When describing the case study approach (section 7.2 on page 117) the challenges of presenting the recommendations to the entire company management team is discussed. Because of this challenge, none of the recommendations were ever formally presented to the entire management team. Therefore, over the three-year period of the analysis, if any of the recommendations were implemented, it was not due to this analysis, but rather the management team arriving at the same conclusions as the analysis and implementing solutions to what they saw as alignment gaps. However, the final analysis results were presented to one of the founders of the company in May 2015 and this may have influenced some of the changes in the company since that time. The recommendations of the February 2016 analysis was presented to the Analytics Client Delivery Manager who gave his opinion on the validity and value of the recommendations. The following points highlight the value of the recommendations, but also some of the associated challenges:
1. One of the key recommendations, which was constant throughout the three-year analysis period, was to explicitly document the company’s Innovation Strategy. The Analytics Client Delivery Manager agreed with this recommendation and stated that an explicit Innovation Strategy would support planning in the company. While there is still some way to go before
151
the governance questions and innovation scope are formally defined and agreed to by the Senior Management team, certain aspects of an Innovation Strategy have been incorporated into the company’s new project prioritisation alignment template (Appendix J). This means that staff presenting prospective new projects need to consider alignment issues and the company management can better manage their portfolio of projects to drive improved alignment. This is a significant step forward in driving alignment through project portfolio management.
2. Throughout the four analyses over the three year period the innovation infrastructure and process domain was the weakest of all four domains in the focus company. In each analysis it was recommended that a decision regarding a formal innovation model, followed by processes, systems and skills need to be made. When this recommendation was discussed with the Analytics Client Delivery Manager he agreed this was indeed a gap in the company operations. He explained that implementation of this recommendation would improve innovation delivery and would improve employee’s understanding of the innovation processes and their role in innovation. The Analytics Client Delivery Manager also indicated that there would be benefits in implementing some kind of innovation awards programme which needs to be aligned with the Innovation Strategy and driven by formal processes and systems. Since the final analysis and set of recommendations, some progress has been made in this area. Firstly, it was agreed with the founder of the company that a visionary leadership innovation model was most appropriate. Secondly, a product design team has been formed, which has a major focus on new product conceptualisation and design. Finally, a concept priority alignment forum has been established with the mandate to prioritise new product development concepts and to manage the project portfolio in line with the proposed generic “first to market” strategy and the related innovation scope. As can be seen in Appendix J, the company has adopted a concept template, in which information regarding a specific new concept is captured and then presented to the priority alignment forum. Certain aspects of the iSAM model are represented in this template and assist staff and managers to align new innovation concepts with the company’s business strategy and Innovation Strategy. This practical example demonstrates that not all components of iSAM may be required by all companies all the time and that new specific tools should be developed, which incorporate aspects of the iSAM but are configured for the company’s specific needs.
3. There has been a significant change in both the project types and the innovativeness of the project portfolio over the three year analysis period. In the first two analyses it was recommended to increase the number of innovation projects, with special focus on P3 type
152
projects (external innovation project aligned with business strategy). The number of innovation projects increased from 4 of 42 (9.5% of all projects) in analysis 2 to 22 of 48 (45.8% of all projects) in analysis 3. This increase in innovation projects, was driven by an increase in P3 type projects. The number of P3 type projects increased from 3 (7% of all projects) to 21 (44% of all projects).
4. In each of the four analysis over the three year period, it was recommended that more emphasis was required on innovation driving internal improvements, especially within the support function departments. The Analytics Client Delivery Manager was very much in agreement with this recommendation and indicated that the same focus on innovation of the product should be directed at internal innovation, especially since the company was going through a major growth phase. Since the last analysis the HR, Finance and Business Development departments have all implemented new IT systems to support newly designed processes. While the CRM, procurement and staff management systems are not specifically innovative to companies in general, they are fairly rare within this industry and can definitely provide the company with a competitive advantage, especially when competing for new funding.