications to existing
company products
24.7% 20.4% product line in company
80.1% increase
20.8% increase
100.0% 100.0%
Total
company products
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 1. Breakdown of the Portfolio by Project TypesThen & Now
Sources: Adams & Boike (2004); Cooper (2005a)
HOW TO INNOVATE WHEN THE MARKET IS MATURE J PROD INNOV MANAG 4
2011;28(S1):227
nesses over the decade, including four new business plat-
forms created and three major market adjacencies
exploited. New product sales have now rocketed to 70%
of annual sales, and prots moved from minus $500
million to plus $2 billion after taxes.
Barnes & Noble, U.S. Bookseller
Barnes and Noble, the huge U.S. book retailer, operates
hundred of bookstores across America. Facing new
online competition, the company has boldly launched a
reading system called Nook. One can download books
from B&Ns huge inventory of books, and do so wire-
lessly (anywhere in the United States and Canada, on the
y, direct to the tablet, and no need for a computer).
Sanifair in Germany
The company developed a systems solution to a problem
we all face when traveling on the highwaynding a
clean and well-equipped restroom. The company con-
ceived and operates a chain of public restrooms, espe-
cially at service centers along the motorways (they are in
almost every service center in Germany). They are clean,
open, friendly, and modern. The restrooms charge 70
cents per use, but the system is this: the user gets a
voucher for the shop in the service center, thus upselling
the restroom visitor to spend more and to buy goods in the
service center. As one observer noted, the travelers prob-
ably use the voucher to buy coffee or beer in the service
center restaurant, so they need to visit the restroom again!
There is a pattern here: this is the type of bold inno-
vation that we need, and this is what will generate the
growth desired by so many rms.
Bold Innovation Also Poses Many
Challenges
Bold innovations must be strategically aligned to the
business. Freelancing for long periods of time on ideas
not well-aligned to company goals and strategy is a recipe
for disaster. Thus the notion of setting up venture groups,
departments, and even individuals, and allowing them
total freedom to wander and hunt is ultimately doomed.
Asecond issue is nding that breakthrough opportunity.
Ive been involved in strategy development and ideation
imperatives in numerous major corporations over the years,
and coming up with new product ideas is pretty easy; there
are dozens of methods. The trouble is that the great majority
of ideas are mediocre at best. Envisioning that game-
changing, bold idea with real potential is very rare indeed.
A third challenge is determining the locus of respon-
sibility for the new arena or bold innovation. That is,
which groups within your business or corporation should
investigate white space, blue ocean, or new arena
opportunities? And where should the concepts, products
and/or services reside if they are created?
Anal issue is that bold innovations often entail signi-
cant investment and market risk. Frequently, these innova-
tions are white space, blue ocean, and emerging markets,
and thus are open territory. But the territory may be
open for good reason, for example, too few customers to
justify creating a product for the market, or not mature
enough for a product or service. The implication is that one
must do the due diligence, build a solid business case, and
make very difcult go/kill investment decisions.
The Five Innovation Vectors
Five vectors must be in place to undertake this different
type of innovation to yield bolder and imaginative
projects that create integrated, larger, and more systems-
oriented solutions and product-service packages, accord-
ing to our benchmarking studies of hundreds of rms (see
Exhibit 2; see sidebar for research basis).
The Research Basis
Over the years, colleagues and I have undertaken numerous benchmark-
ing studies that have probed why some businesses are so much more
successful than others at product innovation (Cooper & Edgett, 2008a;
Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1995, 2007). The results of these and other
studies form the basis of the ve innovation vectors outlined in this
article. The bar charts shown are from a study into innovation best
practices undertaken with the APQC (American Productivity & Quality
Center) (Cooper, 2005b; Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt, 2004a,
2004b, 2005).
Exhibit 2. The Five Innovation Vectors That Drive Bold
Innovation
2011;28(S1):227
Vector I: Develop a Bold Innovation Strategy that
Focuses Your Business on the Right Strategic
Arenas that Will Be Your Engines of Growth
(Cooper and Edgett, 2009)
Most businesses focus their new-product development
efforts in the wrong areason at markets, mature tech-
nologies, and tired product categories. Its necessary to
break out of this box and to redirect R&D efforts on more
fertile strategic arenas with extreme opportunities. Thus,
to succeed in bigger, bolder innovation, your business
needs a product innovation and technology strategya
strategy that focuses your businesss R&D efforts on the
most attractive arenas. Cornings decision to focus an
existing capability on an embryonic market, namely at
panel screens, is an excellent example. Sadly, the great
majority of rms lack a clearly dened, robust, and well-
communicated innovation strategythere is no focus, or
youre focused on arenas that do not yield the growth
engines of tomorrow. Once decided, your strategic arenas
become your hunting grounds in the search for break-
through ideas, big concepts, and imaginative solutions.
Vector II: Foster a Climate, Culture, and
Organization that Promotes Bolder Innovation
People working in the right climate is vital to success.
Having the right climate and culture for innovation, an
appetite to invest in innovative and more risky projects,
and the right leadership from the top is the number one
factor that distinguishes top innovation companies,
according to our extensive study of innovation results.
Those businesses that create a positive climate for inno-
vation, support innovation at every opportunity, reward
and recognize innovators and successful development
teams, and welcome ideas from all employees do much
better at product innovation. Similarly, having the right
senior leadershipmen and women who drive and
support the innovation effort with words as well as
through actionsis vital to success. But most businesses
lack the needed climate, culture, and leadership for
innovation.
Vector III: Create Big Ideas for Bold, Integrated
Product-Service Solutions (Cooper and Edgett,
2007)
Big ideas lead to big concepts and big solutionsthe
growth engines of the future. Larger-scope and more
imaginative development projectsbold innovations
begin with creating game-changing and blockbuster
ideas. In our benchmarking studies, we have identied
over 25 proven ways to create big, bold innovation ideas.
But many rms rely on few of these methods, and instead
look to traditional, somewhat depleted sources for their
next breakthroughsand of course there are no break-
throughs as a result. Creating game-changing new
product ideas is the necessary feedstock for an innovative
and bold product development effort; but how well does
your business do here?
Vector IV: Drive these Big Concepts to Market
Quickly via a Robust Idea-to-Launch System
Designed for Major Service-and-Product
Innovations
Generating great ideas is half the battle. The other half is
getting from the concept stage through to development
and into the marketplacethrough the corporate equiva-
lent of the valley of death. (The valley of death
describes the gap between conception or invention versus
moving that concept or invention through to a commer-
cialized productthe gap where so many projects die.)
Thats where an effective yet rapid idea-to-launch system
is needed. Without such a system, your great ideas and
big concepts are like unpicked grapes on a
vinetheyll wither and die. Driving bold innovations to
market means installing a robust and efcient idea-to-
launch process or system that is designed to handle these
major, big concept ideas and projects. Just because
these projects are imaginative and bold is no reason to
throw discipline out the window: the goal is entrepre-
neurship but with discipline and due diligence, which is
quite different than shooting from the hip. Another
issue is that most businesss stage-and-gate systems are
designed for small projects, modications, and product
improvementssustaining innovationand fail to cope
with big, innovative projects and technology platforms.
Vector V: Build a Solid Business Case and
Pick the Winners
Many businesses have lots of good new product ideas.
But they lack the appetite to invest in these larger-scope
and more risky projects, in spite of the fact that they
promise to be tomorrows growth engines. Part of the
problem is the lack of solid business cases: these large
big concept projects are innovative and risky, and its
often difcult to get the right data and construct a solid,
fact-based business case to convince senior management
to make the investment and move forward. Its essential
to do the front-end homework, and to build a compelling
business case.
2011;28(S1):227
Next, senior management often lacks the right tools
and methods to make these riskier decisions on big
concept innovations. For example, they rely too much
on nancial tools and return-on-investment methods to
make the go/kill decisions, methods that work great for
smaller, less innovative projects, but invariably lead to the
wrong decisions when it comes to larger-scope, riskier
innovation projects. And so the company retreats from
these potential game-changing projects, and ends up
doing the same old product improvements and modica-
tions, with little real prospect for growth.
Lets now revisit each innovation vector to see what
this means for your company, and witness some illustra-
tions and examples of its execution.
Vector I: A Product Innovation Strategy to
Focus on the Right Strategic Arenas
Successful innovating businesses put a product innova-
tion and technology strategy in place, driven by the busi-
ness leadership team and a strategic vision of the business
(Cooper et al., 2004b). This product innovation strategy
guides the businesss product development direction and
helps to steer resource allocation and project selection.
Elements of this product innovation strategy are listed in
Exhibit 3, along with their impacts. Note that a strong
positive link exists between having these elements of a
