tirsdag den 20. oktober 2009
M2M
M2M or Mind to Market is a way to express the concept of Innovationshøjskolen (The Danish College of Innovation). Its about how to get the great idea, combine it with the a feasible businessplan and act on it - be proactive. This is the aim of the teaching at Innovationshøjskolen - how to move it from the mind to the market.
onsdag den 7. oktober 2009
Reinventing Europe through innovation
- From a knowledge society to an innovation society
From INNOVATION UNLIMITED (http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/doc/forum/innovation_consultation.pdf)
Innovation has been a central EU priority over the last decade, repeatedly supported by European leaders and backed by numerous strategies, funding programmes and assessments.
But Europe has not achieved its full goal of being the most competitive global knowledge economy and is not investing effectively or appropriately in the infrastructure, competences, creative environments and businesses needed for 21st century innovation. Public support for innovation is primarily provided through complex, slow and uncoordinated programmes.
Private finance mainly backs the same low risk investments. Thus people, entrepreneurs and companies with ambitious and creative ideas find limited support and numerous barriers.
Broader public policy and public services in particular take little advantage of the power of innovation to transform society. Many parts of the enlarged Union are left under-using their innovation potential. The current economic situation and looming new realities - like Europe's rapidly ageing, increasingly intercultural society and fast developments in other regions of the world - only amplify these weaknesses and make the need for radical change more urgent.
The European flag needs a new star – 'The Seastar' – which symbolises an innovation policy which is decentralised, self renewing, and connected; and which builds on the unique diversity of an enlarged Union in an increasingly competitive and globalised world. A knowledge society is not enough. Europe must create an innovation society where knowledge is utilised rapidly and powerfully for societal benefit and development.
This requires a systematic transformation from fragmented, single issue, closed approaches favouring large incumbents to networked, flexible and open approaches favouring new entrants and ideas. We will call on European policy makers – the European Institutions, national and regional governments – to support this transformation. But first we are sharing our ideas with you to provoke open debate and ask what is important for you.
From INNOVATION UNLIMITED (http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/doc/forum/innovation_consultation.pdf)
Innovation has been a central EU priority over the last decade, repeatedly supported by European leaders and backed by numerous strategies, funding programmes and assessments.
But Europe has not achieved its full goal of being the most competitive global knowledge economy and is not investing effectively or appropriately in the infrastructure, competences, creative environments and businesses needed for 21st century innovation. Public support for innovation is primarily provided through complex, slow and uncoordinated programmes.
Private finance mainly backs the same low risk investments. Thus people, entrepreneurs and companies with ambitious and creative ideas find limited support and numerous barriers.
Broader public policy and public services in particular take little advantage of the power of innovation to transform society. Many parts of the enlarged Union are left under-using their innovation potential. The current economic situation and looming new realities - like Europe's rapidly ageing, increasingly intercultural society and fast developments in other regions of the world - only amplify these weaknesses and make the need for radical change more urgent.
The European flag needs a new star – 'The Seastar' – which symbolises an innovation policy which is decentralised, self renewing, and connected; and which builds on the unique diversity of an enlarged Union in an increasingly competitive and globalised world. A knowledge society is not enough. Europe must create an innovation society where knowledge is utilised rapidly and powerfully for societal benefit and development.
This requires a systematic transformation from fragmented, single issue, closed approaches favouring large incumbents to networked, flexible and open approaches favouring new entrants and ideas. We will call on European policy makers – the European Institutions, national and regional governments – to support this transformation. But first we are sharing our ideas with you to provoke open debate and ask what is important for you.
tirsdag den 6. oktober 2009
The eligibility of Innovationshøjskolen
Innovation is the precondition for a sustainable growth, job creation and the creation of a knowledge-based, low-carbon economy in the EU and especially for Denmark which increasingly depends on excellence and innovation as the main drivers of the Danish competitiveness.
The aim of the Danish government is to become a leading growth entrepreneurial nation by 2015 and mastering this transformation it is crucial to remain competitive in the globalised world and to achieve wider societal goals in a sustainable way under the pressure of demographic changes, the climate challenge, scarce resources and new security threats.
The key for the transformation is therefore the ability to think and act innovative. But innovation cannot be organized by a decree. It comes from people, and only people —
Such as young people, old people, students, employees, scientists, entrepreneurs, investors, consumers and also public authorities.
The Minister of Economic and Business Affairs, Lene Espersen, who has the responsibility to improve the conditions for growth in Denmark, speaks about the necessity Capital, Competences and Culture to become a leading growth entrepreneurial nation .
Especially culture and competences is important when it comes to the mindset of innovation. To change the mindset of people is a process that demands a framework which provokes and incites them to enter new and unknown territories.
The framework is INNOVATIONSHØJSKOLEN to manage the process to change the mindset of people.
The aim of the Danish government is to become a leading growth entrepreneurial nation by 2015 and mastering this transformation it is crucial to remain competitive in the globalised world and to achieve wider societal goals in a sustainable way under the pressure of demographic changes, the climate challenge, scarce resources and new security threats.
