1. Week 1: Innovation
Baregheh, A., J. Rowley and S. Sambrook (2009). Towards a Multidisciplinary
Definition of Innovation. Management Decision, 47(8): 1323-1339.
innovate in response to changing customer demands and lifestyles and in order to capitalise on
opportunities offered by technology and changing marketplaces, structures and dynamics.
Innovation is tightly coupled to change, as organizations use innovation as a tool in order to influence an
environment or due to their changing environments
innovation may involve a wide range of different types of change depending on the organization’s
resources, capabilities, strategies, and requirements.
“Innovation is studied in many disciplines and has been defined from different perspectives”.
“Innovation is the generation, acceptance and implementation of new ideas, processes products or
services”.
Innovation, and how it is managed, is a key strategic issue.
dentified how different disciplines view innovation from a different standpoint and propose distinct
definitions. It could be argued that each discipline requires it own discipline-specific definition.
number and diversity of current definitions of innovation creates ambiguity and confusion and we
support McAdam et al.’s (2004) view that the absence of a consensual definition of innovation is
problematic.
general definition of innovation has been to seek to offer a multidisciplinary definition for a
multidisciplinary concept.
Ireland, R.D. and J.W. Webb (2007). Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating
Competitive Advantage Through Streams of Innovation. Business Horizons, 50(1):
49-59.
3 Getting started: 1. Understanding the exploration and exploitation balance
2. Identifying the optimal balance
3. Reintroducing the middle-level manager
Dynamic, yet continuous environmental change is the rule of the day.
Reality of constant and challenging environ- mental change potentially creates a need for organizations to
alter their approach to developing and using competitive advantages as the pathway to superior
performance.
intersection between strategic manage- ment’s focus on exploiting competitive advantages and
entrepreneurship’s concentration on exploring for opportunities as the building blocks around future
competitive advantages decision to engage in SE is a vital but insufficient step to being able to
consistently outperform competitors;
Christensen, C.M., E. Ojomo and K. Dillon (2019). Cracking Frontier Markets.
Harvard Business Review, 97(1): 90-101.
Week 2: Innovation process
Cooper, R.G. (2019). The Drivers of Success in New-Product Development. Industrial
Marketing Management, 76: 36-47.
rce: Cooper (2013a, 2017b, 2018).
Drivers for Individual Products
1. USP: A unique superior product – a di"erentiated product that delivers unique bene!ts
and a compelling value proposition to the customer or user
2. VoC: Building in the voice-of-the-customer – market-driven and customer-focused
NPD
3. Pre-work: Doing the homework and front-end loading – due diligence, done before
Development gets underway
4. De!nition: Sharp and early product de!nition to avoid scope creep and unstable specs,
leading to higher success rates and faster to market
5. Iterations: Iterative or spiral development – build, test, obtain feedback, and revise –
and putting something in front of the customer early and often, to get the product right
6. Global orientation: The world product – a global or “glocal” product concept (global
platform, locally tailored) targeted at international markets (as opposed to the product
designed to meet home-country needs)
7. Launch: A well-conceived, properly executed launch – a solid, properly resourced
marketing plan is at the heart of an e"ective launch
Topic
Unique
Superior
Product

are superior to competing products in terms of meeting users' needs,
o"er unique features not available in competitive products, or solve

a problem the customer has with competitive products;
feature good value for money for the customer, reduce the customer's total costs (high value-in-use), and boast excellent price/performance characteristics;
provide excellent product quality relative to competitors' products
of how the user measures quality); and
•
(in terms
o"er product bene!ts or attributes that are highly visible and easily perceived as
useful by the customer.
Marketdriven
products and
Voice of
Customer
(VOC) built in
Predevelopment
work
(Homework)
1.
2.
3.
Gating systems: A multistage, gated disciplined idea-to-launch system, such as Stage-Gate (as opposed to an ad hoc approach or no system at all), now used by most
top- performing B2B !rms in NPD
Accelerating development: Many good ways to accelerate development projects, but not at the expense of quality of execution.