product innovation strategy in place and stellar new
product performance. Simply stated, businesses that have
such an innovation strategy perform much better than the
rest!
Developing a Robust Innovation Strategy
A guide to developing an innovation strategy is mapped
in Exhibit 4. First, strategy includes the goals and objec-
tives for the businesss product innovation effort, and
how these goals tie into the broader business goals. Many
businesses lack these goals, or they are not articulated and
communicated well (Exhibit 3).
Next, strategy delineates the arenas of strategic
focusin which product, market, and technology areas
your business will focus its product development efforts.
And note from Exhibit 3 that innovation strategy found in
successful innovation businesses is more than just a list of
this years development projects; it has a much longer-
term commitment.
A businesss innovation strategy maps out the attack
plans as well: not only where the business will focus its
R&D efforts, but how it intends to win there. Finally, an
innovation strategy includes dening resource allocation
across areas via strategic buckets, and mapping of antici-
pated major initiatives over a multiyear period to yield the
product roadmap.
Focus on the Right Strategic Arenas: The Future
Engines of Growth
Focus is the key to an effective product innovation strat-
egy. Your product innovation strategy species where
youll attackor, perhaps more important, where you
wont attack. Thus the concept of strategic arenas is
at the heart of a new product strategythe markets,
51 7%
38.1%
34.6%
Clearly defined product
innovation goals for the
business
58.6%
51.7%
46.3%
30.8%
Innovation's role in
achieving business goals
defined
business
58.6%
38.1%
23.1%
Long term commitment
69.0%
64.8%
19 2%
53.8%
Strategic arenas defined -
areas of focus
37.9%
27.6%
19.2%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Strategic roadmap in
place
Poor Innovators
Average Business
Successful Innovators
Percentage of Businesses
Exhibit 3. An Innovation Strategy Helps to Focus Your Businesss Innovation Efforts on the Most Attractive Strategic Arenasthe
Growth Engines
Source: Cooper (2005b)
2011;28(S1):227
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
4
.
U
s
e
T
h
i
s
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
t
o
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
Y
o
u
r
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
s
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
2011;28(S1):227
industry sectors, applications, product types, or technolo-
gies on which your business will focus its new product
efforts. The battleelds must be dened!
The greatest challenge in strategy development is
identifying and deciding on the fertile strategic arenas or
opportunity-rich battleelds. In too many companies,
strategic arenas are dened, but they are not the areas that
will bring huge sales and prots; indeed, strategic arenas
or areas of focus are most often the ones the rm is
currently in, or arenas very close to the current areas of
focus, but which are plagued by limited opportunities.
The goal is to ensure that the strategic arenas you elect are
fertile and offer many opportunities for blockbuster new
products, like Corning and Apple did (as opposed to the
stay at home strategy, where the opportunities may be
well picked over). Heres an example of a rm that
avoided doing the obvious.
Clarke American is a specialty printer whose business
is printing checkbooks for banks (Slywotzky, Wise, and
Weber, 2003). But business was declining, as bank cus-
tomers were using fewer checks, doing more banking
online. Management looked at the rms core
competencyspecialty printingand hence at adjacent
and similar markets: business forms, company checks,
and the like. All these markets were well-served,
however, and also heading towards commoditization. So,
wisely, Clarkes management decided not to do the
obvious, and not to do what most managements would
elect (get into adjacent specialty printing markets).
Instead, through its checkbook printing business,
Clarke saw an opportunity in converting the banks cus-
tomers to a new bank. Whenever a bank acquires another
bankand there are many such takeovers these
daysthe acquired banks customers must be converted
to the new bank; this entails ordering new checkbooks,
integrating account databases, handling bank customer
inquiries, getting checkbooks out, and so on. Clarke
created a comprehensive conversion management
program to handle all checking account conversion tasks
for the acquiring bank, including communication to the
end customer. To do so, they leveraged their check-
printing capability, along with their expertise in integrat-
ing databases. The result was that Clarke built a new
business: helping their customersthe bankstransition
their clients to the new system. And Clarke earned new
fees as well as establishing relationships, not with the
purchasing agents of banks, but with senior executives.
This bold innovation strategy shifted Clarkes focus to
helping their customers nd new revenues and enhance
their own customer relationships, which led to even more
business opportunities for Clarke.
By necessity, your innovation strategy may mean
moving into new markets and new technologies for your
business, or even into emerging markets and technologies,
newto the world, with much uncertainty and some risk, as
Clarke American did. An added challenge is ensuring that
these new and unproven arenas are fertile (as opposed to
venturing into new arenas on a whimnew pastures
which appear greener, but once in, are found to be barren).
Find Big Problems, Create Big Solutions
One key to selecting fertile arenas is to identify major
problems and problem areas, and then to apply your
competencies to solve the problems. The message is nd
big problems, create big solutions. The success of the
iPod is an excellent illustration of this strategic approach.
Note that Apple was not in the music business when it
came out with the iPod; indeed Sony owned that business
with its famous Walkman. In broadest terms, Apple saw
the growing market need, and then identied and solved
the major problems with existing MP3 playerssize,
storage capacity, user interface, and the shortage of
legally downloadable music. In solving the problems,
Apple leveraged its unique strengths perfectly: its ability
to vertically integrate and deliver an amalgam of hard-
ware, software and content that made buying, storing and
playing music virtually effortless. Apple achieved this by
relying on its legendary expertise in hardware and soft-
ware but without going into the music business (Stross,
2005). Apple also positioned the iPod cleverly, targeting
its loyal customer base of young, media- and tech-savvy
people (Apples original target market) with a cool and
hip product, almost a fashion statement. And the rm
used its effective distribution channel system, maintained
its high-quality image, and avoided price discounting.
Sony, which had dominated the portable music market
since the introduction of the Walkman in 1979, possessed
many strengths and competencies as well: size, brand
name and image, distribution and market presence, tech-
nology, and manufacturing capabilities. But it elected a
strategy that missed the boat. As if Sony did not learn
anything from its failed Betamax strategy, instead of
attacking the embryonic but growing MP3 market, it
rejected the opportunity, and instead tried to defend its
languishing digital mini-disc player and establish it as the
next device to supplant the declining CD player, the
Discman. The rest is history.
A Two-Pronged Attack
In dening possible strategic arenas that offer major
growth possibilities, a two-pronged attack works. The
2011;28(S1):227
rst is an external analysis, looking for external
opportunitiesmarkets, industries, and sectors which
may prove to be fertile ground for your rms innovation
effort. Usually the perquisite is that these new arenas are
at least somewhat adjacent to the existing business, or at
minimum can leverage your businesses core competen-
cies to advantage.
The second key is to attack from strengths. This trans-
lates into undertaking a solid core competency assess-
ment, identifying the unique capabilities of your business
that could be leveraged to advantage in other markets,
applications, and sectors. Note that Apples success with
the iPod was in part due to the fact that the market was
growing and attractive, but also that Apple possessed
some unique capabilities, assets, and strengths: its ability
to take complex systems and make them simple; its
cool design skills; its broad distribution system; and
young, loyal, and tech-savvy customers. The other 43
MP3 competitors lacked this unique set of skills and
assets. But one does not have to be Apple to leverage core
competencies effectively. Corning did so when it entered
the LCD at-screen glass market, and so did P&G with
Olay (leveraging the companys vast distribution, market-
ing, and R&D capabilities).
Crafting the Strat-Map
Usually this two-pronged attackexternal analysis, and
core competency assessmentproduces a considerable
list of possible strategic areas where one could focus.
Next, due diligence must be done to get the facts on each
promising arena; then senior management rates each
arena on two key dimensions which make arenas particu-
larly promising:
1. Can you leverage your core competencies, assets, and
strengths to advantage in this arena? This becomes the
horizontal axis in the Strat-Map of Exhibit 5.
2. How great are the opportunitiesmarket size and
growth, technological possibilities, and potential for
protfor each area (which becomes the horizontal
axis in Exhibit 5)?
The Strat-Map in Exhibit 5 shows a pictorial display
of the arenas considered and investigated, with the short
list in the upper left quadrant (the best bets). Home base
or your current arena(s) should also be shown for com-
parison.
Strategic arenas that both build on your businesss
core competencies, and at the same time represent large
and growing market and technological opportunities, are
the ones that likely will be the focus of your innovation
strategy. Such was the case when W. L. Gore, manufac-
turer of textiles for sporting applications (Gore-Tex for
ski-wear, hiking, camping, etc.) focused on a new stra-
tegic arena, namely cardiovascular applications. This
new medical arena seems a long way from the textile
business, but consider the rationale according to the
Strat-Map:
Excellent Excellent
N
e
e
d
,
c
t
s
Aerators:
Chemical Waste
8
9
Good Bets
High-Risk
Bets
e
,

