Innovation management | EPFL Graph Search

Innovation management is a combination of the management of innovation processes, and change management. It refers to product, business process, marketing and organizational innovation. Innovation management is the subject of ISO 56000 (formerly 50500) series standards being developed by ISO TC 279. Innovation management includes a set of tools that allow managers plus workers or users to cooperate with a common understanding of processes and goals. Innovation management allows the organization to respond to external or internal opportunities, and use its creativity to introduce new ideas, processes or products. It is not relegated to R&D; it involves workers or users at every level in contributing creatively to an organization's product or service development and marketing. By utilizing innovation management tools, management can trigger and deploy the creative capabilities of the work force for the continuous development of an organization. Common tools include brainstorming, proto

Creative-Learning Innovation Cycle - CLIC

Vincent Nassar

WHY do certain leaders’ management of organizational resources encourage creative people engaged in New Product Development (NPD) to achieve high performance, on time, while other leaders’ practices foster frustration and delays? In this research project I attempt to understand the WHY and HOW of leaders’ management of organizational resources in the context of Csikszentmihalyi’s phenomenon of Flow. Flow is most likely to occur when people perceive a balance between the challenge of a situation and their professional abilities to deal with the challenge. “Being in the flow” increases peoples’ focus and attention, the latter being a prerequisite for high creativity, on the tasks and problems at hand and boosts their commitment to deliver their projects on time. Following the above-mentioned reasoning, I assume that if leaders manage organizational resources to create an optimal balance between challenging situations and the skills of their creative people, these managerial practices would likely result in enhancing the output of the NPD process, and decreasing the delays, or, in other words, accelerating the NPD cycle. To explore this research question, first, I developed a conceptual model called CLIC: “Creative-Learning Innovation Cycle”. The CLIC is characterized by its uniqueness in highlighting the impact of the feedback received from the commercialization process on the managerial practices of leadership for creativity of the components of the work environment. The work environment directly affects the state of flow of creative people, and, subsequently, both the quality and speed of their learning and creativity processes. The CLIC combines Sanchez’s model of an organization’s learning process, Amabile’s componential theory of creativity, and, Csikszentmihalyi and Bakker’s State of Flow concept. Second, I tested the CLIC through two main research methods. I conducted exploratory and action research with a successful global innovation manager and two companies wrestling to accelerate their NPD processes in a changing work environment. The two companies deal with components and technological innovations. They differ in size, continent and products. Both companies innovate products related to health issues in an industry where high regulatory requirements are imposed. I also conducted a lab experiment in which 27 Masters students (18 males, 9 females) who were enrolled in an “Innovation Management” course voluntarily participated. The mean age was 23.5 years. The academic language was English. The exploration of the CLIC model in the course of conducting the comparative studies among the successful global innovation manager, the two companies, and the results of the lab experiment led to the emergence of a new theory about flow in work situations and organizational resources management. The theory defines and prioritizes five organizational resources that have to be managed during the NPD stages to let creative people experience a “state of flow” during their work. The foundation of the theory is that, following the impacts of feedback received from the external world, leaders’ managerial practices of organizational resources affect the state of flow of the people involved in the NPD process in an inverted U shape. Based on this inverted U shape and, as per the CLIC model, this theory prioritized the following five organizational resources to manage flow during the NPD stages: v A. Planning stage 1. Involving creative people in early market feedback during the planning stage would enhance their work absorption and their attention on the problems they are facing. B. Development stage 2. Putting creative people in direct communication with all the people who interact with the product and bring meaning to it, 3. Extending on a rational basis the time lines proposed by creative people, 4. And integrating the customer in the NPD process, mainly during testing phases, are likely to positively influence the intrinsic motivation of the creative people during the development stage. Hence, creative people would be committed to reach their goals by deploying their expertise to its utmost level without counting their working hours. C. Commercialization stage 5. Allow creative people to directly solicit and experience feedback from the VOC during the commercialization stage. This could constitute an enriching and joyful experience for them. In sum, the prioritization of these organizational resources during the NPD stages might constitute a beneficial roadmap to the managerial practices that should be used by leaders. The application of this theory by the leaders would regulate the balance between a challenging situation and the skills of the creative people, so the latter might be in the “state of flow”. Probable effects may be a boosted and an accelerated outcome of the NPD process, leading the organization to thrive in this seldom static world. Some leaders knew WHAT to do and HOW to enhance the creativity of their collaborators. However the understanding of the WHY that drives these managerial practices needed additional elucidation. This research project attempted to provide a potential answer to “WHY” leaders’ practices might enhance or hinder their collaborators’ state of flow; and, in finding the answer, it was thought that leaders and their collaborators may simultaneously enjoy work and savor life.

