Evaluation Of Minimum Viable Information System For Innovation

Evaluation of steps

Discuss the evaluation of steps, Pros and cons of the Model and Critical evaluation of author’s advice?

To survive in a comparative market every company tries to innovate. Some of them do it in a reliable traditional long-term way for effectiveness. Increase in revenue can be achieved greatly by innovation process. Most commonly giant companies like Apple, Procter and Gamble use to appoint a big resource and project team for such innovation process. Small to medium size company does not have such resource to do innovation (Schiederig, Tietze and Herstatt, 2012). Minimum viable system allows overcoming that situation. A 90 days’ work also can innovate through Minimum viable Information System (MVIS). MVIS gives the opportunity to come up with new strategically focused and reliable innovation task. MVIS gives the opportunity to identify, review, develop and encourage working on the focused topic achieve the end point with a restricted investment and resource. That mean without any extra hiring.  

Part 1; Day 1-30: Large innovation begins with developing particular insights that will open up the way for one to have a distinctive vantage point to build and resource work streams ahead of another competitor in the similar industry (Davenport, 2013). Higher insights and competencies can help to win the battle in business competition, only strength and will is not enough to win the competition. Various terms of innovation terms are there, but at the day’s end it only fits into two areas. Sustaining innovation, disruptive innovations, incremental innovation, breakthrough innovations, continual improvement programs, new growth initiatives, organic growth initiatives, white-space and blue ocean strategies are the most common terms of innovation (Oerlemans, Knoben and Pretorius, 2013). But in original practice business can be increased by two ways, one is an enhancement of existing offerings or by the improvement of operations done internally. Another way of innovation is that which create new growth by attaining new markets or customer segments, often through fresh business policy. MVIS cover these two types of innovations, but the critical thing is the understanding between the involved members on these two types. Rough but honest number of profit and revenue can be calculated in two weeks by the size of the gap that is worked up as a serviceable estimate. When growth gap is much large, the creation of division between the gaps should be done and taking care of them as a single part and directing those into a different way for further growth. The larger the organizations growth gap, the additional from the management’s core those innovation hard works will possibly need to be, and the extra amount time it will consume to understand substantial profits from them. To reach the long-term financial target, it is necessary to go for new growth innovation that will support the operations taken previously (Lundvall et al.2013). 

Pros and cons of the Model

Part 2; day 20 – 50: Description of the concept is done here with three dimensions analytically, visually and by narration. This part is to come up with an elaborate process of the program from the small draft. Best practice in this part is to continuously summarize the key concepts of part one and external understanding and testing to be done by the concept and ideas of an allowance of process tool application. Unlike the elaborate process of innovation to achieve goals on short term and long term measurement, MVIS gives a simple way. Comprehensive research can take up to a year, but here only a maximum of three weeks research will give a fruitful solution towards the innovation effort by the executives. At least twelve customer meet can be done for unmet needs that can give the opportunity for new growth innovation and also do the investigation over the similar industry for new developments (Drucker, 2011). Taking a closer look at the organization for the growth efforts trending in will make the job done. After that a session with the leadership team for the purpose of findings about the market and keeping them engaged with the finding process till the identification of three opportunities like; no one is stating in good manner about the job that number of probable consumers need to do, opportunity by seizing the special capabilities of the organization that is not so much easily copied by other competitive organizations. Need for the job which can greatly intensify either by a change in the social landscape, economy or regulatory function or by a help of technology that will give the way to the customers to do the job in a comfortable manner. Innovation traps can be overcome through the combination of these three criteria.