G
r
o
w
t
h
,

N
N
e
w

P
r
o
d
u
c
A t P t l
Aerators: P&P
Waste Water
Chemical
Aerators:
Flotation Cells
6
7
8
v
e
n
e
s
s
:

S
i
z
e
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

N
Aerators: Petroleum
Waste Water
Mixers
Petroleum
Blenders
Aerators: Hydro-
Metallurgical
High Density
4
5
6
e
n
a

A
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
M
a
r
g
i
n
s
,

P
o
Blenders
g
Waste Water
Stock Pumps
(P&P)
Slurry
Pumps
2
3
A
r
Home Base
(Current Business)
Chemical
Specialty Pumps
Poor 0
1 Conservative
Bets
No Bets
Ability to Leverage Your Core Competencies, Strengths & Assets
(example from a process equipment company)
High 10 8 6 4 2 0 Low
Exhibit 5. This Strat-Map Helps to Visualize the Strategic Areas That Could Become Key Areas of Strategic Focus for
Product Innovation
2011;28(S1):227
The cardiovascular business, especially parts replace-

ments, is a large and growing business, with many
current materials facing problems and challenges.
There is a strong need for new solutions here.
W. L. Gore has developed a proprietary Teon-based

material with unique propertiesliquid can ow
though the material in one direction, but not the other
way (this makes the material perfect for skiing and
hiking; it lets sweat escape, and protects the skier or
hiker from external moisture, snow, and rain). This
unusual property makes the product particularly suit-
able for certain cardiovascular applications as well.
Next to textiles, the new cardiovascular eld has emerged
as one of W. L. Gores huge growth engines.
The specication of these strategic arenaswhats in
bounds and whats out of boundsis fundamental to
spelling out the direction or strategic thrust of the busi-
nesss product development effort. Without arenas
dened, the search for specic new product ideas or
opportunities is unfocused. Over time, the portfolio of
new product projects is likely to contain a lot of unrelated
projects, in many different markets, technologies, or
product-types, a scatter-gun effort. And the results are
predictable: a not-so-protable new product effort. Speci-
fying fertile and opportunity-rich strategic arenas is the
rst step to bold innovation.
Vector II: A Climate and Culture,
Organization, and Leadership that Fosters
Bold Innovation
Having the right climate and culture for innovation is
difcult to measure and even more difcult to change,
especially from the middle ranks of a large company. But
according to our research, climate and culture prove to be
the strongest drivers of businesses product innovation
performance results and is essential to bold innovation.
Here are some characteristics, which are actionable, that
we observe in positive climate, high-performance busi-
nesses (see Exhibit 6).
A Climate that Supports Innovation
and Entrepreneurship
Just over one-third of rms engaged in product develop-
ment were judged to have a supportive climate
(Exhibit 6). So if your company is typical, this is an area
needing work. Usually this support starts at the top, and
permeates throughout the organization. And it manifests
itself in many ways. Here is an example.
Grundfos is a major Danish pump manufacturer,
hardly an industry where one would expect to nd bold
innovation. But Grundfos is considered to be one of the
most innovative companies in that Scandinavian country.
On my rst visit, I was surprised to see the company
motto in English on every company vehicle in the parking
lot: in large red letters, Be Think Innovate. On entering
the front lobby of the headquarters building, I found an
impressive display: no, not a museum of the history of
pumps, but a showcase of their current and great innova-
tions. Cutaway models of numerous new products along
with a pictures of the project teams that developed the
pumps were front and center, showing every visitor how
proud Grundfos is of their innovations and innovators.
How many PDMA companies pay homage to innovation
by devoting their headquarters front lobbies to the
theme? As we waited to get in to see our host, I began to
read the companys annual report. Surprisingly there
were only two pages devoted to nancial statements, but
six pages devoted to innovation, featuring stories on
recent new products and an article written by the presi-
dent expounding the need for innovation. As we later
toured the open-concept ofce where groups of people
were huddled in teams, I couldnt help but notice the
energy and enthusiasm of the workforce. And the cam-
paign of wall posters encouraging people to be on a
project team or submit that winning idea was evident
everywhere. Here was a climate and culture so strongly in
support of innovation that anyone that did not embrace
innovation would feel like a pariah.
Rewards and Recognition for the Innovators
People do what they are incented to do. Yet the
majority of rms we study fail to properly incent inno-
vators. Top performing rms make sure that people who
contribute to the innovation effort are either recognized or
rewarded or both. Some examples:
At Air Products & Chemicals, the CTO has made
innovation his number one priority. Innovations awards
are offered each year for commercialized ideas; there is
also a Chairmans Award. Rewards can be up to
$100,000, a serious statement on the importance the orga-
nization accords its product innovators. Emerson Electric
honors project teams and team members. Directly off
their front lobby in their St. Louis headquarters building
is their wall of fame: pictures of project leaders, inno-
vation champions, and project teams. The company also
publishes a magazine called Innovations, with feature
stories on projects and project teams, and also a technol-
ogy awards section.
2011;28(S1):227
6
2
.
1
%
3
7
.
1
%
3
.
8
%
7
.
7
%
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
'
s
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
s
n
o
t
r
i
s
k
a
v
e
r
s
e
-
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
n
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

&

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
5
8
6
%
3
2
.
1
%
2
8
.
8
%
2
0
.
4
%
0
.
0
%
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

c
h
a
m
p
i
o
n
s

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d
/
r
e
w
a
r
d
e
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
s
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
s
n
o
t
r
i
s
k
a
v
e
r
s
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
n
v
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
o
m
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
5
5
.
2
%
5
8
.
6
%
3
0
.
1
%
7
.
7
%
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

t
e
a
m

r
e
w
a
r
d
s
/
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
4
4
.
8
%
1
5
6
%
2
4
.
8
%
3
.
8
%
0
.
0
%
S
k
k
k
&
f
f
i
l
j
t
d
N
e
w
-
p
r
o
d
u
c
t

i
d
e
a

s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

r
e
w
a
r
d
e
d
/
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d
5
1
.
7
%
2
1
.
4
%
3
7
.
9
%
1
5
.
6
%
2
8
.
0
%
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
o
u
p
S
k
u
n
k

w
o
r
k
s
&

u
n
o
f
f
i
c
a
l

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
P
o
o
r

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
o
r
s
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
S
f
l
I
t
0
%
2
0
%
4
0
%
6
0
%
8
0
%
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
S
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
o
r
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
6
.
T
h
e
R
i
g
h
t
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
a
n
d
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
,
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
F
o
s
t
e
r
s
B
o
l
d
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
o
o
p
e
r
(
2
0
0
5
b
)
2011;28(S1):227
Many innovation leaders consider recognition as more
benecial than cash rewards or large prizes. A
recognition-based system also poses fewer problems in
its administration than does a cash-based system.
New Product Ideas Rewarded and Recognized
Many companies have established internal idea collection
and handling systems. The best innovating companies
also attach rewards or recognition to the submission of
ideas, as shown in Exhibit 6. Some examples:
In the Meals Division at Kraft Foods, the Division
General Manager awards employees token light bulbs for
creating ideas; there are also awards for Innovator of the
Month and Innovator of the Year. Here, recognition is
typically not monetary, but peer praise, which is viewed
as more effective than nancial rewards.
Saint Gobain (a major French glass and materials
company) has installed a worldwide ideation system. Idea
submitters get points as their ideas move through each
gate in the companys stage-gate process, with more
points awarded at successive gates. Points can be accu-
mulated and later redeemed for signicant prizes, such as
a TV or even vacation travel.
Bausch and Lomb (eye lenses) uses limited monetary
rewards to reward new product ideas. The employee can
get anywhere from $5 to $5000, depending on how far the
idea progresses through their stage-and-gate process.
Time Off or Scouting Time Along With Resources
The best innovators provide resources and time off to
creative and passionate employees to work on their own
projects. 3M is noted for this, and 3Ms Friday
projects are still a major source of bold innovations. As
one executive there said: You need to pay people to be
innovative [a reference to 3Ms reward system] and you
need to give people the time to be innovative! One
cannot expect employees to switch off their day-to-day
tasks at 2 PM Friday afternoon and spend the rest of the
work-week being creative. They need dedicated time.
Just in case the fear is that the business loses 10% to
20% of the workforce on self-created projects, be aware
that people who pursue such projects are a distinct
minority: rst they must have a solid idea (often peer
reviewed); and second they must have the re in their
belly and the entrepreneurial spirit to vigorously
pursue the idea. Most employees dont t these criteria.
But the ones that do may have your next breakthrough
new product!
Skunk Works and Unofcial Projects Encouraged
Less orthodox methods of organizing for new products
are also fairly common among the best innovating com-
panies (Exhibit 6). These include:
Skunk works: Aproject team, fully dedicated (100% of

their time) to their development project, but working
outside the ofcial bureaucracy of the company; that is,
not working within any functional area such as mar-
keting or R&D; and the project leader reporting
directly to some senior executive or executive group.
Unofcial projects: Projects not formally approved by