Agile: Agile methods from the software development world built into traditional gating systems to yield agility, adaptive response to changing requirements, and
faster to
market
4.
5.
Generating breakthrough ideas: E"ective ideation to feed the innovation funnel
Execution: Quality of execution of certain key tasks in the innovation process, from idea through launch
Drivers of success for businesses: organizational and strategic factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
A product innovation and technology strategy for the business
Focus and sharp project selection decisions – portfolio management
everaging core competencies – synergy and familiarity
Targeting attractive markets > market potential and competitive situation
The resources in place
E"ective cross-functional teams
The right environment – climate and culture
Top management support
The right systems and processes
1.
2.
3.
A multistage, disciplined idea-to-launch system
Speed – but not at the expense of quality of execution
Building agile into traditional B2B gating systems
4.
E"ective ideation
Salerno, M.S., L.A. de Vasconcelos
Gomes, D.O. da Silva, R.B. Bagno and S.L.T.U. Freitas (2015). Innovation Processes:
Which Process for Which Project? Technovation, 35: 59-70.
-
number of new product development process (NDP) models have been proposed in the literature.
-
limitation of the study of Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) is that their study focused upon the large divisionalized
multinational company as its paradigm. This strategy does not apply well to smaller or single-unit companies, which
indicates that the type of companies to be studied should be expanded;
various approaches to product development management typi- cally focus on a single theme or area
degree of integration among tradi- tionally isolated approaches and proposed organizational forms that enable teams
and middle managers to develop ideas and even build prototypes without prior authorization
Type of Processes:
1. Traditional
addresses uncertainties sequentially. First, it tries to manage broad market uncertainties with tools such as market analyses and
business plans and by prioritizing the ideas and plans that are most likely to be successful. Second, this process attempts to manage
technological uncertainties during the con- version phase,
!nal stage, which is de!ned by launch, diffusion or sales
2. Anticipating Sales: Tailor-made approach
Sales occur prior to develop- ment and production. certain critical sales activities occur in the initial phases
period of maturation that includes the de!nition of product speci!cations prior to the order
some resources are allocated during initial negotiations, once the order is formalized, an important level of human and !nancial
resources is allocated to product development
.
uccessful innovation projects that have followed different "ows from those described in the literature.
Cooper, R.G. (2021). Accelerating Innovation: Some Lessons from the Pandemic.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(2): 221-232.

The Pandemic has focused the spotlight on the need for accelerated product innova- tion, and also
revealed ways to get to market faster that are generally applicable.

Focused project teams coupled with effective portfolio management – fewer projects but better projects – increases resources on projects to maximize speed.

New digital tools – from Virtual Reality to AI – can both enhance and accelerate
new-product projects.

Lean Development removes waste and inefficiencies in the idea-to-launch process
through value stream mapping.

Managers should also overlap stages in their new-product process and move key
decision points forward to minimized the impact of long lead-time tasks.

Agile methods borrowed from the software world can be built into more traditional
gating processes to yield increased productivity and faster development times.
-
-
pandemic heightened interest in accelerated de- velopment
people resources are spread too thinly across too many projects,  focused project teams
o 100% dedicated team is ideal for maximum speed, this is not always practical for
many manufacturers.
fewer projects but better projects
value stream analysis, a task force of knowledgeable product-developers maps the current
idea-to- launch process for a typical project in the business
Problem-solving methods are employed to eliminate the sources of delay or to shorten
lengthy tasks or steps.
AGILE DEVELOPMENT:
o Incremental and iterative
-
breaks the development process into a series of short, iterative, and incremental time- boxed
sprints,
Cycle time reduction may also yield major negatives  forgoing bolder innovations
A second major negative is cutting corners and mak- ing mistakes
Project teams, driven by time, may also become too com- mitted to their project and its plan, and fail to
pivot when needed.