The key for the transformation is therefore the ability to think and act innovative. But innovation cannot be organized by a decree. It comes from people, and only people —
Such as young people, old people, students, employees, scientists, entrepreneurs, investors, consumers and also public authorities.
The Minister of Economic and Business Affairs, Lene Espersen, who has the responsibility to improve the conditions for growth in Denmark, speaks about the necessity Capital, Competences and Culture to become a leading growth entrepreneurial nation .
Especially culture and competences is important when it comes to the mindset of innovation. To change the mindset of people is a process that demands a framework which provokes and incites them to enter new and unknown territories.
The framework is INNOVATIONSHØJSKOLEN to manage the process to change the mindset of people.
mandag den 5. oktober 2009
What is Innovation?
From http://dsinghtaru.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/levels-of-innovation/
by TARU Innovations, Davinder Singh Principal TARU Innovations
What is Innovation?
Is Innovation – ‘new to world’ or is it ‘anything new to business’ (and could be re application of an idea/concept used by some one else). Purists want to call it as ‘new to world’; something that no one else has done before; really original. Pragmatists tend to see differently- ‘reapplication is good’; do not re invent the wheel; find more uses; new to world is restrictive. The debate continues.
Many companies would want to have purists certify that they are truly innovative, but the business pragmatism require them not to lose an opportunity to reapply and gain.
Let me present a different perspective. It is probably more important to evaluate and classify ‘Ideas’ not on basis of new to world or company but on the basis of impact that they would have on the business and as a corollary the resources needed and the associated risk/reward equation.
The ‘Innovation Ideas’ can be
Incremental : they would lead to some gains albeit small ones. These are like small improvements that companies do to their products/services basis the small shifts in consumer needs or due to a better technology available to do the same work or just to bring a sense of ‘newness’ or change to address consumer fatgue. Things like new flavor, new shape of soap bar etc. would be typical examples of this. These require very little resources, no change in any process – sourcing, manufacturing, selling or marketing, has low risk and also less likely to have great rewards.
Substantial : in these the company would be making significant changes to its offering. Like moving from soap bars to shower gels; adding portfolio of still water drinks to carbonated drinks. The company needs to commit resources in devloping these. Add on technology for the new products is required. There would be changes required which could span not only production but also sourcing, selling and marketing. These changes would require organisation to make efforts but would largely be congruent with existing business. the risks would be there, due to new product category and changes mentioned. But the success would have the potential of great rewards – both top line and profits.
Transformational : This is pretty much like changing the skin. The company adds not just a new kind of product but also moves into new business. The move requires a BIG change across entire organisation. Like cosmetic company launching retail saloon via frianchising. The business model of new idea is entirely different from the existing business. The risk level is high. The resources needed are large and expensive. And success could take longer but when successful it can open a completely new revenue and profit stream. The company could also undergo transformation.
Now many companies and more importantly their senior managers would have to decide what they want, and how much can they do – i.e can they manage only those ideas which are ‘incremental’ or would they want to go for ’substantial’ and maybe even ‘transformational’.
This is where the Balancing the Innovaiton Portfolio comes into play. It makes sense to have enough incremental level ideas – to capture the low fruits and remain constantly relevant to consumers. Then it is as well required to have some ideas of the substantial level. These ensure that big opportunities in the existing business are captured and company can build/retain its competiitve advantage. It also allows company to secure its medium to long range business growth. If this is done and company still has the resources to pursue more innovation, have the risk appetite then they can look at transformational ideas. It is essential that company does not take on too many of these. The high resource requirement, high risk, high degree of change entailed and long time required for completion are the obvious reasons for this.
It is always more desirable to have a balance portfolio where in enough numbers of all levels of innovation ideas are pursued. This allows for better overall success and growth through Innovation.
by TARU Innovations, Davinder Singh Principal TARU Innovations
What is Innovation?
Is Innovation – ‘new to world’ or is it ‘anything new to business’ (and could be re application of an idea/concept used by some one else). Purists want to call it as ‘new to world’; something that no one else has done before; really original. Pragmatists tend to see differently- ‘reapplication is good’; do not re invent the wheel; find more uses; new to world is restrictive. The debate continues.
Many companies would want to have purists certify that they are truly innovative, but the business pragmatism require them not to lose an opportunity to reapply and gain.
Let me present a different perspective. It is probably more important to evaluate and classify ‘Ideas’ not on basis of new to world or company but on the basis of impact that they would have on the business and as a corollary the resources needed and the associated risk/reward equation.
The ‘Innovation Ideas’ can be
Incremental : they would lead to some gains albeit small ones. These are like small improvements that companies do to their products/services basis the small shifts in consumer needs or due to a better technology available to do the same work or just to bring a sense of ‘newness’ or change to address consumer fatgue. Things like new flavor, new shape of soap bar etc. would be typical examples of this. These require very little resources, no change in any process – sourcing, manufacturing, selling or marketing, has low risk and also less likely to have great rewards.
Substantial : in these the company would be making significant changes to its offering. Like moving from soap bars to shower gels; adding portfolio of still water drinks to carbonated drinks. The company needs to commit resources in devloping these. Add on technology for the new products is required. There would be changes required which could span not only production but also sourcing, selling and marketing. These changes would require organisation to make efforts but would largely be congruent with existing business. the risks would be there, due to new product category and changes mentioned. But the success would have the potential of great rewards – both top line and profits.