the traditional approval process; these can be scouting,
free time, or Friday projects; or sponsored by a senior
executive. Note that often these projects are early-stage
projects; once they begin to require signicant
resources, they return to the ofcial approval process
and become formal projects.
Although such organizational approaches are adopted
by a minority of rms (16%), by a seven-to-one ratio they
are found in the most successful innovation companies
(Exhibit 6).
Not so rare but nonetheless connected to high-
performing businesses is the use of a ring-fenced innova-
tion group focused totally on bold new products (last item
in Exhibit 6). The principle here is that most R&D and
marketing people wear many hats, for example, working
on long-term, large projects as well as day-to-day, urgent
initiatives. Sadly, when both hats are worn, the urgent
projects dominate. By splitting off a dedicated group to
work only on bold and major projects (no day-to-day
reghting and no short-term urgent projects), the bold
projects receive the needed time and attention, and get
done in a timely fashion. The downside is that such an
innovation group becomes monasticsecluded and
thus detached from the organizationand so members of
this group must be rotated to avoid creating an ivory
tower.
Not Risk Averse: Investments in
Venturesome Projects
The old adage put your money where your mouth is is
true when it comes to bold innovation. Our research
shows that the most successful innovation rms are not
afraid to invest in venturesome and higher-risk projects:
there is clear evidence of such projects in their develop-
ment portfolios and pipelines. For example, Cornings
willingness to take big, but well-understood, risks was
key to their dramatic recovery in the last decade (Kirk,
2011;28(S1):227
2009). Too many managements espouse the need for big
innovations, yet a quick look at their R&D investment
portfolio shows that the reverse is true: a signicant lack
of big, higher risk projects.
Executive Commitment to Product Innovation
Executives in successful innovating businesses lead the
innovation effort and they are strongly committed to new
product development, as shown in Exhibit 7. Providing
the necessary leadership, motivation, and support is
essential for bold innovation to ourish. An example is at
Procter & Gamble, where the CEO, A.G. Laey, made it
clear: Innovation is a prerequisite for sustained growth.
No other path to protable growth can be sustained over
time. Without continual innovation, markets stagnate,
products become commodities, and margins shrink
(Mills, 2007). Inspiring leadership and motivating
purpose and values are two of Laeys keys to driving
P&G to becoming an innovating company (Laey and
Charan, 2008). Further, having an innovation emperor
(such as a Steve Jobs at Apple or TomWatson Jr. at IBM),
while desirable, is not needed, but consistency via stage
gates and scorecards is criticalexactly what they
[emperors] bring to their organizations, according to an
A. C. Nielsen study (Agan, 2010).
New Product Metrics a Part of Senior
Managements Annual Objectives
A signicant minority of businesses now make product
innovation results part of senior managements perfor-
mance metrics, and in some cases tie their variable pay and
bonuses to the businesss innovation performance. 3M
pioneered this practice years ago; other rms have caught
on. For example, at ITT Industries, new product results
(measured by new product sales as a percentage of the
businesss annual sales revenue) is nowa key performance
metric for business unit general managers, along with
meeting prot and cost targets. Note that while still not
widespread, this practice is seen in best innovating com-
panies almost four times as often as in poor performers.
Senior Management Providing Strong Support to
Project Teams
Senior managements support is crucial to successful
innovation: getting projects approved, securing the nec-
essary nancial and people resources, and gaining align-
ment of the functional areas to the key projects. This is
especially true in the case of bold innovations, which are
often too risky for mid-management to commit to.
Senior Management Engaged the Right Way in
Go/Kill Decisions
This is a vital and correct role for senior management:
ensuring that clear go (or kill) decisions are made, and
if go, making sure the resources are committed (Cooper
et al., 2004a). A robust stage-and-gate process, precisely
managed, with scorecards and a (senior) governing
body yield the best results (Agan, 2010). Note, however,
that senior managements job is to set the stage and to
provide resources, and not so much to be an an actor
front and center. Executives must avoid micromanaging
projects (see Exhibit 7); indeed, one study found that
heavy involvement from senior staff in product devel-
opment destroys value (Agan, 2010).
That the right climate and culture is key to bolder
innovation has been known for some time. Our APQC
study identied this as the number one driver of positive
innovation performance (Cooper et al., 2004a). But doing
something about it is much more difcult. Culture change
must be led from the top, and it takes years to effect.
Some of the specic actions and tools that leaders employ
are outlined in Exhibits 6 and 7.
Vector III: Create Big Ideas for Bold,
Integrated Product-Service Solutions
Big ideas lead to big concepts and big solutionsthe
growth engines of the future. Ambitious, bigger, and
more imaginative development projects begin with creat-
ing game-changing and blockbuster ideas. A number of
management practices were studied for their impact on
the businesss new product performance; the higher-
impact practices include: having a solid new product
process; technology and resource management; strategic
planning; and market intelligence; see Exhibit 8
(Arthur D. Little, 2005). But of all management practices,
effective idea management has the greatest impact on
successful product innovation!
One of the common themes among bold innovators is
the installation of a systematic and formal idea collection
and handling system, as shown in Exhibit 9. Ideas are
sought from many sources, both inside from traditional
sources and outside the company from newer sources
(open innovation); raw ideas are often allowed to develop
and grow legs in an incubation area; nally all ideas are
lightly screened (more of a strategic screen than a nan-
cial one), and then action is taken on the go
2011;28(S1):227
2
6
9
%
E
t
i
t
l
7
9
.
3
%
5
0
.
5
%
1
4
.
3
%
2
6
.
9
%
N
e
w
-
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
m
e
t
r
i
c
s
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
s

s
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

p
r
o
d
u
c
t

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
.
0
%
3
4
.
3
%
7
.
7
%
%
P
r
o
v
i
d
e

s
t
r
o
n
g

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

&

N
e
w
-
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
m
e
t
r
i
c
s
p
a
r
t

o
f

s
r
.

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
'
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
6
5
.
5
%
4
0
.
0
%
4
6
.
2
%
L
e
a
v
e

d
a
y
-
t
o
-
d
a
y

t
i
i
t
i
/
d
i
i
t
g
p
p
e
m
p
o
w
e
r
m
e
n
t

t
o

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

t
e
a
m

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
8
9
.
7
%
6
0
0
%
6
5
.
7
%
4
2
.
3
%
S
e
n
i
o
r

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

e
n
g
a
g
e
d
i
n
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
/
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s

t
o
p
r
o
j
e
c
t

t
e
a
m
7
9
.
3
%
6
0
.
0
%
0
%
1
0
%
2
0
%
3
0
%
4
0
%
5
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
8
0
%
9
0
%
1
0
0
%
e
n
g
a
g
e
d
i
n
G
o
/
N
o
G
o
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
P
o
o
r

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
o
r
s
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
S
f
l
I
t
e
c
e
t
a
g
e
o
u
s
e
s
s
e
s
S
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
o
r
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
7
.
S
e
n
i
o
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
K
e
y
t
o
D
r
i
v
i
n
g
B
o
l
d
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
o
o
p
e
r
(
2
0
0
5
b
)
2011;28(S1):227
ideasresources, a team, and an approved go forward
plan. Killed ideas go into an idea vault for future consid-
eration.
Swarovski, the Austrian crystal and jewelry company,
has installed perhaps the most sophisticated and effective
front end on their innovation process. Ideas are collected
from many sources, and are also the result of proactive
activities, such as voice-of-customer research, trend
scouting (fashion and market), and technology scouting
and analysis. The idea is then subjected to a very gentle
strategic screen to determine if it ts with the businesss
strategic direction, and if go, ends up in the Idea-Lab
(essentially a front-end incubation group that eshes out
or enriches the idea). The enriched idea is then sent to a
number of knowledgeable people with the company via
I-Flash, Swarovskis ideation IT support system. Evalu-
ation and comments are sought from many, and based on
this feedback the idea is now visualized, ready for screen-
ing within a business unit at Gate 1. Note the amount of
front-end incubational work before the idea receives a
formal Gate 1 evaluation.
Numerous methods for creating new product ideas
have been developed over the years. Eighteen of these
were examined in a study that determined which are the
most popular and which are the most effective for creating
game-changing ideas (Cooper and Edgett, 2008b). The
results are in the ideation four-quadrant diagram in
Exhibit 10.
The most effective ideation methods are towards the
top of the diagram and include voice-of-customer
7.2% Idea management
6.7% Technology & resource management
4 8%
5.5%
Product development process
Strategic planning
2.4%
4.8%
Market intelligence
Product development process
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%
Impact on Sales of New Products -- Percent Increase
Exhibit 8. Game-Changing Idea Generation to Create Big Ideasthe BreakthroughsHas a Huge Impact on the Businesss
New-Product Performance
Source: Adapted from Arthur D. Little (2005)
Exhibit 9. Install an Idea Management SystemA Systematic Idea Capture & Handling Process
Source: Cooper & Edgett (2007)
2011;28(S1):227
7
S
t
6
.
5 7
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

v
i
s
i
t

t
e
a
m
s
E
t
h
n
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
L
e
a
d

u
s
e
r

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
F
o
c
u
s
P
o
p
u
l
a
r

&

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
6
s s ( 0 - 1 0 )
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

h
e
l
p
s

d
e
s
i
g
n

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
y
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

b
r
a
i
n
s
t
o
r
m
i
n
g
F
o
c
u
s
g
r
o
u
p
s
P
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
a
l
v
i
s
i
o
n
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
5
.
5
E f f e c t i v e n e s
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
v
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

o
f

e
n
t
h
u
s
i
a
s
t
s
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s

&

v
e
n
d
o
r
s
P
a
t
e
n
t
m
i
n
i
n
g
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
d
e
a
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y

b
o
a
r
d
5
R a t e d
F
r
o
m
s
t
a
r
t
-
u
p
s
m
i
n
i
n
g
i
d
e
a
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
4
4
.
5
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

i
d
e
a

c
o
n
t
e
s
t
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

i
d
e
a
s
N
o
t

T
o
o

P
o
p
u
l
a
r

&

R
a
t
e
d

I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
V
o
i
c
e
-
o
f
-
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
O
p
e
n