EPFL2012

Human-centered Innovation Processes

Alan Cabello Llamas

For more than a decade managers, academics, educators and politicians have indicated that innovation is the key to our future. As a result, we find a plethora of innovation initiatives around the world, from university curricula to the mission statements of banks. This push to innovate is a direct result of the recent economic downturn as well as from an ever more competitive, connected and dynamic world. In order to remain relevant in such a world, emphasis is given to generating new ideas that may lead to new products and services. Despite these initiatives, evidence indicates that investment in innovation does not correlate with success. Although the goal of innovation is clear, the processes whereby that goal may be accomplished are varied and not entirely understood. The motivation of this thesis, therefore, is to gain a better understanding of some of those innovation processes. In recent years, a growing number of firms, organizations and governments have adopted an approach to innovation that is referred to as âDesign Thinkingâ. They use the term to describe the process by which a multifunctional team tackles a problem by exploring the underlying needs of the people most affected by that problemâwhether that be customers, users, etc.âthen, based on these observations, defines the root cause or key elements of the problem and finally attempts to resolve it through an active cycle of ideating, prototyping and testing potential solutions. While the process itself is well defined and understood, its implementation and use by managers in the context of innovation management calls for further exploration. With this objective, I first conducted research within academic literature, followed by an ethnographic study focused on the use of Design Thinking by both large firms and entrepreneurial teams. The first paper of this dissertation examines the different elements in the Design Thinking process within the context of management research. The goal of the first conceptual article is thus to establish the common ground among diverse subfields of research in management upon which future research in Design Thinking may build. The second paper of this dissertation aims to uncover how large firms use Design Thinking as an approach to innovation. Based upon direct observation and interview data we find evidence of links between Design Thinking and Absorptive Capacity. We therefore propose that Design Thinking may be a helpful tool for firms who wish to innovate by an increase in their Absorptive Capacity. The third and final paper of this dissertation aims to understand the effects of Design Thinking on the venture creation process. This work is based on ethnographic research conducted at Stanford University wherein twelve teams participated in an accelerator program that uses a Design Thinking approach with the goal of creating and launching new ventures. Building on Dynamic Capabilities literature, this research finds that the teams with greater capability to iterate their venture concept through repeated cycles of attachment and detachment relative to their proposed products or services tend to be more successful.

EPFL2015

Are the Innovation Needs of Low-Technological Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Line with Knowledge Production by Research Institutions?

Camille Marguerite Aouinait

Small agricultural firms have to cope with increasing economic, legal and environmental difficulties. The purpose of the paper is to identify whether there are available research outputs to these challenges, focusing on the Swiss traditional fruit sector. Identification of firms' needs using face-to-face interviews and a focus group allowed us to prioritize innovations. Knowledge and innovation transfer gaps were identified thanks to bibliometric analysis, providing hints for research program orientations. The main sectoral needs were related to varieties like increasing pest and disease resistance, weather sensitivity, and ripening behavior. Knowledge produced by research institutions was partly related to the firms' needs. The study demonstrated a need for better coordination between agricultural stakeholders and researchers. Knowledge must be transferred and shared in the network with greater efficiency by extending interactions and involving stakeholders earlier in the innovation process. However, the search for scientific outputs should include more specificities of the local environment.

DE BOECK UNIV2019