A very thorough work

Readers, whatever their position – director, manager, associate, facilitator or student – will find this book to be a source of up-to-date, high-quality information.

In my opinion, this book has four great qualities:

1. – it incorporates the historical dimension, enabling the various approaches to innovation to be situated within their economic, technological and sociological context (the managerial aspect, in particular) and the links between these various elements to be better understood;
2. – it is holistic and systemic, incorporating and comparing the perspectives of various disciplines;
3. – it is scientific, uniting rigor, demand and objectivity;
4. – it is engaged, enabling us to share the authors’ conviction as to the prominence of the sociological dimension of innovation and define the role of various parties: directors, managers, associates and facilitators (leaders of communities of practice or interest and groups on social networks, trainers, experts, knowledge managers, etc.).

Finally, it discusses the issue of SMEs (Small Medium Enterprises), whereas most books are restricted to large, usually American corporations.

Multifaceted subjects

1. – Innovation was initially an industrial approach to production, and this remains true in the incremental innovation of production processes.
2. – It is a strategic approach that makes it possible to anticipate changes in all kinds and adapt quickly.
3. – It is also a market dimension: new products, new services, management of input–output channels, development of business models;
4. – Innovation is a mindset, a capacity for questioning, a flexibility, an openness toward associates (other than innovation experts), clients, partners, allies…. It should not be the kingdom of the solitary innovator, fashion or imitation (metoism).
5. – The managerial dimension of innovation is fundamental: it gives associates the chance, the permission, the task to suggest, even to decide on organizations and practices locally, drawing inspiration from examples of other entities inside or outside the company. This is the field of collective intelligence.
6. – This also covers the processes and practices to develop, create, capture and implant in the company in a lasting but modifiable way. We are already engaged in change management.
7. – Innovation also requires means, tools, methods, structures, funding and taxation; “trees” that can prevent us from seeing the wood and sometimes cause dramatic decision-making errors.

Changing subjects

Many causes of change are sometimes brutal and often coincide:

1. – the major development of the value chain for some activities (e.g. uberization), causing ruptures in strategies and financial negotiations;
2. – the appearance of various innovation philosophies, adapted to varying degrees to the specifics of a given company;
3. – the emergence of new technologies with a highly variable, even random, power increase and lifespan;
4. – the appearance of new competitors who affect a particular positioning on the value chain – often interposed between the incumbent supplier and his client – using new technologies and affecting the variety of availability and production cost factors, as well as the diversity of fiscal and social regulations.

Difficulties relating to some of our visions of innovation and management and to our business culture

1. – Successive innovation philosophies are often focused on a lever, a function, without taking into account the reality of needs, uses, etc., relating to the nature of the innovation, the expected benefits and the business context.
2. – Invention and innovation are often confused (especially in a country with an “engineering” culture), and “innovation” and “the capacity to obtain public aid or specific funding” conflated.
3. – We are reluctant to include strategies based on “trial and error” and exit (strategic pivot) in the event of non-success in the anticipated timeframes and costs. We are reluctant to devote the necessary time to transformations, we often increase our corrective actions and key process indicators (KPIs) in the short term, and we use a financial approach of return on investment influenced by the financial markets, applied to unsuitable subjects or those with standard requirements. We are also reluctant to invest in constant improvement activities for our structures, which require time and means that are not immediately productive and have an indirect return, especially in knowledge and collective intelligence, although these are determining factors in the sustainable profitability of our companies, and in their economic and financial survival.
4. – This is all exacerbated by “metoism”, “Not Invented Here” syndrome, the effects of fashion, archetypes (“every start-up is agile”, “every innovation must have strong technological support”, etc.) and the unsuitability of some external advice for the reality of the target company.
5. – The use of frugal innovation and low tech is often deemed uninteresting for a large business based in a developed country.
6. – We find it difficult to adopt strategies that combine the global and the local in a relevant way, and to give the situation the leeway to handle autonomously (with, if necessary, a posteriori control) changes relating to processes, expertise, local markets or local specificities.
7. – The potential contributions of collective intelligence and the benefits of interdisciplinarity, creativity, confidence, etc., are not taken into account naturally.
8. – Maintaining a “command and control” management style based on multiple objectives and KPIs imposed on staff is unsuited to the current context of the company (except – now and then – in the event of a serious and urgent crisis).

Of course, the point is not to pillory companies or directors (criticism is easy, but creation is hard), but to identify – and, if possible, to correct – factors that do not promote innovation.

Advantages and difficulties of entering into innovation through knowledge

Advantages

1. – good knowledge of local markets and territories;
2. – high reactivity and capacity to handle many subjects simultaneously (e.g. by entrusting them to groups or communities);
3. – the power of an action shared by a large number of motivated people;
4. – human and social impacts that are positive for collaborator engagement and autonomy, well-being at work and employer branding;
5. – decrease in the number of problems rising unnecessarily up the chain of command, enabling directors to focus on the most important matters.

Difficulties

1. – need for strong coordination between the various parties, with a validation process suited to the various subjects;
2. – difficulties in measuring the effect of knowledge development activities on individuals and teams;
3. – time required for development and sustainable knowledge acquisition in the various sectors of the company;
4. – difficulties in quickly learning/unlearning a type of knowledge individually and collectively (need for stability for people).

A tip for students…

For students reading this book: analyze the historical development of our innovation management philosophies carefully. Each approach responds or responded to a particular context. Follow the developments closely, because everything changes very quickly.

A nod to managers and directors…

1. – Invest in a relevant way (in the right things, just enough, just in time) in the company’s knowledge portfolio management process and in a facilitation, management and coordination structure for this process.
2. – Introduce an evaluation and monitoring system for return on investment, adapting the rules and conditions for those subjects that cannot come under the return on investment used for traditional assets.
3. – Encourage managers and facilitators to create, organize and assess suitable ecosystems, promoting the success of subjects relating to knowledge and innovation.
4. – Be enthusiastic, critical and cautious in your choices and reactive in managing them. Any strategy or methodology – as intelligent and attractive as it may be – needs to be tested and, if necessary, adapted to the needs of the company, its specific features, developments in the market and society, etc. (Pierre Dac said: “The only certainty is doubt, however…”) Dogmatism always costs a company a lot, sometimes even its existence…

Thank you to Danièle Chauvel and Stefano Borzillo for giving us these things to think about and providing useful pointers on this subject, which influences the survival of many of our companies and jobs with corresponding added value. Enjoy!