Transformational : This is pretty much like changing the skin. The company adds not just a new kind of product but also moves into new business. The move requires a BIG change across entire organisation. Like cosmetic company launching retail saloon via frianchising. The business model of new idea is entirely different from the existing business. The risk level is high. The resources needed are large and expensive. And success could take longer but when successful it can open a completely new revenue and profit stream. The company could also undergo transformation.
Now many companies and more importantly their senior managers would have to decide what they want, and how much can they do – i.e can they manage only those ideas which are ‘incremental’ or would they want to go for ’substantial’ and maybe even ‘transformational’.
This is where the Balancing the Innovaiton Portfolio comes into play. It makes sense to have enough incremental level ideas – to capture the low fruits and remain constantly relevant to consumers. Then it is as well required to have some ideas of the substantial level. These ensure that big opportunities in the existing business are captured and company can build/retain its competiitve advantage. It also allows company to secure its medium to long range business growth. If this is done and company still has the resources to pursue more innovation, have the risk appetite then they can look at transformational ideas. It is essential that company does not take on too many of these. The high resource requirement, high risk, high degree of change entailed and long time required for completion are the obvious reasons for this.
It is always more desirable to have a balance portfolio where in enough numbers of all levels of innovation ideas are pursued. This allows for better overall success and growth through Innovation.
søndag den 4. oktober 2009
Short Mindset Exercise from Ashley Mahaffey
This short video shows a fun exercise on how our mindset reacts in relation to the actions of others.
Source: http://ashleymahaffey.com/
Source: http://ashleymahaffey.com/
torsdag den 1. oktober 2009
Summery from the EU Commissions "Reviewing Community innovation policy in a changing world"
‘Innovation is the ability to take new ideas and translate them into commercial outcomes by using new processes, products or services in a way that is better and faster than the competition’
Innovation cannot be organised by decree. It comes from people, and only people, scientists, researchers, entrepreneurs and their employees, investors, consumers and public authorities — will make Europe more innovative. But they do not act in a vacuum. They act with a mindset and in a framework which either discourages or incites them to enter unknown territories.
Innovation is the precondition for the creation of a knowledge-based, low-carbon economy. Mastering this transformation is crucial to remain competitive in the globalised world and to achieve wider societal goals in a sustainable way under the pressure of demographic changes, the climate challenge, scarce resources and new security threats.
Innovation enables European industries to position themselves at the upper end of the global value chain, making Europe the world market leader in energy and resource efficient products and technologies and equipping us with the means needed for global action. Moreover, only in an environment that supports innovation can R&D efforts result in real gains.
That is why the re-launched Lisbon Partnership for growth and jobs has put innovation and entrepreneurship at the centre and called for decisive and more coherent action by the Community and the Member States. On this basis, an ambitious European innovation policy has been launched and the Small Business Act (SBA) has been agreed2. Thanks to this partnership approach, progress can today be reported. Almost all Member States have improved their innovation performance. The innovation gap between the EU and its key competitors, the US and Japan, has narrowed.
As new competitors are emerging and challenges are getting bigger, the EU must not only sustain the recent positive trend, but further improve it. While the economic crisis risks reducing available resources, from previous recessions, such as in the case of Finland, we know that prioritising investment in research and innovation is possible and can play a key role to enable a sustainable economic recovery.
The aim of this communication is to identify remaining gaps and propose policy orientations on how to fill them.
Innovation cannot be organised by decree. It comes from people, and only people, scientists, researchers, entrepreneurs and their employees, investors, consumers and public authorities — will make Europe more innovative. But they do not act in a vacuum. They act with a mindset and in a framework which either discourages or incites them to enter unknown territories.
Innovation is the precondition for the creation of a knowledge-based, low-carbon economy. Mastering this transformation is crucial to remain competitive in the globalised world and to achieve wider societal goals in a sustainable way under the pressure of demographic changes, the climate challenge, scarce resources and new security threats.
Innovation enables European industries to position themselves at the upper end of the global value chain, making Europe the world market leader in energy and resource efficient products and technologies and equipping us with the means needed for global action. Moreover, only in an environment that supports innovation can R&D efforts result in real gains.
That is why the re-launched Lisbon Partnership for growth and jobs has put innovation and entrepreneurship at the centre and called for decisive and more coherent action by the Community and the Member States. On this basis, an ambitious European innovation policy has been launched and the Small Business Act (SBA) has been agreed2. Thanks to this partnership approach, progress can today be reported. Almost all Member States have improved their innovation performance. The innovation gap between the EU and its key competitors, the US and Japan, has narrowed.
As new competitors are emerging and challenges are getting bigger, the EU must not only sustain the recent positive trend, but further improve it. While the economic crisis risks reducing available resources, from previous recessions, such as in the case of Finland, we know that prioritising investment in research and innovation is possible and can play a key role to enable a sustainable economic recovery.
The aim of this communication is to identify remaining gaps and propose policy orientations on how to fill them.
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)