Why an Innovation Management Standard is Important for Companies
In a recently published paper*, Joe Tidd places relevant questions and remarks about the building blocks of ISO 56002** Guidance on Innovation Management. It is an excellent opportunity to discuss and adopt new and value-added approaches to innovation practice and theory.
Despite some observations that reflect the lack of updated knowledge of the work in progress that has been conducted by ISO/TC 279 task forces and working groups over the last years, I can only see opportunities to improve our final deliverables. I will highlight my views regarding the innovation management standard's key elements, which can benefit from further discussion and other perspectives.
Above all, I firmly believe that we need to ensure the right balance between the academic viewpoint (considering the state of the art) and practitioners' concerns and mindset (focusing on what works better).
For a long time, I have been preaching that innovation is not a check-list of good practices neither a process like quality and maintenance, mostly focused on continuous improvement. Given its nature, innovation is a strategic choice that organizations have to make in response to market, technology and regulatory fast changes, among many other forms of uncertainty and unstructured internal and external relationships.
This debate brings more visibility to adopting the ISO 56002 standard (guidelines) for certification purposes. We need to reflect on the goal of certification. It is only to assess if a company has a system that complies with a standard? From my view, ISO 56002 should first contribute to drive innovation forward, push the organizational and external boundaries, and create a culture that supports the well-known principles of innovation management mentioned in this paper.
It doesn't mean that motivations like legitimacy, proficiency and performance are not necessary. But what the standard's adoption should drive is essentially a more innovative thinking and doing capability. They should, however, be consequence of driven by the adoption of the standard.
I will address some issues, which from my view, are more critical and require a clear answer from ISO/TC 279 task forces and working groups:
Leadership
In many companies, the company leader's willingness and attitude towards innovation influence the standard's adoption more than any other factor. If there is no clear intent of what they have in mind regarding concrete goals (e.g., enter in a new market with a more competitive product offer, market new technology applications, or design a new business model to compete with non-traditional competitors), the innovation management system will only serve to ensure compliance with the standard.
Therefore, the first thing to do is to help the leader to define the purpose of innovation. As for all the other critical innovation building blocks, ISO 56002 should provide an easy-to-use list of tools and methods with clear guidelines to support decision-making regarding selection and implementation. It should be broad enough to give each case more options and always updated with new and cutting-edge approaches driven from different perspectives (scholars and practitioners).
Planning
The sequential and linear planning model is no longer valid in an ever-changing and complex environment affecting incumbents in long standing sectors. Despite the type of industry we are dealing with, there is a strong demand for flexible and agile models characterized by iteration and back and forward movements.
Innovation strategy needs to be revised more frequently and focused on fewer but more relevant objectives (how to breakdown the strategic priorities into more tangible initiatives), indicators (how to measure the objectives) and metrics (how to define the level of performance required). Instead of SMART objectives, companies need to set objectives frequently discussed, ambitious, specific, and transparent (FAST) in shorter planning cycles that fundamentally drive execution and not only control.
Process
Considering that it doesn't make more sense to think linearly, companies should design processes that support innovation accordingly to the type of context (e.g., company size and sector) and strategy (e.g., tech push or need pull).
During an extended period, stage-gate/waterfall processes were prevalent. Now, the innovation community recognizes they are no longer valid, particularly for more disruptive or rapid innovation (e.g., Covid-19 response, which mostly applies business model innovation).
Agility, flexibility and experimentation are the most common attributes of successful innovation processes, either formal or informal. No matter the type of company, they want to understand the advantages and disadvantages of fresher innovation approaches like human centred design, jobs to de done, and lean startup. Thus, it makes sense to help companies incorporate these good practices into their innovation management systems.
Conclusion
And the reason why I believe that an innovation management standard is necessary is to help companies i) turn creative ideas into reality and ii) cope with tomorrow's changing demand without putting in danger the current business responsible for most of the cash-flow. ISO 56002 can play a pivotal role in overcoming these two critical challenges, commonly known as innovation paradox and organizational ambidexterity.
I will be happy to discuss further ideas!
You can follow me on twitter and Linkedin
Rui Patrício
Strategic Design and Innovation Lab Coordinator and Assistant Professor at IADE-UE. Member of the ISO/TC 279/WG 3 Tools and methods.
*A Review and Critical Assessment of the ISO56002 Standard - DOI: 10.1142/S1363919621500493
**ISO 56002 Guidance on Innovation Management - https://www.iso56000.com/