Part 3; Day 20 – 70: Short listing to be done to decide the intended innovation to the gate. Set up of a team not an army to go after a long hard work for the innovation and to identify the market as per the ideas, opportunities size as per the estimation, currently devoted resources and inventory (Johnston and Marshall, 2013). One who can assign people to go with the thought and develop a process as premeditated on step one and two. Zombie projects are known as those slowly shuffling but did not find any end point. Zombie projects divide the strategic focus as well as resources that can be utilized other ways. Selecting the appropriate innovation leader gives the push to innovation project while the capability and orientation towards the development team are connected with the development team’s success. The situation will stay stable if the process is according to the forecasted manner.  Possibly two ways are there by which an organization can go wrong. Firstly an organization can allow only a single innovation program that proposes low risk and secondly an organization goes for an allowance of too many programs with high risk. Innovation programs are made according to the resource availability of an organization. Otherwise an execution can move slowly if placement gets into a pipeline in a high number. The collection has been made to quantify a quality team to focus solely on the innovation excluding other no compatible elements (Zhu, Sarkis and Lai, 2012). Process checklist updated as per the available resources, market identification.

Part 4; days: once the dedication is made to measure the innovation, every scenario gets changed. The best exercise in this part is to transfer the innovator to consultant and introduce a process leader that has conducted this gantlet before. The whole process will be supervised by the senior leader. As per the business forecast, oversight rules are developed to see and advise the process. Starting with a group formation of the senior leaders and giving the authority to start, stop or redirect projects with new growth innovation (Schiele, 2012). This group maintains some standard venture capital (VC) working procedure, like; VC partners sometimes oppose about investment chances. While an MVIS approach looks over the tough job of rewiring an organization’s systems for performance. All innovation has to review to get the actual status of the project. First review of first innovation project has to be done, and the advancement of the innovation according to the required direction needs to be evaluated. Total project development should maintain the previously forecasted goal, where frequent look after need to be done by the trained senior leader, who are appointed to oversee the whole process as per previously set up checklist for the development of the innovation process.

MVIS actually focuses more on the innovative plans that decides to improve in offerings in the product. One of the advantages of this model is that it helps in improving in the overall internal operations that are related to customer segments. Further, the company is focusing on creation of new growth strategies that will aim at getting new product for the customers who are brand loyal towards the business enterprise. Another way that made this organization globally viable is the leadership team who aim at moving in broad perspective in geographic markets as well as maintaining a strict core values (Chen et al.2014). Leadership is all about leading the team in order to provide with resources as well as time. All leaders can manage the team in an effective manner but the managers, on the other hand, cannot manage the team to co ordinate in attainment of the organizational goals as well as objectives.

Ablaza was advantageous as compared to others because they thought of taking one more challenge in presenting in Manilla water that can help in overcoming the difficulty part. From day 20 to 50, it was all about to discuss on the various strategic opportunity areas keeping in mind the innovation pattern of big shot companies like, P&G, Apple etc (Hardash et al. 2014). This actually helps in looking forward with the long term as well as short term objectives of the particular business enterprise. This company particularly believes in a comprehensive research work done with the help of top Professional Executives because they are experienced in this specialized area. Specialist has the expertise to take strategic decisions keeping in mind about all the other employees present in an organization. Their decisions will be out of bias, as they are external employee to the organization so they will not know the employees personally. They can easily guide the employees about the pros or cons of any change that is applicable in an organization (Weng, 2014). Not every change is advantageous as well as time consuming and if proper co ordination is built among employees, then it is easy to achieve the individual as well as organizational goals.

The various organizational energy was taken consideration to view at the competitive forces. Group discussion should be encouraged between the managers in order to discuss the key factors and findings so that there is no issue regarding the opportunity in the strategic areas (Ndubisi, Capel and Ndubisi, 2015). The main criteria are to come up with innovative ideas that will be helpful for the entire organization. The employees should think of future so that they come up with ideas to form a small and dedicated team whose focus will be on the creation of innovative practices. Every innovation system requires a specific person who is experienced in the fields in order to take strategic decisions. The team should be effective to that extent that each should be given equal amount of opportunity to come up with their own thought process (Intarakumnerd and Gerdsri,  2014). As soon as any project is established, all the employees should participate as far as possible for them. In other words, employees should not be of feeling that their ideas are too small that will not bring any difference in the organization. Rather, individuals should think any changes is good or bad for the organization, so it is wise to give a chance to everything possible to get an edge in the competition (Narula, 2014). A healthy environment are needed that will make the employees feel free to come up with new ideas and opinions that can help in bringing a change in the overall organizational pattern.