Week 3: Innovation success and failure
Von Zedtwitz, M., S. Corsi, P.V. Søberg and R. Frega (2015). A Typology of Reverse
Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1): 12-28.
-
Reverse innovation commonly refers to an innovation initially launched in a developing country
and later introduced to an advanced country.
efine reverse innovation as any type of global innovation that, at some stage during the innovation
process, is characterized by a reversal of the flow of innovation from a developing country to an
advanced country, and that is eventually introduced to an advanced country’s market.
According to this traditional view, new products and tech- nologies are first developed and
launched in advanced countries, and only later introduced and commercialized in less developed
countries when they have become
First, companies no longer target their home country as their default primary market.
Second, product development and R&D are not carried out exclusively in advanced countries but
increas- ingly conducted directly in developing countries to benefit
Third, products developed in and for developing countries occasionally prove superior to
competing products elsewhere, including advanced home markets,
Fourth, entrepreneurs and firms in developing coun- tries not only develop but also conceive
product ideas based on their own technologies and scientific insights.
Anthony, S.D., P. Cobban, R. Nair and N. Painchaud (2019). Breaking Down the
Barriers to Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 97(6): 92-101.
-
-
DBS introduced a BEAN it called MOJO.
MOJO promotes efficient, effective, open, and collaborative meetings.
MO: meeting owner, JO: joyful observer
JO holds the MO accountable, providing frank feedback about how things went and how
the MO can improve. Even when the JO is junior, he or she is explicitly authorized to be
direct with the MO.
We determined that successful BEANs typically are:
Simple. Interventions that are easy to adopt and remember gain traction much more
quickly.
Fun. When an activity is engaging and social, it's intrinsically rewarding, which makes
people more likely to do it -- something the science of motivation has long recognized.
Trackable. The ability to monitor performance and compare it against that of others is a
powerful motivator. (This is why activity trackers like Fitbit have helped many develop
better exercise habits.) So it's critical for BEANs to include a mechanism for measuring
their results.
Practical. The best BEANs are smoothly integrated into existing meetings and processes
and don't require major changes or entirely new routines.
Reinforced. People often need physical and digital reminders to keep using the new
habits.
Organizationally consistent. One of the most cited papers in the change literature is
Steven Kerr's 1995 classic "On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B." Effective
BEANs don't encourage people to do one thing if the company punishes them for that
behavior or rewards them for something else.
-
-
-
-
How to build bean:
o Specify the desired characteristics.
o Identify blockers
o Come up with inventions
Barriers:
o Lack of (e.g. organizational) context
o Lack of voice
o Lack of time
How to remove barriers:
o Question status quo
o Focus on customers
o Collaborate better (e.g. emphasize collective)
o Experiment
o Empower
Leadership needs to identify these innovation blockers and neutralize them with
interventions called "BEANs" -- behavior enablers, artifacts, and nudges.
-
Raajpoot, N. and A. Sharma (2021). The Function of Innovation Culture in the
Success of New Services. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 31(3):
392-414.
Week 4: Customer value and business models
Payne, A., P. Frow, L. Steinhoff and A. Eggert (2020). Towards a Comprehensive
Framework of Value Proposition Development: From Strategy to Implementation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 87: 244-255.
-
Value propositions (VPs) can play a major role for the strategy development and implementation process in B2B markets
rgue that business success is typically constrained by companies adopting an internally-focused,
The value proposition canvas
Osterwalder, Pigneur, Bernarda, and Smith (2014) propose a VP canvas aimed at assisting VP design. This framework provides an integrated design approach to the VP.
Value proposition platform
Dennis (2018) develops a VP platform that offers a sales-oriented structure for VP development.
Academic VP frameworks  vary in perspective of VP
Core benefits proposition  form of proposition is especially concerned with new product design
Value dimensions VP framework
 identifying VPs
Johnson, M.W., C.M. Christensen and H. Kagermann (2008). Reinventing Your
Business Model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 50-59.
A business model, from our point of view, consists of four
interlocking elements that, taken together, create and deliver value.