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
O
t
h
e
r

M
e
t
h
o
d
s
P
o
o
r
4
0
%
5
%
1
0
%
1
5
%
2
0
%
2
5
%
3
0
%
3
5
%
4
0
%
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

T
h
a
t

A
r
e

E
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
l
y

U
s
i
n
g

P
o
o
r
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
0
.
T
h
e
I
d
e
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
u
r
-
Q
u
a
d
r
a
n
t
D
i
a
g
r
a
m
R
e
v
e
a
l
s
t
h
e
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
P
o
p
u
l
a
r
i
t
y
o
f
1
8
C
o
m
m
o
n
I
d
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
o
o
p
e
r
&
E
d
g
e
t
t
(
2
0
0
8
b
)
2011;28(S1):227
methods, denoted by diamonds. In rank order of effec-
tiveness these VoC methods are:
Ethnography: Camping out with customers or obser-

vation of customers for extended periods, watching
and probing as they use or misuse the product, or go
about their tasks or life. This is the most effective of all
methods, but not so popularexpensive and difcult
to do.
Customer visit teams: Cross-functional company

teams visit with customers or users; they conduct
in-depth interviews to uncover problems, needs, and
wants for new products. This is also a very effective
method, but much more popular due to cost and ease.
Focus groups: Running focus groups with customers or

users specically to identify needs, wants, and prob-
lems, points of pain, and suggestions for new products.
Again popular and very effective.
Lead user analysis: Working with particularly innova-

tive customers or users, usually meeting in a group or
holding a workshop, to identify problems and potential
solutions (Thomke and von Hippel, 2002; von Hippel,
1982).
Customer designs: Inviting customers or users to help

you design your next new product, often via IT, for
example, the online Lego DesignbyMe tool (von
Hippel, 2005).
Other moderately effective methods for creating break-
through new product ideas include:
Peripheral visioning: Formally assessing the external

world, identifying trends and threats which normally
would blindside the rm, and dening potential new
products (a deliberate strategic exercise) (Day and
Shoemaker, 2005).
Disruptive technology: Formally analyzing technologi-

cal trends, and identifying potential disruptive or radical
and step-change technologies (a deliberate exercise to
dene potential new products) (Christensen, 2000).
Internal idea capture: Formally soliciting new product

ideas from your own employees (often via a webpage
or IT), and screening and handling their ideas via a
systematic process, much like the Swarovski illustra-
tion above.
Patent mining: Mapping or mining others patents to

