InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Why innovate
Innovation provides a source of competitive advantage Whether through
incremental new developments to a product or a big leap forward innovation
involves the creation selection and efficient delivery of new ideas to allow
companies to outperform their competitors by being the quickest and smartest
to grasp new technological opportunities create unique propositions and
deliver compelling new products and services
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation is significant in both good times and bad In times of economic growth
new ideas products and services are the lifeblood of sustained increases in revenue
and profitability In a recession innovation is no longer an option to add value and
deliver competitive advantage but a core means of survival in an increasingly
selective market
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation affects the organization as well as financial performance A company with
a creative culture and a motivated workforce sends a positive message to the outside
world and attracts the best people
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation also influences the external environment Through the impact on
customers suppliers and sub contractors innovation success within a firm promotes
and encourages more innovation outside (eg founding new companies by ex-employees
new ventures relocation of a partner or supplier into the local area)
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation performance
There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in
share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable
indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation
Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of
assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large
multinationals tend to dominate
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage
of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this
carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput
ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent
output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a
percentage ofsales
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that
apply to help one
company be a more effective innovator than another
The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined
band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does
not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being
outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector
that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger
companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than
their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a
more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is
certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the
automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are
better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in
their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts
Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but
geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of
investment andcompany size
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Why innovate
Innovation provides a source of competitive advantage Whether through
incremental new developments to a product or a big leap forward innovation
involves the creation selection and efficient delivery of new ideas to allow
companies to outperform their competitors by being the quickest and smartest
to grasp new technological opportunities create unique propositions and
deliver compelling new products and services
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation is significant in both good times and bad In times of economic growth
new ideas products and services are the lifeblood of sustained increases in revenue
and profitability In a recession innovation is no longer an option to add value and
deliver competitive advantage but a core means of survival in an increasingly
selective market
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation affects the organization as well as financial performance A company with
a creative culture and a motivated workforce sends a positive message to the outside
world and attracts the best people
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation also influences the external environment Through the impact on
customers suppliers and sub contractors innovation success within a firm promotes
and encourages more innovation outside (eg founding new companies by ex-employees
new ventures relocation of a partner or supplier into the local area)
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation performance
There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in
share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable
indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation
Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of
assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large
multinationals tend to dominate
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage
of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this
carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput
ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent
output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a
percentage ofsales
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that
apply to help one
company be a more effective innovator than another
The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined
band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does
not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being
outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector
that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger
companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than
their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a
more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is
certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the
automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are
better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in
their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts
Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but
geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of
investment andcompany size
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation is significant in both good times and bad In times of economic growth
new ideas products and services are the lifeblood of sustained increases in revenue
and profitability In a recession innovation is no longer an option to add value and
deliver competitive advantage but a core means of survival in an increasingly
selective market
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation affects the organization as well as financial performance A company with
a creative culture and a motivated workforce sends a positive message to the outside
world and attracts the best people
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation also influences the external environment Through the impact on
customers suppliers and sub contractors innovation success within a firm promotes
and encourages more innovation outside (eg founding new companies by ex-employees
new ventures relocation of a partner or supplier into the local area)
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation performance
There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in
share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable
indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation
Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of
assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large
multinationals tend to dominate
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage
of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this
carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput
ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent
output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a
percentage ofsales
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that
apply to help one
company be a more effective innovator than another
The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined
band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does
not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being
outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector
that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger
companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than
their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a
more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is
certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the
automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are
better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in
their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts
Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but
geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of
investment andcompany size
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation affects the organization as well as financial performance A company with
a creative culture and a motivated workforce sends a positive message to the outside
world and attracts the best people
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation also influences the external environment Through the impact on
customers suppliers and sub contractors innovation success within a firm promotes
and encourages more innovation outside (eg founding new companies by ex-employees
new ventures relocation of a partner or supplier into the local area)
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation performance
There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in
share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable
indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation
Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of
assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large
multinationals tend to dominate
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage
of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this
carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput
ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent
output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a
percentage ofsales
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that
apply to help one
company be a more effective innovator than another
The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined
band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does
not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being
outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector
that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger
companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than
their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a
more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is
certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the
automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are
better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in
their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts
Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but
geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of
investment andcompany size
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation also influences the external environment Through the impact on
customers suppliers and sub contractors innovation success within a firm promotes
and encourages more innovation outside (eg founding new companies by ex-employees
new ventures relocation of a partner or supplier into the local area)
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation performance
There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in
share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable
indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation
Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of
assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large
multinationals tend to dominate
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage
of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this
carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput
ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent
output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a
percentage ofsales
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that
apply to help one
company be a more effective innovator than another
The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined
band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does
not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being
outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector
that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger
companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than
their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a
more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is
certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the
automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are
better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in
their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts
Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but
geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of
investment andcompany size
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation performance
There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in
share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable
indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation
Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of
assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large
multinationals tend to dominate
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage
of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this
carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput
ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent
output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a
percentage ofsales
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that
apply to help one
company be a more effective innovator than another
The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined
band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does
not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being
outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector
that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger
companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than
their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a
more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is
certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the
automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are
better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in
their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts
Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but
geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of
investment andcompany size
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage
of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this
carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput
ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent
output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a
percentage ofsales
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that
apply to help one
company be a more effective innovator than another
The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined
band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does
not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being
outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector
that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger
companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than
their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a
more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is
certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the
automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are
better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in
their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts
Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but
geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of
investment andcompany size
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that
apply to help one
company be a more effective innovator than another
The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined
band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does
not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being
outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector
that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger
companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than
their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a
more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is
certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the
automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are
better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in
their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts
Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but
geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of
investment andcompany size
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership
Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector
that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger
companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than
their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a
more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is
certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the
automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are
better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in
their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts
Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but
geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of
investment andcompany size
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is
certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the
automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are
better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in
their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts
Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but
geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of
investment andcompany size
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations
Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place
1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision
1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability
Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration
1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many
1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration
1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application
1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership
Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO
Part 1
Top Related