1. Customer value proposition (CVP).
-
2. Times when new business model is needed:
3. Opportunity to address through disruptive innovation the needs of
4.
5.
large groups of potential customers who are shut out of a market
entirely because existing solutions are too expensive or complicated
for them
The opportunity to capitalize on a brand-new technology by
wrapping a new business model around it
The opportunity to bring a job-to-be-done focus where one does not
yet exist.
The need to fend off low-end disrupters.
The need to respond to a shifting basis of competition.
6.
7.
Important:
PATIENCE!
Identify new competencies
Bettencourt, L.A., B.J. Pine II, J.H. Gilmore and D.W. Norton (2022). The New You
Business. Harvard Business Review, 100(1): 70-81.
-
True transformations require complete solutions. But most companies leave
the actual change customers seek to their own efforts.
Definition of Scucessful Transformation:
o Ascertain jobs to be done




Functional:
Emotional: feelings to heighten/ diminish
Social: perception of individual by others or relation to others
Aspirational: jobs sit at the highest level of what motivates
people. They involve becoming who an individual wants
to be: loved, living life to the fullest, financially secure,
successful careerwise,
-
o Define Success along the way
o Identify barriers
Design offering
o Intergrate solutions
o Engage each customer as essential partner
o Provide customized support
o Support full range of jobs 2 b done
o Charge for outcomes
o
Week 5: Collaboration in innovation
Faems, D., B. van Looy and K. Debackere (2005). Interorganizational Collaboration
and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 22(3): 238-250.
-
-
-
Innovation, and more particularly technological innovation, has long
been acknowledged as one of the critical driving forces in enhancing
social welfare; likewise, innovation is seen as crucial for the long-term
survival and growth of the firm
firms tend to adopt a portfolio approach toward organizing their new
product development (NPD) activities
reasons for interorganizational collaboration can contribute to the
effectiveness and efficiency of an innovation strategy
o Interorganizational collaboration might imply access to
complementary assets needed to turn innovation projects into a
commercial success
o working together with other organizations might encourage the
transfer of codified and tacit knowledge
o interorganizational collaboration might help to spread the costs of
research and development (R&D) among different parties
 reduction of R&D intensive innovation project risks
Hypotheses:
o Firms that engage in a variety of interorganizational collaborative
agreements—within the framework of their innovation strategy—will
be more effective in terms of innovative performance.
o The more a firm engages in exploitative interorganizational
collaborations, the more effective it will be in terms of improving and
further developing existing technologies and their implied products.
o The more a firm engages in explorative interorganizational
collaborations, the more effective it will be in terms of developing
new technologies and/or products.
-
irms that possess a heterogeneous network of collaborative partners within
the framework of their innovation strategies perform better in terms of the
proportion of turnover realized by means of new or improved products.
Exploitative: exploitative collaboration centers on leveraging existing skills;
enhancement of existing organizational competencies. complementarities between
technologies and products already present ; benefit from clear performance
objectives that are translated into measurable output controls and are monitored by
formalized coordinating and control mechanisms  lear job responsibilities,
centralized procedures, and highly engineered work processes
Explorative: instrumental in creating new competencies; learning processes and
joint experimentation figure prominently in this type of collaboration; alliance partners
rely more on personal and informal modes of coordination and control
CONCLUSION: the more firms engage in a variety of different interorganizational
collaborations, the more likely they are to create new or improved products that are
commercially successful.
Kirschbaum, R. (2005). Open Innovation in Practice. Research-Technology
Management, 48(4): 24-28.
-
- Open innovation
Driving evolution
Spealizing Value creation
The potential business is tested according to a “5C” analysis:
1.Context: evaluation of the value chain ,markets, attractiveness, drivers, dynamics, and
value added.
2. Customers: screening of segments, key customers, their needs and values.
3. Competitors: analyzing the competitive position.
4. Company: the synergy between markets, customers and raw materials, and evaluation
of technologies, com- petences and strategy, determination of key success factors.
