Determinación del tamaño óptimo de la planta.

While 80 per cent of the funds said they had an emphasis on NPD, see Diagram 15 above, interviewees were generally unable to provide any specific details on any of the innovation processes or the outcome, nor time and overall costs involved. One CEO noted: “There was no formal pipeline to promote NPD or any innovative idea within that culture …the process to date was random and ad hoc.”

Surprisingly, only two funds only reported that they had any formalised innovative process (Funds 2 and 14). One interviewee from Fund 2 noted: “that there was a bias towards innovation …notwithstanding an innovation perspective, there is not a lot of impact.”

The CIO of Fund 18 noted that:

Our fund used a star gate system for innovation and we focused our efforts in this process on passing through various gates…Stage one involves asking the question ‘does it fit with sustainable products’ … Stage two involves a risk

assessment process …and if there is unmitigated risk then they will not continue with the process…Stage three involves a ‘detailed scope’…

When interviewees were questioned as to whether there was an organisational focus on product development, it was approximately 50 per cent. Fund 2 interviewees reported that while historically it was not, it is changing with the new CEO.

Fund 8 interviewees collectively noted that their CEO saw the importance for growth in products. CEO and Chairman of Fund 17 also note thatcompetition made us more actively aware of the importance of innovation.

Trustees from Funds 1 and 5 believed that: “…the industry didn’t have an innovation focus or NPD focus…rather a growth focus…” (Trustee, Fund 1),and, “lack commercial thought and if there was NPD, more a reaction to member choice and focus” (Trustee, Fund 5).

Sub-question 3: Is innovation measured within an ASF? Measurement of NPD

“I’m not sure where blame would lay with innovation stuff ups…” (CEO, Fund 11).

Participants were specifically questioned on whether their ASF measured the success of new products introduced to market by their fund. Data revealed that rarely did ASFs measure the impact or success of innovation and funds lacked any series of measurement metrics to measure the success of the new product or services within the ASI. Only two industry funds

Page | 158  

(Funds 2 and 18) reported the use of any overall formal measurement system. Reasons given for not measuring NPD included:

i. NPD was a relatively new process to the business for which to date, no performance metric had been prescribed.

ii. No set targets for the fund in this area. iii. Too complex to do so.

iv. Difficult to measure success.

v. Prefer to use a ‘take up rate’ of the new product as a measurement37 _{tool instead.}

During the interview process it became obvious that the use of measurement ratios outlined by this researcher [refer Appendix 11] was not common-place within the ASI. Only two ASFs were identified as using any formal measurement system for measuring the success of NPD for that particular fund. This is alarming given the amount of money, $AUD 1.5 Trillion dollars, under funds management in Australia. The majority of respondents had no formal mechanism to measure the impact of NPD. This is despite the fact the sample indicated that 75 per cent had some measurement system for innovation in general within their fund.

One key commercial metric is used in measuring the NPD success rate for organisations: What proportion of projects entering the development stage became commercially

successful? This was asked during the interview process. Interviewees stressed that they did not measure the success rate of the NPD or service, as it was too difficult to measure.

In summary, Funds 8 and 14 were the only ASFs from the sample group of 20 funds that used a formal gateway system to measure innovation within their fund. Interviewees representing 80 per cent of the funds reported examples of innovation, yet there was a lack of formal measurement used by the marketing department or any other business units in their entity to

monitor new products. CEOs from Funds 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 said no measuring of the success of NPD occurred within their fund.

Interviewees from Funds 1, 2, 3, 8, 14, 15, reported that they just measured the “take up rate” of a new product.

Most interviewees noted that their fund conducted some form of market research, and the more commercial orientated funds were conducting regular industry analysis to benchmark their fund’s performance against it. For example, a Trustee from Fund 1 said: “There was extensive market research done by this fund.” Similarly, the CEO from Fund 8 said: “Yes we

do market research all the time.” Fund 14 interviewees said: “Market research was

conducted on behalf of the fund by an external market research company.”

An interviewee from Fund 15 said they were, “keen to know what was going on in the industry.”

The Marketing Manager from Fund 2 said: “The fund looked at the best way to go market through market research; we looked at the differentiators as well in terms of competitive advantage…” Fund 2’s Investment Manager reported how active the fund was in terms of market research and said that they held “… a lot of focus groups. Series of focus groups set up for ‘protected pension’ to nut out product specifications… and satisfaction surveys are conducted annually.”

In conclusion, despite the fact that the majority of interviewees reported examples of innovation in the ASI and some form of market research, there was a lack of formal

measurement procedures in place and only ten per cent of the funds had formal processes and systems to bring to market NPD or innovative ideas.

Page | 160  

Diagram 16: Interviewees responses to the question – Does your superannuation fund