The disadvantages caused are the budgeting systems that do not encourage the innovative practices that prove to be a reason for negative impact on the entire organization. Borrowing is done based on venture capital because entrepreneur put emphasis on the growth strategy but still it is on the processing stage. Any innovation practices are time consuming but in order to compete with the market, the time is not provided to the maximum that leads to creation problems. The main emphasis should be done in order to understand the needs and requirements of the customers, but often there is biasness as well as the data is not accurate. This actually keeps the company unaware about the data of the business enterprise (Chen, 2014).

In other words, if every employee are given chance to communicate in the decision making process, then there will be a sense of jealousy if their verdict is not taken. Not all the employees can be a good decision maker because they lack experience but as they work in the practical world, it may happen that some have the expertise in providing trustworthy information. Employee centered organization often lacks equality because all the feedbacks or opinions are not looked into from same point of view. There will be always a gap in the status as well as future organizational goals (Chesbrough and Brunswicker, 2014). Financial targets need to be achieved and that is not possible within a short span of period. Therefore, the disadvantage is that there is often a gap in the innovation for the purpose of new growth. It is difficult to manage with the time, resource as well as efforts that are required for the five-year goal plan.

Managers in an organization fail to understand the requirements of the employees and to give them with the available resources so that they can perform well. In other words, special emphasis is given on the employees who are target achiever and rest is kept aside that brings down the morale of other employees at the same time (Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014). Proper training sessions are not provided to the employees and that is the reason why the employees are not aware of the rules and regulations of the desired organization. Innovation is a process that is not acceptable by everyone and sense of differentiation starts here resulting in high demand for change in culture (West and  Bogers, 2014). Difficulty was found to critically investigate on the strategic opportunity issues that pose a threat to the company.

First Advice: According to the author, hardware, which is working in good condition in a very much formal system of innovation, must be considered first in the innovation process. Mainly the hardware is the resource, which is mainly required in the innovation process. There is a development team assigned to the innovation process and some trained individuals to oversee the project or the innovation’s way of development (Damanpour, 2014). The adherence of the innovation process is according to the process checklist. Before going to the last stage of the innovation model a compactness required in the resources to generate an outcome as per innovation forecast. Minimum viability is done by using the least resources in the innovation process, monitoring the main resources are the most important part. The words from the author are there that at least a single project person should go to bed with the thought of the innovation and wake up with some possible thinking to that innovation. Basic tools of the innovation process stay still, which are already done for another type of formal models (Hemlin et al. 2014). Source, destination, lock up time in case of innovation continuously monitored with the trained personnel and the already available gap filling measurements need to lines from the basics. Big companies can win the competition battle with the innovation but on a large scale of the option as the resources they have to go for the innovation in their organization. They could find the problem solving option during an innovation process easily as there is the huge scope. But in small or medium size company, the resource is limited, and the option for such business forecast is small. The common way of innovation could not be done, and the MVIS technique has to be implemented (Adner and Kapoor, 2015). So, in this case, to achieve the goal with the minimum resources they have to take the most common factors in concern.

Second advice: It is better for a small or medium size organization to break up the tasks among small groups or individuals those having a limited resource or workforce (Slater, Mohr and Sengupta, 2014). Specialized personnel should get assigned to a particular process instead of the large group. Big companies usually go for a group of individuals for a bunch of tasks where from the author’s advice it looks better to assign a single person to a small defined task to complete. The main architecture of the innovation process still stays for the overseeing of the whole project and an individual’s personal performance (Kanter, 2015). It seems in actual practice also where a big company goes for a business development team; in MVIS a scout may be good to see the changes inside the focused market. In an MVIS system one cannot be hired or included in a team for the innovation process and the already available resources can be used, so took up a process in parts are easy to handle instead of took up the process in a bunch.

Third advice: MVIS gives the prominent indication to the barriers to a greater extent as the tasks are divided into multiple parts instead of a bundle work and particular individuals get appointed for particular tasks in the project. Monitoring and evolution of responsibility can point out a particular obstruction towards the innovation process (Liu, Hodgkinson and Chuang, 2014). Budgeting, strategic planning, incentives are some of the areas where obstruction are mainly seen.