5. Costs: system costs, cost structure, projected financial performance.
Business Development Model:
o Development projects are started for the most promising ideas
o development project has been approved, a small company is established
o Commercial value of the technology has been proven, DSM can still decide to
divest.
-
Intrapreneuers:
Do any job needed to make a project work, regardless of his or her job description.
Be true to his or her goals, but realistic about how to achieve them.
Recruit a strong team.
Forget pride of authorship and share credit where it is
due.
Ask for forgiveness rather than permission!
o
Brandenburger, A. and B. Nalebuff (2021). The Rules of Co-opetition. Harvard
Business Review, 99(1): 48-57.
-
mix of competition and cooperation: co-opetition.
many reasons for competitors to cooperate. At the simplest level, it
can be a way to save costs and avoid duplication of effort.
If a cooperative opportunity is on the table, start by imagining what
each party will do if it’s not taken.
not cooperating might have been even more profitable in the long run
Tech industry, thinking through alternatives to a deal is complicated
because companies have multiple relationships with one another.
Does Cooperation give away your CA?
- Neither party has a special sauce at risk, but the parties’
-
combined ingredients create value.
Both parties have a special sauce, and sharing puts them
both ahead of their common rivals.
One party has a strong competitive advantage, and sharing only
heightens it; even so, less-powerful parties are willing to
cooperate.
One party shares its secret sauce to reach another’s customer
base, even though doing so carries risks for both parties.
How to structure agreement?
- Establish scope and control
- Divide the gains according to contribution/ evenly
- Changing minds
-
Week 6: Multinational teams
Marlow, S.L., C.N. Lacerenza and E. Salas (2017). Communication in Virtual Teams:
A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda. Human Resource Management
Review, 27(4): 575-589.
-
amiliar teams are able to perform effectively, even in the absence of overt communication, due to the presence of
shared cognition
-
Virtuality moderates the relationship between frequent communication and team processes and outcomes, such that
the negative relationship is stronger in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams.
-
Communication within teams is argued to generally take two forms, as pertaining to content: task-oriented
interaction (i.e., com- munication focused on task completion) and relational interaction (
-
inputs in this model refer to characteristics of the team that in"uence how and when individual team members will
engage in team communication.
-
within virtual teams, high quality communication, especially of an interper- sonal nature, may combat barriers to
trust establishment and this establishment of trust will lead to desired team outcomes
-
Conclusion:
-
research indicates that virtuality has a complex effect on team functioning. A multitude of factors have been identi!ed
that in"uence how virtuality impacts team functioning and outcomes.
-
consistency in accounting for all of these factors is integral to moving beyond the discrepancies that have plagued
prior !ndings.
Tenzer, H., M. Pudelko and M. Zellmer-Bruhn (2021). The Impact of Language
Barriers on Knowledge Processing in Multinational Teams. Journal of World
Business, 56(2): 101184.
-
Language barriers resonate with instrumental perspective on language as tool
-
Communication basis knowledge processing and language essential to communication
-
Linguistic ostracism: usage of language by one group that others do not understand and therefore feel excluded
Hidden barriers reflect the need for cultural perspective on language as carrier and exporession of culture
Different speakers of differeing cultures use language in interactive context to create meaning
Use of pragmatic cues convey meaning trough prosodic means (acustic cues like loudness of voice, intonation/
speaking rhtyhtm+ speed)
Evident language barreirs: lack of lexcical and syntantical profiency (limitations in vocabulary  evident language
barrier)
Misunderstandings due to pragmatic transfer
E+H language barriers reduce participation in team communication and impaire sensemaking  limits ability to
retrieve required pieces of information from colleqgues
Super, J. F. (2020). Building Innovative Teams: Leadership Strategies across the
Various Stages of Team Development. Business Horizons, 63(4): 553-563.
-
Globalization, advances in technology, and shifting consumer prefer- ences affect almost everyone.
