Content area
Full text
Introduction
Based on studies from Fisher (2014) and Kennell (2015) published in Fortune and Huffington Post, about 10 percent of innovative ideas for new goods and services succeed. According to Mark Payne, a consultant responsible for successful innovations at Coca-Cola, Starbucks, Samsung, GE, P&G and others, many ideas fail because companies put “the ‘wow’ before the ‘how’,” wasting time and money pursuing unworkable plans that should have not gone beyond the prototyping phase. In a 2010 performance assessment study, the Product Development Management Association (PDMA, 2010) identified that of all initial ideas, only 18 percent complete the process and achieve a level of defined success, supporting the high failure rates suggested. In order to sense and deliver the “job to be done” (Johnson et al., 2008) to solve an important problem or fulfill an important need for the target customer, the right methodology and people should be chosen.
The first step is to find a strong methodology focusing on an organization’s internal and external customers’ unmet needs. Based on the literature and on success stories of archetypal innovative organizations like IKEA, Apple or Google, design thinking is chosen as this methodology. The term design thinking has emerged as a critical success factor in the literature in order to foster innovation and to deliver a solution for an unmet need with a customer-centric approach (Parker and Heapy, 2006). Design thinking is generally defined as an analytical and creative process that engages a person in opportunities to experiment, create and prototype models, gather feedback and redesign.
The second step is to identify suitable profiles for the different innovation processes, from ideation to launching. The literature identifies broad bundles of skills and characteristics for innovators, such as entrepreneurial, strategic thinking, creativity, project management, communication, analytical, team-orientation or generative leadership, suggesting that one bundle of skills or styles may be appropriate.
Research has not focused on the diversity of roles required at each stage of the innovation process. Strategic consideration for individual skills may require assessment and matching, coaching, training and team assembly to complement the innovation requirements.
Profile dynamics may indicate that greater efficiency exists in a multidisciplinary and diverse team composition, allowing each specialized stage to match the specialized skills required.
The right skills strongly influence...