Conclusion

Minimum viable innovation system gives the opportunity for innovation mostly parallel with the traditional, simple innovation process of the giant companies. Giant companies have huge resources to carry out an innovation process and solve a problem faced during the innovation through introduction of extra resource in the process but small and medium size companies does not have the opportunity every time. MVIS gives the opportunity to conduct the innovation process with the help of small resource available to a company with a small timeline to get an absolute output. The four steps of MVIS elaborate the choice of assigning of individual to work and supervising process to get the right way for the innovation. MVIS also shows the difficulty of an innovation process and possible affecting areas.

Reference List

Adner, R., and  Kapoor, R. (2015). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Reâ€Âexamining technology Sâ€Âcurves. Strategic Management Journal.

Chen, P. (2014, July). Enterprise Technology Innovation Capability Evaluation Based on Knowledge Management. In Computational Sciences and Optimization (CSO), 2014 Seventh International Joint Conference on (pp. 280-283). IEEE.

Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Xie, Q., and  Li, J. (2014). CEOs’ Transformational Leadership and Product Innovation Performance: The Roles of Corporate Entrepreneurship and Technology Orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(S1), 2-17.

Chesbrough, H., and Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Forthcoming, 3-28.

Chesbrough, H., and Brunswicker, S. (2014). A fad or a phenomenon?: The adoption of open innovation practices in large firms. Research-Technology Management, 57(2), 16-25.

Damanpour, F. (2014). Footnotes to research on management innovation.Organization Studies, 35(9), 1265-1285.

Davenport, T. H. (2013). Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business Press.

Drucker, P. F. (2011). Technology, management, and society. Harvard Business Press.

Hardash, J., Decker, B., Graham, C., and Thompson, V. (2014, March). NASA Innovation Ecosystem: Host to a Government technology innovation network. In Aerospace Conference, 2014 IEEE (pp. 1-10). IEEE.

Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., Martin, B., and  Mumford, M. D. (2014). Creativity and Leadership in Science, Technology, and Innovation. Routledge.

Intarakumnerd, P., and Gerdsri, N. (2014). Implications of technology management and policy on the development of a sectoral innovation system: Lessons learned through the evolution of thai automotive sector. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 11(03), 1440009.

Johnston, M. W., and Marshall, G. W. (2013). Sales Force Management: Leadership, Innovation, Technology. Routledge.

Kanter, R. M. (2015). From spare change to real change: The social sector as beta site for business innovation. Havard Business Review.

Liu, X., Hodgkinson, I. R., and Chuang, F. M. (2014). Foreign competition, domestic knowledge base and innovation activities: Evidence from Chinese high-tech industries. Research Policy, 43(2), 414-422.

Lundvall, B. _., Joseph, K. J., Chaminade, C., &andVang, J. (Eds.). (2011).Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries: building domestic capabilities in a global setting. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Narula, R. (2014). Globalization and technology: Interdependence, innovation systems and industrial policy. John Wiley & Sons.

Ndubisi, N. O., Capel, C. M., and  Ndubisi, G. C. (2015). Innovation strategy and performance of international technology services ventures: the moderating effect of structural autonomy. Journal of Service Management, 26(4).

Oerlemans, L. A., Knoben, J., and Pretorius, M. W. (2013). Alliance portfolio diversity, radical and incremental innovation: The moderating role of technology management. Technovation, 33(6), 234-246.

Schiederig, T., Tietze, F., and Herstatt, C. (2012). Green innovation in technology and innovation management–an exploratory literature review. R&D Management, 42(2), 180-192.

Schiele, H. (2012). Accessing supplier innovation by being their preferred customer. Research-Technology Management, 55(1), 44-50.

Slater, S. F., Mohr, J. J., and Sengupta, S. (2014). Radical product innovation capability: Literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 552-566.

Weng, C. S. (2014). Technology Management: The Perspective of Social Network. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management,11(03), 1440011.

West, J., and  Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814-831.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., and Lai, K. H. (2012). Green supply chain management innovation diffusion and its relationship to organizational improvement: An ecological modernization perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29(1), 168-185.