Because of pressures from the external environ- ment,
-
Building blocks of team innovation:
-
Teams obtain new informa- tion via new team members
Innovative ca- pacity increases when newcomers are diverse, offer unique perspectives, and
feel comfortable
new knowledge through individual learning
“team members’ shared perception of the atmosphere created by prac- tices, procedures, and
rewards within the team”
Week 7: Knowledge management and the dark side of innovation
Thomke, S. and J. Manzi (2014). The Discipline of Business Experimentation.
Harvard Business Review, 92(12): 70-79.
-
As a result, managers often end up interpreting statistical noise as causation—and
making bad decisions.
-
To conduct experiments that are worth the expense and effort, companies need to
ask themselves several questions
-
big data can provide clues only about the past behavior of
customers—not about how they will react to bold changes
ideas that are truly innovative go against excutive experience and
conventional wisdom
-
Experiment checks:
o Clear purpose?
o Have stakeholders commitment to abide by result?
o Is it doable?
o Ensure reliable result?
 Randomized field trials
 Blidn tests
 Big data can help (small sample with computing techniques=
o Most value:
 executives should take into account a proposed
initiative’s effect on various customers, markets, and
segments and concentrate investments in areas where
the potential paybacks are highes
 value engineering.: omponents that create benefits in
excess of costs and others that do not. The trick, then, is
to implement just the components with an attractive
return on investment (ROI)
o Challenging conventional wisdom
Kremer, H., I. Villamor and H. Aguinis (2019). Innovation Leadership: Best-Practice
Recommendations for Promoting Employee Creativity, Voice, and Knowledge
Sharing. Business Horizons, 62(1): 65-74.
-
Creativity is the generation of novel and useful ideas or solutions to problems
Voice is discretionary, self-initiated extra-role be- havior aimed at improving the
organizational envi- ronment through the communication of ideas, suggestions, or concerns
about work-related issues
second key success factor that leads to creativity and innovation is knowledge sharing,
Coad, A., P. Nightingale, J. Stilgoe and A. Vezzani (2021). Editorial: The Dark Side of
Innovation. Industry & Innovation, 28(1): 102-112.
-
However, while not denying significant progress in some areas, particularly
the reduction in violence, cherry-picking data to support a comforting
Whiggish conclusion is unlikely to generate robust evidence.
-
Issues of scale: explorations by lead users vs the dependence of mass consumers
o Small problem accepted generally  scaled up: harmful effect accumulate
and interact  new problems (pollution)
End of product life considerations:
o Recycling can reduce the environmental impact of waste.
 if new materials such as plastics are relatively cheap,
recycling can be prohibitively expensive compared to landfill
or burning.
o predictable from the start, but often ignored until the end e.g.
nuclear waste
o Renewable energy: New technologies for solar panels cause
problems of heavy metal disposal, in particular for lead, which is a
potent neurotoxin.
-
-
Features vs bugs: ‘unintended’ versus ‘unanticipated’
consequences
o intentionally harmful invenstions: nuclear bomb
o revenge effects: Pesticide and antibiotic use can create conditions
where new super-weeds and super-bugs evolve
o harm from innovation comes not from regular use but from
unanticipated accidents, such as Chernobyl. Unintended but
anticipated from improper use
Innovation to deceive or to escape regulation
-
Firms may lie about the toxicity of their products  not possible: introduce
new products not yet proven to be harmful
complicated substitutions, uncertainty about benefits and risks, and new
technologies that combine solutions with new problems
o food industry
Sharing the upsides and downsides of innovation
-
‘North-South’ perspective. Rich countries develop new innovations that
are applied across the world, then the rich countries notice that these
innovations are toxic or harmful, and either move on to better alternatives
or develop infrastructures to deal with the waste or simply export their
waste (e.g. electronic waste). Poor countries, on the other hand, may not
have the institutional structures in place to enable them to contain the
problems.
Types of harm:
1. Public health risks
2. Environmental degradation
3. Harm. To society
4. Harm to economy