see where the major technical and competitive activity
is, and to identify the potential areas for new products.
Surprisingly, and in spite of all of the hype, few of the
open innovation methods were found to be either particu-
larly popular or effective (Chesbrough, 2006; Docherty,
2006). These are denoted by solid squares in Exhibit 10,
and fall to the lower left of the ideation quadrant diagram.
On the one hand, pundits argue that open innovation is a
major source of innovative ideas, as well as technology,
intellectual property (IP), and even products-ready-to-
commercialize. For example, at P&G, through open inno-
vation along with improvements in other aspects of
innovation related to product cost, design, and marketing,
our R&D productivity has increased by nearly 60
percent. Our innovation success rate has more than
doubled, while the cost of innovation has fallen. R&D
investment as a percentage of sales is down from 4.8
percent in 2000 to 3.4 percent today. And, in the last two
years, weve launched more than 100 new products for
which some aspect of execution came from outside the
company (Huston and Sakkab, 2006b). On the other
hand, open innovation methods specically as a source of
innovative new ideas did not fare all that well in
Exhibit 10. The fact that open innovation is relatively new
and is yet to be proven over time may be one reason for
its lack of popularity and effectiveness. Clearly more
research is needed here. Another reason is that seeking
ideas from outside the rm applies best to a handful of
industries, such as consumer goods (P&G is a major
proponent of open innovation; Huston and Sakkab,
2006a). But it may not apply well to higher-technology or
engineering products. As GEs CEO observes, his rm is
a leader in a number of elds, such as making jet engines
and locomotives, which requires doing things that
almost nobody else in the world can do and where
intellectual-property rights and a degree of secrecy still
matter (Economist, 2007). The only open innovation
method that is well rated is an approach that has been
around for years, namely, working with suppliers as part-
ners as a source of ideas.
Generating breakthrough new product ideas is key to
creating that bold innovative new product. Note that it
takes an estimated 60 ideas to generate one blockbuster
new product. Numerous methods exist for generating
these blockbuster ideas, and some of the more popular
and effective ones are noted in the ideation quadrant
diagram (Exhibit 10). But all require hard work and
resources. Take a close look at these approaches and see
which ones are right for your business.
Vector IV: A Robust Idea-to-Launch System
for Driving Large-Scope Projects to Market
Coming up with great ideas for big innovations is half the
battle; the other, and perhaps more difcult part, is
executiondriving these large-scope and risky projects
2011;28(S1):227
through the fuzzy front end, into development, and
nally to market. To do so, you need a robust and efcient
idea-to-launch or Stage-Gate system that is designed to
handle these major, big concept ideas and projects.
Again, companies suffer here: most rms idea-to-launch
systems are designed for extensions and modication,
and fail when it comes to larger, more ambitious innova-
tion projects. In too many companies, the generation of
great ideas takes place, but somehow they disappear into
a black corporate hole, or, as some people phrase it,
somewhere between ideation or invention and commer-
cialization, these great ideas die in the valley of death.
Whats missing is a mechanism, process, system, or
method for selecting the winning ideas, getting them
visibility and support in the corporation, securing the
needed resources, and driving these bold ideas forward
through development and into launch.
The competitive value of a fast and effective innova-
tion engine has never been greater, was one conclusion
of an extensive Booz Allen Hamilton study into success-
ful product innovation (Jaruzeski, Dehoff, and Bordia,
2005). Yet of all the core functions of most companies,
innovation may be managed with the least rigor. The
study noted that the key is to identify the priority areas
where process improvements will have the greatest
impact. Another study revealed the precise use of stage
gates with a governing body as oversight yields 130%
more new product revenue; see Exhibit 11 (Agan, 2010).
And Kennametal Inc., the PDMAs outstanding corpo-
rate innovator for 2010, notes that in 2009, 43 percent of
Kennametals sales came from products less than ve
years old, up from 17 percent in the late 1990s. Key to the
improvement was the establishment of a corporate inno-
vation strategy to introduce new products at a market
leading pace. Instrumental to implementing the strategy
was the development of a robust and disciplined stage
gate process (authors emphasis) (Kennametal news
release, 2010).
Aprevious FromExperience article describes in detail
how a robust idea-to-launch system functions (Cooper,
2008). Many rms have got it wrong. Exhibit 12 show a
typical stage-gate system for larger scope projects. Note
that originally Stage-Gate was developed based on observ-
ing howintrepreneurs in major corporations drove block-
buster newproducts to market (Cooper, 2011). It is a system
founded on boldly innovative new products. But over time,
in too many rms, their stage-and-gate system has been
reduced to an operational or executional process for han-
dling rather mundane development initiatives.
In principle, the stage-gate process is simple, indeed
intuitive, consisting of a series of iterative stages and
gates: do some homework and due diligence; integrate
and analyze the data; and then make a decision to move
onward or stop; and if onward, repeat the iterationnot
unlike buying a series of options on an investment prop-
erty. This options nature is particularly important in the
case of bolder, higher-risk projects, as these series of
due-diligence-integrate-decide iterations mitigate the risk
10
12
Average Percent of Dollar Sales Coming from New Genuine Products
8
10
11.1%
6
7.1%
2
4
3 1%
0
1.7%
3.1%
Loose Stage Gate
System + Heavy
Loose Stage Gate
System
Rigorous Stage
Gate System
Rigorous Stages +
Gates + Scorecard y y
Executive Involvement
y y
+ Governing Body
Exhibit 11. The Use of a Disciplined Idea-to-Launch Process with Gates, Scorecards, and a Governance Body Works Best
for Innovation
Source: Adapted from: A.C. Nielsen Study (Agan, 2010)
2011;28(S1):227
in the project, much like buying a series of options miti-
gates the risk in purchasing an investment property.
Truly excellent companies, such as P&G or Emerson
Electric, have developed procient idea-to-launch
systems and thus model the way (Ledford, 2007; Mills,
2007). Most well-crafted innovation systems are
enablers, and help the project team get visibility from
senior management, and hence secure commitments of
the needed resources for their project. At the same time,
the system is disciplined, and includes best management
practices, steering the project team in the right direction
and ensuring that the right actions are taken on the
project. But note that an idea-to-launch system is also
lean and trim, with all non-valued-added work, proce-
dures, and reports removed (Cooper and Edgett, 2008a).
There is no room for make-work or nonproductive
activities in the process. Speed and efciency are vital.
The typical idea-to-launch system for major innovation
projects features clearly dened stages, typically ve in
number, as shown in Exhibit 12. Each stage has its pre-
scribedactivities andresultingdeliverables. These activities
are based on best practices, and include important actions
such as undertaking voice-of-customer-research; engaging
in constant customer iterations; getting sharp, fact-based
product denition; and undertaking solid front-end home-
work or due diligence before development begins.
There are also clearly dened gates. These are the bet
points or go/kill decision points, where senior manage-
ment thoroughly reviews the business merits of the
project and makes the needed resource investments to
carry on to the next stage. Gates have dened gatekeepers
(decision makers, part of a new product governance
body) and go/kill criteria in the form of a scorecard. Note
that these gates must have teethnot every project passes
every gate, any more than the poker player bets on every
poker hand. New information often signals a kill
decisiona decision to fold the handand such kills,
although painful, must be taken. The goal is fewer but
higher-value projects.
The process is very much cross-functional. This is not
an R&D or marketing process, but rather a business
process. Every stage is marketing, R&D, operations, pur-
chasing, sales, etc. And the gatekeepers are a cross-
functional governance body, so that essential resources
can be applied from each functional area.
This paper wont go into the details of a stage-gate
system here (see Cooper, 2008), except to note that such
a disciplined process is key to success, particularly in the
case of bold innovation developments which tend to be
larger and more complex. Discipline and a systematic
approach are more vital than ever for such challenging
development initiatives.
Vector V: Building the Business Case and
Picking the Winners
There are two ways to win at new products: do projects
right and do the right projects. The quest to do projects
Go to
Development
Idea Screen 2nd Screen Go to Test Go to Launch
Post Launch
Review
Discovery:
Ideas
Generation
Stage 1:
Scoping
Stage 2: Build
Business
Case
Stage 3:
Development
Stage 4:
Testing &
Stage 5:
Full
L h
Case
Validation Launch -
The Customer or User
For Less Complex and Smaller Development Projects,
Use an Abbreviated Version: 2-3 Gates
Gate 1
Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4 Gate 5 PLR
Exhibit 12. This Five-Stage Idea-to-Launch Process Is Based on a Study of Best Practices for Major and Complex Innovation
Development Projects
Source: Adapted from Cooper (2008)
2011;28(S1):227
right points to adopting idea-to-launch processes such as
stage-gate. The desire to do the right projects means
having a well-crafted innovation strategy (Vector 1),
building a solid business case for key projects, and
employing effective portfolio management to make the
right investment decisions.
Effective Portfolio Management to Make
the Right Investments
Strategy becomes real when you start spending
money. Thus, making key spending decisions regarding
bold innovations is the essence of implementing a bold
innovation strategy. Portfolio management is about invest-
ment decisions and resource allocation in the business.
That is, which newproduct and development projects from
the many opportunities the business faces shall it fund?
And which ones should receive top priority and be accel-
erated to market? Portfolio management also deals with
balance: about the optimal investment mix between risk
versus return, maintenance versus growth, and short-term
versus long-term new product projects. Exhibit 13 shows
the portfolio breakdowns of top-performing companies
versus the rest. Note how much more innovative the port-
folio of projects is for the top performers, and that 16% of
their portfolios are new to the world products.
Successful innovating businesses boast an effective
portfolio management system that helps the leadership
team effectively allocate resources to the right areas and
to the right projects much more so than do poor perform-
ers (see Exhibit 14, although, as the exhibit shows, a
procient portfolio management system is still an elusive
goal for the majority of rms). Development projects in
successful innovators are aligned with their business
strategy, while resource breakdowns in the portfolio
mirror the business strategy (which points to the need for
a clearly articulated innovation strategy). There is also the
right balance of projects in the portfolio, for example,
between long-term, bolder, and high-risk projects versus
short term projects; and between major new products and
minor modications. The best rms also do an excellent
job ranking and prioritizing projects, and their portfolios
generally contain high-value projects (by contrast, poor
performing businesses have portfolios with far too many
low-value projects). Finally, successful innovators strike
the right balance between resources available and
numbers of projects under way, so that priority projects
receive the resources they need for execution.
No Resources for the Bold Initiatives
One problem with bold innovation is securing the neces-
sary resources for these major projects to move forward.
Simply stated, if resources are not deliberately set aside
for major projects, these projects dont get done. Human
nature dictates that management tends to gravitate
towards the low-hanging fruit. In the case of product
innovation, this translates into rms doing lower-risk,
shorter-term, and easier projects, which explains why
portfolios have shifted over time to less innovative
projects, as shown in Exhibit 1, and as shown in
Exhibit 13 to poor performance. The dilemma is that the
Average
Business
Best
Performers
Worst
Performers
33%
10%
28%
Incremental Product Improvements
6% 12%
Promotional Developments &
Package Changes
40%
25% 22%
33%
19% Major Product Revisions
28%
Incremental Product Improvements
& Changes
40%
16%
24%
10%
24%
7% New To The World Products
20% New To The Business Products
~65% ~55% ~45% ~65% ~55% ~45%
10 Point Steps
Best Performers focus more on innovative and game-changing projects Best Performers focus more on innovative and game changing projects
Exhibit 13. Breakdown of Projects By Project Type Shows the Different Portfolios for Best Versus Worst Performers in
Product Innovation
Source: Cooper (2005a)
2011;28(S1):227
low-hanging fruit is not the tastiest or best fruit; taken to
an extreme, the rm nds itself with 100% of its new
product resources committed to modications, tweaks,
updates, and improvements, and no resources left to
tackle the bolder new products.
A Hierarchical Decision Process
Portfolio management and resource allocation can be
treated as a hierarchical process, with two levels of deci-
sion making (Cooper, 2003):
1. Strategic portfolio management: Strategic portfolio
decisions answer the questions: Directionally, where
should your business spend its development resources
(people and funds)? How should you split your
resources across projects types, markets, technologies,
or product categories? And on what major initiatives
or new platforms should you concentrate your
resources? Establishing strategic buckets and dening
strategic product roadmaps are the tools here.
2. Tactical portfolio decisions (individual project selec-
tion): Tactical portfolio decisions focus on individual
projects, but obviously follow from the strategic deci-
sions. They address the question: What specic devel-
opment initiatives should your business do?
Use Strategic Buckets to Make Strategic Allocation
of Resources to Bold Innovations
Many best-in-class companies use the concept of strate-
gic buckets to help in the resource deployment decision.
Strategic buckets simply dene where management
desires the development dollars to go, broken down by
project type, by market, by geography, and/or by product
area (Cooper and Edgett, 2006). The idea of strategic
buckets is based on the notion that translating strategy
from theory to reality is about making decisions on where
the resources should be spent. Management begins with
the businesss strategy and then makes strategic choices
about resource allocation: How many resources go to
each bucketinnovative new products; new items in an
existing product line; updates and improvements; cost
reductions; or sales force requests? Note that each of
these project types competes for the same resources, and,
as Exhibits 1 and 13 show, most companies have far too
many of the smaller, low-hanging fruit projects and not
nearly enough of bolder and genuine new product
projects. Strategic buckets is designed to prevent this
imbalance (Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt, 2002).
With resource allocation now rmly established and
driven by strategy, projects within each bucket are then
ranked against each other until out of resources, in order
to establish priorities. Note that projects in one bucket
(such as bold new products) do not compete against
those in another bucket, such as updates and improve-
ments or sales force requests. If they did, in the short
term simple and inexpensive projects would always win
out, as they do in many businesses. Instead, strategic
buckets build rewalls between buckets. Thus, by ear-
marking specic amounts to innovative new products
or to platform developments, the portfolio becomes
much more balanced.
31 0%
21.2%
3.8%
Formal & systematic portfolio management process in
place
Poor Innovators
Average Business
41.4%
31.0%
25.0%
0.0%
12.0%
Good job of ranking/prioritizing projects
65 5%
37.9%
57.2%
21.2%
46.2%
0.0%
Projects are aligned with Business's strategy
Portfolio contains high value-to-the-business projects
65.5%
65.5%
30.7%
0.0%
8.0%
Resource breakdown reflects Business's strategy
37 9%
31.0%
24.0%
19.4%
4.0%
0.0%
Good balance between number of projects & resources
Portfolio has excellent balance in project types
37.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percentage of Businesses
Exhibit 14. To Achieve the Best Portfoliosthe Right Mix, Balance, and Types of Development Projectsan Effective Portfolio
Management System is Essential
Source: Cooper (2005b)
2011;28(S1):227
Employ a Strategic Product Roadmap to Establish
Placemarks for Bold Innovations
Astrategic roadmap is an effective way to map out a series
of major initiatives in an attack plan. Aroadmap is simply
a management groups viewof howto get where they want
to go or to achieve their desired objective (Albright and
Kappel, 2003; McMillan, 2003; Myer and Lehnerd, 1997).
In use, your businesss management maps out the planned
assaultsthe major or bold new product initiatives and
their timingthat are required in order to succeed in a
certain strategic arenas in the form of a strategic product
roadmap. (The term product roadmap has come to have
many meanings in business. Here the meaning is a strate-
gic roadmap, which lays out the major and strategic ini-
tiatives and platforms the business will undertake well into
the future, as opposed to a tactical roadmap, which lists
each and every product model, extension, version, modi-
cation, etc.) This roadmap may also specify the platform
developments required for these new products. Place-
marks are established for these strategic development
initiatives, and resources are tentatively earmarked for
them. In this way, senior management is able to translate
its view of the future and its strategy into resource com-
mitments and concrete actions. Additionally, the develop-
ment or acquisition of new technologies can be mapped
out in the form of a technology roadmap.
How to Pick the Big Winners
Project investment decisions focus on individual projects,
and address the questions: Which specic new product
and development projects should you do? What are their
relative priorities? And what resources should be allo-
cated to each? While there are many methods to help
management select the right projects, most are inad-
equate, as evidenced by the high percentage of wrong
choices and high new product failure rates, especially in
the case of challenging and high-risk bold innovations.
Traditional project selection methods may work ne for
traditional projects, such as improvements, modica-
tions, and new models, but they dont work so well for
bold innovations. Indeed, the sophistication of most
nancial models is far beyond the accuracy of the data
input. Nothing is certain in product innovation except one
fact: your numbers are always wrong! Additionally,
overuse of nancial tools to select development projects
tends to favor known projects with lower uncertainties,
and thus drives your business to a conservative, low risk
portfoliolots of low-hanging fruit projects, fast, cheap,
and certain. But this is not what youre trying to achieve
herebold innovation is!
An effective way of rating and ranking bold innovation
projects is the use of multidimensional scorecards
(Cooper and Edgett, 2006). Exhibit 15 provides a tried-
and-proven scorecard for use by senior people at gate
meetings for larger-scope and innovative projects. Note
that all but one of the dimensions are nonnancial,
instead considering strategic t and impact, competitive
advantage and product superiority, market attractiveness,
and the ability to leverage core competencies in the
project. Scorecards are employed by the gatekeepers (the
governance body) at the gate meeting to rate the attrac-
tiveness of the proposed projects and assist in the go/kill
I. Strategic fit & importance
1. Strategic alignment fits our strategy, centered on a key strategic arena
2. Strategic importance & impact very important to strategy, huge impact if successful
II M k t t it II. Market opportunity
3. Size of market (existing or potential)
4. Growth rate of market (existing or potential)
5. Competitive intensity no/few competitors, open territory
III Feasibility III. Feasibility
6. Technical it can be done, we can develop & produce (or can acquire skills &
capability)
7. Marketing it can be sold, we have what it takes to market the solution (or can
acquire) q )
IV. Competitive advantage
8. Solution will be unique, differentiated
9. Will offer customer or users a compelling value proposition meets a large need at
the right price
V. Reward
10. Potential for profit we can make good profits here
11. Payback period is acceptable
12. Risk level is acceptable
Exhibit 15. Use This 12 Question Research-Based Scorecard to Assess Bold Innovations (Used by Gatekeeper Governance Body at
the Gate Meeting)
2011;28(S1):227
decisions. By walking through the set of well-crafted
questions in a systematic way, debating the scores, and
reaching consensus on the scores, not only do these
senior people make better decisions, but there is organi-
zational alignment and support for the selected and major
innovation projects.
Missing in Action: A Solid Business Case
How many times have we heard senior executives
exclaim: Im more than willing to invest in venturesome
projects; what I dont see is a strong business case to
support the investment. True enough. As Exhibit 16
reveals, most businesses are found lacking when it comes
to undertaking the front-end due diligence work needed
to put together a powerful business case. For example,
only 18% of businesses on average undertake the vital
market research and voice-of-customer work; proper
concept testing is conducted in only 27% of rms; and in
only 26% of businesses is a rigorous nancial and busi-
ness analysis conducted. By contrast, businesses that
achieve stellar results in product innovation take the time
and effort to do the front-end homework. Front-end load
the project is one of Toyotas seven principles of effec-
tive new product development, a requirement that a
higher proportion of work be done in the early phases of
a development project (Morgan, 2005): By effectively
segregating this inherently noisy phase of the product
development process from the execution phase, Toyota is
able to minimize downstream process variation that is
crucial to both speed and quality. Building a solid busi-
ness case is fundamental to success in securing the nec-
essary nancial support and management commitment
for a bold innovation project, and constitutes Stage 2 right
before full development in the idea-to-launch model in
Exhibit 12.
Building a solid business case is tough work, espe-
cially for bold innovations which usually entail quite new
and often complex solutions, new markets, and some-
times new technologies. First, building a robust business
case requires an effective cross-functional team, ideally
dedicated full time to the project (teams multitasking
across multiple projects, and doing their day job as
well, invariably drop the ball in the business case phase).
Second, an experienced team leader is key, one with a
passion for the project, and the right leadership and
people skills. Next, the team must have a game plan.
Exhibit 16 shows what the successful innovators do.
They undertake the necessary marketing homework, for
example, a preliminary market assessment to probe
market attractiveness; full market research including
voice-of-customer work to determine the users unmet
and unarticulated needs and to get the product denition
right; concept testing to validate the product concept; and
value assessment to determine the economic worth of the
new solution to the customer. Technical work proceeds in
parallel and includes a full technical assessment, pin-
pointing the technological risks and fail-points as well an
intellectual property analysis; and an operations and
source-of-supply assessment to determine manufactur-
ability, costs, and investment. This cross-functional team
effort culminates in a full business analysis, a recommen-
dation to senior management, and if go, a proposed go
forward plan. Heres a tale of two companies working
on the same bold innovation; one followed the rules and
succeeded; the other failed (since this is a negative story
for one rm, its name wont be mentioned).
A major U.S. conglomerate (Company X) hosted a
divisional off-site meeting to create blockbuster ideas for
making money from water (the company is already in the
process equipment business). At the four-day session,
various teams correctly identied a major unmet need:
increasingly, industrial parks are built farther outside
major cities, and thus more remote from the citys water
and sewage infrastructure. The situation is especially true
in developing countries. This required running miles of
sewage and freshwater piping from the city system (or
building a new sewage treatment plant, as well as a fresh
water purication plant for the new industrial park).
The proposed solution at the ideation session was an
integrated system to create a closed-loop treatment facil-
ity on sitea pre-fab water factorynot unlike what is
used on the Space Station. Wastewater would be treated
to remove pollutants, and nally treated to provide drink-
ing waterno need to hook up to the citys sewage or
freshwater systems. The idea was scored, received top
marks, and was one of several big ideas nominated to
move forward.
A project team was assembled from multiple business
units. Unfortunately, individual team members were
never given the release time or resources to pursue the
project vigorously. This was potentially a huge project
and required much front-end homework, but the neces-
sary due diligence work (as shown in Exhibit 16) was, for
the most part, not done. Lacking the facts, the team devel-
oped a lackluster and unconvincing business case that
failed to excite senior management. Moreover, the nan-
cial prospects were very hard to prove, as is typical of an
innovative solution in a totally new market (this is a
nancially driven company, so management relies on
rigid nancial criteria for go, and has little appetite for
major strategic projects without a strong nancial case).
2011;28(S1):227
5
5
.
2
%
4
3
.
7
%
3
6
.
3
%
2
3
.
1
%
3
4
.
6
%
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
e
t

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
2
9
.
2
%
6
4
.
3
%
2
1
.
3
%
7
7
%
1
2
.
0
%
S
o
u
r
c
e
-
o
f
-
s
u
p
p
l
y

&

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
3
2
.
1
%
3
7
.
9
%
2
7
.
0
%
1
8
.
3
%
1
5
.
4
%
7
.
7
%
C
o
n
c
e
p
t

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

u
s
e
r
s
M
a
r
k
e
t

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

i
n
c
l

V
o
i
c
e
-
o
f
-
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

w
o
r
k
P
o
o
r

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
o
r
s
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
3
7
.
9
%
1
6
.
5
%
2
3
.
1
%
4
.
0
%
B
i
&
f
i
i
l
l
i
V
a
l
u
e
-
t
o
-
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
g
5
7
.
1
%
2
6
.
3
%
0
%
1
0
%
2
0
%
3
0
%
4
0
%
5
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
&
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

T
h
a
t

E
x
e
c
u
t
e

W
e
l
l
N
o
t
e

h
o
w

m
u
c
h

b
e
t
t
e
r

t
h
e

S
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
o
r
s

e
x
e
c
u
t
e

t
h
e
s
e

f
r
o
n
t
-
e
n
d

a
c
t
i
o
n
s
!
S
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
o
r
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
6
.
H
e
r
e
A
r
e
S
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
K
e
y
A
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
F
r
o
n
t
-
E
n
d
H
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
S
t
a
g
e
s
E
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
t
o
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
R
o
b
u
s
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
a
s
e
A
d
a
p
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
:
C
o
o
p
e
r
(
2
0
0
5
b
)
2011;28(S1):227
Sadly the project was dropped in the early stages. The lost
opportunity cost is substantial.
By contrast, Grundfos, the Danish pump company
highlighted above, saw the same major problem in water
treatment. And it moved forward and launched Bio-
Booster, its pre-fab water factory. Wastewater is treated in
a number of ways to remove pollutants, and can even be
treated to provide recycled fresh water. The modular plant
or water factory offers many options for custom-tailored
wastewater treatment, almost in a plug-and-play
modeprimary mechanical treatment, biological pre-
treatment, and membrane ltering of the wastewaterall
in one integrated and essentially prefabricated plant; the
facility can be even expanded through UV radiation
and/or reverse osmosis to a water reuse solution.
Grundfos BioBooster is an example of a bold innova-
tion in a traditionally mature industry, namely process
equipment. But it worked! In contrast to Company X,
Grundfos has a strategy that includes bold innovation;
their Be Think Innovate climate and culture is strongly
supportive; they rely on an effective stage-and-gate
process to drive these larger, more complex projects to
commercialization; and management is prepared to
commit to riskier investments such as the BioBooster,
provided the business case is solid.
Wrap-Up
If your business faces mature, commoditized markets, yet
wishes to grow, prosper, and be successful at new product
development, then your development portfolio must
contain some bold, breakthrough innovation projects. Five
vectors are outlined that are proven drivers of innovation:
1. Have a product innovation strategy that focuses your
development efforts on opportunity-rich strategic
arenas, much like Corning, Apple, and W. L. Gore do;
2. foster the right climate and culture for innovation,
driven by senior executives, as found at Grundfos and
3M;
3. set up a proactive idea generation, capture, and han-
dling system, as at Swarovski;
4. have a robust idea-to-launch stage-gate process
designed to handle large, complex, and bold develop-
ment initiatives, as at P&G, Emerson Electric, and
Kennametal;
5. and nally, do the necessary up-front due diligence
and making the right fact-based investment decisions
in these riskier projects (portfolio management), as
does Corning, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, and
Grundfos.
Bold innovation is not easy, but its not out of reach
either. The examples and illustrations provided above
model the waythe next step is yours!
References
Abel, I. 2008. From technology imitation to market dominance: The case of
the iPod. Competitiveness Review 18 (3): 25774.
Adams, M., and D. Boike. 2004. PDMA Foundation CPAS study reveals
new trends. Visions 28 (3): 2629.
Agan, T. 2010. Secrets to revenue and innovation in new product develop-
ment. A.C. Nielsen Inc. Available at http://blog.nielsen.com/secrets-to-
revenue-and-innovation-in-new-product-development/.
Albright, R. E., and T. A. Kappel. 2003. Roadmapping in the corporation.
Research-Technology Management 46 (2): 3140.
Arthur D. Little Inc. 2005. How companies use innovation to improve
protability and growth. Innovation Excellence Study. Available at
http://www.adl.com/publications.html?extsearch=innovation+
excellence+study+2005.
Chesbrough, H. 2006. Open innovation myths, realities, and opportuni-
ties. Visions 30 (2): 1819.
Christensen, C. M. 2000. The innovators dilemma. New York:
HarperCollins.
Cooper, R. G. 2003. Maximizing the value of your new product portfolio:
Methods, metrics and scorecards. Current Issues in Technology Man-
agement 7 (1): 17.
Cooper, R. G. 2005a. Your NPD portfolio may be harmful to your busi-
nesss health. Visions 29 (2): 2226.
Cooper, R. G. 2005b. Product leadership: Pathways to protable innova-
tion, 2nd ed. New York: Perseus.
Cooper, R. G. 2005c. New products: What separates the winners from the
losers. In The PDMA handbook of new product development, 2nd ed,
ed. K. B. Kahn, 328. New York: John Wiley.
Cooper, R. G. 2008. The stage-gate idea-to-launch process: Update, whats
new and nexgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management
25 (3): 21332.
Cooper, R. G. 2011. Winning at new products: Creating Jalue Through
Innovation th ed. New York: Perseus.
Cooper, R. G., and S. J. Edgett. 2006. Ten ways to make better portfolio and
project selection decisions. Visions 30 (3): 1115.
Cooper, R. G., and S. J. Edgett. 2007. Generating breakthrough new
product ideas: Feeding the innovation funnel. Ancaster, ON: Product
Development Institute.
Cooper, R. G., and S. J. Edgett. 2008a. Maximizing productivity in product
innovation. Research-Technology Management 51 (2): 4758.
Cooper, R. G., and S. J. Edgett. 2008b. Ideation for product innovation:
What are the best sources? Visions 32 (1): 1217.
Cooper, R. G., and S. J. Edgett. 2009. Product innovation and technology
strategy. Ancaster, ON: Product Development Institute.
Cooper, R. G., S. J. Edgett, and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 2002. Portfolio man-
agement for new products, 2nd ed. New York: Perseus.
Cooper, R. G., S. J. Edgett, and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 2004a. Benchmarking
best NPD practices part 1: Culture, climate, teams and senior manage-
ments role. Research-Technology Management 47 (1): 3143.
Cooper, R. G., S. J. Edgett, and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 2004b. Benchmarking
best NPD practices part 2: Strategy, resources and portfolio manage-
ment practices. Research-Technology Management 47 (3): 5060.
Cooper, R. G., S. J. Edgett, and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 2005. Benchmarking
best NPD practices part 3: The NPD process and decisive idea-to-
launch activities. Research-Technology Management 47 (6): 4355.
Cooper, R. G., and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 1995. Benchmarking the rms
critical success factors in new product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management 12 (5): 37491.
2011;28(S1):227
Cooper, R. G., and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 2007. Winning businesses in product
development: The critical success factors. Research-Technology Man-
agement 50 (3): 5266.
Day, G., and P. Shoemaker. 2005. Scanning the periphery. Harvard Busi-
ness Review 83 (11): 13548.
Docherty, M. 2006. Primer on open innovation: Principles and practice.
Visions 30 (2): 1317.
Economist. 2007. Innovation: The love-in: The move toward open innova-
tion is beginning to transform entire industries. October 11. Available at
http://www.economist.com/node/9928227?story_id=9928227.
Huston, L., and N. Sakkab. 2006a. Connect and develop: Inside Procter &
Gambles new model for innovation. Harvard Business Review 84 (3):
5866.
Huston, L., and N. Sakkab. 2006b. P&Gs new innovation model. Working
Knowledge for Business Leaders, Archives, Harvard Business School.
Available at www.hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5258.html.
Jaruzeski, B., K. Dehoff, and R. Bordia. 2005. The Booz Allen Hamilton
global innovation 1000: Money isnt everything. Strategy and Business
49 (41): 13.
Kennametal Inc. news release. 2010. Kennametal Inc. announced as PDMA
2010 Outstanding Corporate Innovator, August 29.
Kirk, B. 2009. Creating an environment for effective innovation. In Pro-
ceedings, Third International Stage-Gate Conference, ed. M. Jones,
1938. Toronto: Stage-Gate Inc.
Laey, A. G., and R. Charan. 2008. The game-changer. NewYork: Crown.
Ledford, R. 2007. NPD 2.0: Raising Emersons NPD process. Innovations:
47.
McMillan, A. 2003. Roadmapping: Agent of change. Research-Technology
Management 46 (2): 4047.
Mills, M. 2007. Implementing a stage-gate process at P&G. In Proceed-
ings, First International Stage-Gate Conference, 2738. St. Petersburg
Beach, FL: Management Roundtable Inc. and Stage-Gate Inc.
Morgan, J. 2005. Applying lean principles to product development: Report
from SAE International Society of Mechanical Engineers. Available at
http://www.sae.org/manufacturing/lean/column/leanfeb02.htm.
Myer, M. H., and A. P. Lehnerd. 1997. The power of product platforms.
New York: Free Press.
Slywotzky, A., R. Wise, and K. Weber. 2003. How to grow when markets
dont. New York: Warner Business Books.
Stross, R. 2005. How iPod ran circles around the Walkman. The New York
Times, March 13, Sec. 3, p. 5.
Thomke, S., and E. von Hippel. 2002. Customers as innovators: Anew way
to create value. Harvard Business Review 80 (4): 7481.
von Hippel, E. 1982. Get new products from customers. Harvard Business
Review 60 (2): 11722. (MarchApril).
von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
2011;28(S1):227
Stage-Gate International is the world's leading full-service provider of solutions which enable
organizations to improve their Product Innovation and Portfolio Management capabilities and
performance. Our clients include 5000+ organizations of all sizes across all industries.
Visit our website and subscribe to receive the latest research, information and
complimentary articles to keep you current in product innovation!
+1-905-304-8797
www.stage-gate.com

WP - 44 - How To Innovate When The Market Is Mature

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

WP - 44 - How To Innovate When The Market Is Mature

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Product Development nstitute nc.

New-to-the-world products are down by almost half, to

By contrast, improvements and modications to exist-

The cardiovascular business, especially parts replace-

W. L. Gore has developed a proprietary Teon-based

Skunk works: Aproject team, fully dedicated (100% of

Unofcial projects: Projects not formally approved by

Ethnography: Camping out with customers or obser-

Customer visit teams: Cross-functional company

Focus groups: Running focus groups with customers or

Lead user analysis: Working with particularly innova-

Customer designs: Inviting customers or users to help

Peripheral visioning: Formally assessing the external

Disruptive technology: Formally analyzing technologi-

Internal idea capture: Formally soliciting new product

Patent mining: Mapping or mining others patents to

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen