Simple but effective: I’ve tried to combine the excellent framework of 10 Types of Innovation (Keeley et al, 2013) with the highly successful framework of the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder, Pigneur et al, 2008). I wasn’t the first one to come up with this idea, some others have plotted the 10 types on the BMC before, such as Huw Griffiths on Medium or Heather McQuaid on Slideshare.

Please download the file below and check out the example of Apple (based on the gameplan in Keeley’s book).

a futuring technique for public organizations

Still a holy grail in market research: the DESTEP – STEEPLE – method. It is taught in almost every business-related course in the world and a very powerful tool to map trends for strategic purposes. 

However, there are a few fatal flaws that may cause users of this method to miss out on important opportunities:

1. It’s too broad to grasp the real pains and gains of customers and clients as well – and as such may result in insights for the whole market rather than insights for your users specifically.
2. It’s supposedly a desk research method, missing out on many ‘odd’ opinions and visions that may actually change your market sooner than you think.
3. It’s based on ‘old-world-thinking’ by looking into economies, demographics and technologies, rather than shifting paradigms, sociographics and new business models that may or may not be digitally enabled.

Especially for the aim of doing strategic research within public institutes, such as (semi-)governmental organizations, non-govermental organization, education institutions and – yes, with their bureaucracy they function as public institutions as well – institutionalized corporations, the DESTEP-method doesn’t work. It is therefore that I came up and validated the TREINDI-approach: a futuring technique for public organizations.

It consists of 7 categories that need to be addressed, in the right order, when doing strategic research for radically new or high-impact strategic changes. Examples may be:

• New education programmes
• New schools or universities
• New public-private partnerships
• New government-funded organizations or (temporary) collaborative ecosystems
• New policy
• New (innovation, economic or SDG) roadmaps

When following these 7 categories, it creates a waterfall of ideas that may then be plotted in framework for further analysis. 

7 Categories of TREINDI

Ask yourself these questions when looking this magnificent 7.

• Transformations: What technology-driven discontinuities are taking place? What challenges and transformations is the world facing?
• Revolutions: In what way do they create revolutions in society? How do people, cultures and demographies react?
• Ecosystems: How does the ecosystem in which we operate change? How does it effect the (economic) environment we're in?
• Institutions: How is the foundation of our institiution impacted? How does it change the role of our department in society?
• Nature of Work: In what way will that change the nature of work? How will we redesign or reinvent our structures?
• Disciplines: What are the effects for our own discipline? How will the scope of our line of work change?
• Innovation: What are the most recent (digital) innovations that impact us? What new tools, products, services and business models are around?

When you understand the different phenomena, follow the following 4 steps to conclude your research

1. Plan your Research

First of all, make sure to take 2-3 months to complete your research: assuming you have about 8 hours/week available I would advise to do the following:

• Gather the obvious: ask all of your colleagues to send you as much relevant papers, publications, links, videos, talks, and so on. Drop them in a folder. Moreover, dig up your own files and drop them in a folder as well. Don’t read everything now, but scan each article on validity and save some highlights for your expert interviews.
• Gather insights: this consists of ‘user research’ and ‘conference crashing’:
  • User Research: set out on a path the find out what the users wants using Design Thinking methods. Speak to at least a 100 users.
  • Conference crashing: visit 2 or 3 high-end conferences on your topic. Pick the conferences carefully: choose the ones which have lots of paralel tracks, so you can sneak in and out of tens of sessions in a day to get as much deep knowledge as you need. Write down everything you remember and take dozens of pictures.
• Gather visions: reach out to experts in the field and prepare excellent interviews for them. Use LinkedIn or your own network to find them and send your request carefully, knowing that you’ll take up valuable time from them, but recognising that your public mission might also be of importance to them.
• Gather the unknown: organisatie at least 3 different workshops with clients and colleagues to further elaborate on your fist findings. Use other futuring techniques for that.

2. Plot your Results

Now, this is the most work. Go through all of your material and step by step plot them in the circle. You’ll be able to use thicker lines for trends that may have more impact on your organizations, and you may plot them closer to the ‘Zone of Impact’ if you think they will be of relevance sooner than others. 

3. Categorize the Results

Now, start categorizing the results by theme. Discuss this with a steering group and colleagues and try to find 4 or 5 different categories that summarize opportunities for your organization. Color them by category (don’t rearrange them) and try to draw starting points as well, depicting the current state of your business and making the gap clear. 

4. Design New Business Models

This is a whole tool in itself, but I’m supposing for now you’re familiar with that. Draw a new business model for each of the different categories. Discuss it with colleagues and redesign them until you’re happy about. Start some pilots. Draw a final report for the archives. 

Congrats, you’ve made it, that’s kind of treindi!

4 Paths to a Sophisticated Innovation Strategy

In december I reached out to both Alexander Osterwalder and John Bessant and asked them what is the most important organizational skill for engaging continuously with innovation. Their answers were almost the same:

• Osterwalder mentioned that every board should consist of both a Chief Executive Office and a Chief Entrepreneurship Officer.
• Bessant noted that organizations should always find a balance between innovators and innovation managers.

Shorty after, I read an article by Ayse Birsel, on Inc.com¹. She also talked to asked Alexander Osterwalder and asked him the question why ‘designers who are fluent at business strategy’ and ‘business people who are fluent at design’ are so different to each other. He could easily name 8 differences between the two of them, but the article concluded with the statement that organizations are in need of both explorers and exploiters – or evolutionaries and revolutionaires².

In management theory, this has long been referred to as organizational ambidexterity:> the ability of an organization to both explore and exploit—to compete in mature technologies and markets where efficiency, control, and incremental improvement are prized and to also compete in new technologies and markets where flexibility, autonomy, and experimentation are needed.³

I discussed this construct briefly in an article last September.⁴. The construct usually deals with exploration on the one hand, and exploitation on the other hand. But reading the comments of Osterwalder and Birsel, and some other material that appeared online in December, I wasn’t exactly sure if exploration could be compared with ‘designer’ and exploitation could be compared with ‘business people’. I started to draw upon that idea, talked to a few people and figured that the construct of ambidexterity could actually be described in more detail when taking into account all 4 of these:

Business Model Generation meets Strategy Creation

This may need some clarification and finds it origin in Trkman & DaSilva’s 2014 work on What is a business model and what is not?⁵. Trkman & DaSilva argue that while strategy creation is an activity that focuses on the long-term, business model generation is something that focuses on the short-term:

We concur that 'every organization has some business model' and 'not every organization has a strategy' (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010, p. 206), we further emphasize that strategy reflects what a company aims to become, while business models describe what a company really is at a given time.⁶

Trkman & DaSilva⁷

This leads to the following two extremes on the horizontal axis. Following scientific evidence on ambidextrous organizations it could be stated that magic happens when business model generation meets strategy creation.

• Exploration: creating a long-term strategy;
• Exploitation: creating business models;

Design meets Business

This part is more in line with the discussion I had with Alexander Osterwalder and John Bessant. Among researchers, the intersection of design and management (science) has long been a topic of discussion. There is a growing group of scientists, mostly in business (engineering) that believe that management science is in fact a design-oriented science and that the two are as such inextricably intertwined with each other. Especially in the field of Entrepreneurship, there are findings that this is true:

We conclude that the interaction between the two (creative rdesign and scientific validation) can drive the continual renewal of the entrepreneurship field and unlock the potential of an inclusive body of knowledge that is both rigorous and relevant. (Romme & Reymen, 2018)⁸

In order to elaborate on the magic that happens when design meets business we should therefore look at theory on entrepreneurship that deals with this magic. One of the most relevant theories on that is the ever-lasting battle between Schumpeter and Kirzner. The Schumpetarian approach argues that organizations try to create something new⁹, while Kirzner argues that it's about seizing existing opportunities¹⁰. Research has shown that organizations deal with different strategies over time and that organizational design takes a more flexible approach in order to simultaneously deal with both effectuation and causation^11 12., which can be seen in the following example:

This leads to the following two extremes on the vertical axis.

• Creating opportunities: a design-oriented approach to innovation;
• Seizing opportunities: a business-oriented approach to innovation;

Capabilities for a sophisticated innovation strategy

John Bessant and Joe Tidd created a model for developing and testing innovation capabilities in their 2009 work Managing Innovation.¹³ In 2015, Ferreira et al tested the assumptions and different capabilities Tidd & Bessant proposed and draw conclusions on the most interesting measurable capabilities for a sophisticated innovation strategy.¹⁴. A few of the most important capabilities were:

• Organizations that create and share an explicit innovation strategy – and communicate clear goals – can achieve high innovation performance;
• An innovation-friendly environment constituted in the organizational culture are fundamental to achieving high innovation performance;
• Companies that are actively involved in outside-in activities can boost their innovation performance.

Haanaes, Reeves & World argue that only 2% of the companies are part of the elite group of organization who understand that you have to excel at both efficiency and innovation. They find that the above-mentioned may be true: “Maintaining an outside-in perspective starts by continuously scanning the market, both demand and supply.”¹⁵

In the visual I’ve included 28 capabilities that drive innovation on each of the extremes of the innovation landscape. Balancing the focus between them brings you closer to the 2%.

4 Paths to Ambidexterity

Each organization may have a different starting point, so each path to ambidexterity should be personalized. But roughly, we could distinguish four types of organizations with their corresponding paths to ambidexterity:

1. The Start-up Path: startups are usually driven by business creation: with a new technology, patent of idea they are seeking to create new markets and blue oceans to implement their idea with short cycles of experimentation. This means they are usually strong at creating opportunities and exploitation. In order to become more sophisticated they should focus more on the capabilities of seizing opportunities and exploration, starting with developing a stronger business sense and developing a long-term strategy.
2. The Scale-up Path: scale-ups usually have a strong sense for their long-term objective: they set far-away goals and nothing gets in their way of achieving that: they are excellent at managerial causation and usually strong at creating opportunities and exploration. In order to become more sophisticated they need to find the right balance and focus more seizing opportunities and building strong business models.
3. The SME Path: both technological and non-technological small-sized and medium-sized enterprises, which also includes family business, are usually very capable at entrepreneurial effectuation. They are ad hoc businesses who deal with everything that comes on their way. In order to become more sophisticated they need to focus more on creating opportunities using a design-oriented methodology and exploration creating a long-term strategy.
4. The Corporate Path: large, established organizations are usually strong at business innovation by exploring scenarios and strategies for the long-term and by managerial, business-wise approach. They could become more agile, sophisticated organizations by focusing on a design-oriented approach to innovation and customers on the one hand and business modeling on the other hand for more short term results.

Below, you’ll find an example of the Scale-up Path and the capabilities they could strive for.

Further reading:

• https://www.inc.com/ayse-birsel/how-opposites-attract-in-love-business.html
• http://innographics.nl/2018/09/05/typology-for-innovative-organizations/
• http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/Connect/Rotman-MAG/Current-Issue/Winter2019-FreeFeatureArticle-The2PercentCompany?hss_channel=tw-162094534

Typology for Organizations: an update

It has been a while since Henry Mintzberg developed his influential work that made us aware of the importance of structures in organization design. To my opinion, Mintzberg’s work was a refreshing change to the world of organization design that until then has been largely influenced by Taylor’s Scientific Management Approach and Henry Ford’s efficiency-based adaptation of that.

As an entrepreneur and lecturer in organization science I find myself still using Mintzberg-related terminology on a regular base: ‘professional organizations’, ‘top management’, ‘middle management’, ‘hierarchy’ or ‘organization charts’. While these terms may be common language in business and as such might be useful in having a common understanding of what we’re talking about, much of it is outdated: organization design has shifted it’s focus over time. Structures are no longer of primary focus in design organizations. In fact, building blocks as ‘middle management’ might only still exist on paper today. Let me show you how the focus of organization design has changed over the years:
 

But times are changing and organizations are emerging, scaling and managed completely differently. New generations, societal change, sustainable goals and disruptive technology require organizations to be much more flexible, self-reinventing organisms that don’t fit above-mentioned design principles. They require openness, transparency, adaptability, co-creation, self-management and responsiveness. While searching for a modern-day typology for innovative organizations – to show our students and what kind of context they most likely would want to work – I found that none was there, so I created a new one.

A Typology for Innovative Organizations

Below you’ll find an overview of the new typologies that I’d like to propose. The model describes organizational typologies based on cultures of innovation. This model is drawn upon a combination of Quinn & Cameron's values framework (2011) and Nagji and Tuff's innovation ambition framework (2012). The typology proposes 4 types of organizations. Each type of organization exists in three different levels of innovation. At the centre are the innovation brokers: consultancy firms, education professionals and knowledge brokers who do not directly work with innovation, but accelerate it (Chesbrough, 2007).

On the right-hand side you’ll see a more structured-approach to the new typologies. All of Mintzberg’s types would now be grouped under ‘traditional structures’.

Figure 1: Typology for Innovative Organizations. The figure in the middle was initially published in 2018 in the internal document Professional Profile Business Innovation at Avans University of Applied Sciences which I co-authored with the aim of explaining students in what environment they are most likely to find jobs after graduating.

Why this typology: innovation management in organizations

Academic Relevance

Innovation Management focuses on creating and managing sustainable business (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Keeley, Walters, Pikkel, & Quinn, 2013).
 
Romme (2016) argued that we are now far beyong early thinkers as Taylor and Ford and that organizational learning is a key aspect for innovative organizations (drawn from i.e. Garud & Van De Ven, 1992; Romme, 2016; Romme & Endenburg, 2006, Simon, 1991) and for business model innovation (Berends, Smits, Reymen, & Podoynitsyna, 2016; DaSilva & Trkman, 2014). Organizational learning helps innovative organizations to deal with the ever-changing, unsure and unpredictable context of business (Van De Vrande, 2017).
 
As a result, ‘typologies’ are not as black-and-white as they used to be. Organizations are now ambidextrous by nature: 'the ability of an organization to both explore and exploit—to compete in mature technologies and markets where efficiency, control, and incremental improvement are prized and to also compete in new technologies and markets where flexibility, autonomy, and experimentation are needed' (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013, p. 2) and has been widely studied (i.e. structured ambidexterity; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2008; i.e. contextual ambidexterity; Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004). As such, a modern-day typology for innovative organizations should deal with ambiguity in organizations.
 
Ambiguity isn’t new: the 'Schumpetarian approach' and the 'Kirznerian approach' have widely discussed over the last decades. The Schumpetarian approach argues that organizations try to create something new (De Jong & Marsili, 2010; Schumpeter, 1934), while Kirzner argues that it’s about seizing existing opportunities (Kirzner, 1999). Research has shown that organizations deal with different strategies over time and that organizational design takes a more flexible approach in order to simultaneously deal with both effectuation and causation (Samuelsson & Davidsson, 2009; Johnson, Craig, & Hildebrand, 2006; Shane, 2003; Busenitz, 1996; Walrave, van Oorschot, and Romme, 2011; De Jong & Marsili, 2010; Reymen et al., 2015, Christensen, 2011, Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004, Kelley, 2005).

Socio-economic Relevance

An updated version of typologies is useful because it adopts new discussions, for instance about overexploitation (Raworth, 2017), innovation (Coley, 2009) and sustainability (Griggs et al, 2013; Sachs, 2012, United Nations, 2017) and puts them at the heart of organizational typology. As such, education programs and public instances would be more accurate in their teaching – which has a strong influence on future economic developments (Georghiou & Sachwald, 2017, p. 29). It follows up on trends in education to break the shift towards a more entrepreneurial environment into a model of multisided value creation (Manshanden et al, 2014; Zwaan, 2016)

Usage

The model can be used in three different ways:

• For identification: it helps you in identifying the (most applicable) form of organizational typology for your organization. It helps in explaining differences between organizations and it helps in understanding why some companies mature in innovation and other don’t. It helps students in preparing for business environment and finding types of organizations that suit their wishes. It creates a common language.
• For analysis: it helps in analyzing the strenghts and weaknesses of every aspect of your organizations. You can create a weighted variant that reveals the nuance in your strategy and company branding.
• For discussion: it helps in understanding and discussing the strenghts and weaknesses of regional ecosystems, as it may be used to show the importance of certain types of organizations that are under- or over-represented in your area. It helps in organization your partner-network and starting open innovation projects

References

– Berends, H., Jelinek, M., Reymen, I., & Stultiëns, R. (2014). Product innovation processes in small firms: Combining entrepreneurial effectuation and managerial causation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 616–635. doi:10.1111/jpim.12117
– Berends, H., Smits, A., Reymen, I., & Podoynitsyna, K. (2016). Learning while (re)configuring: Business model innovation processes in established firms. Strategic Organization, 14(3), 181–219. doi:10.1177/1476127016632758
– Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, (4), 47–55.
– Busenitz, L. W. (1996). Research on entrepreneurial alertness: Sampling, measurement, and theoretical issues. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(4), 35.
– Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the
competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.
– Chesbrough, H. W. (2007). Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(2), 22–28.
– Coley, S. (2009). Enduring ideas: The three horizons of growth. McKinsey Quarterly.
– Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi‐dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x
– DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379–389. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.004
De Jong, J. P. J., & Marsili, O. (2010). Schumpeter versus Kirzner: An empirical investigation of opportunity types. EIM Business and Policy Research, Scales Research Reports.
– Garud, R., & Van De Ven, A. H. (1992). An empirical evaluation of the internal corporate venturing process. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 93–109. doi:10.1002/smj.4250131008
Georghiou, L., & Sachwald, F. (2017). Europe's future: Open innovation, open science, open to the world: Reflections of the Research, Innovation and Science Policy Experts (RISE) High Level Group. Retrieved from the EU Publications website: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/527ea7ce-36fc-11e7-a08e-01aa75ed71a1
– Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., … Noble, I. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), 305–307. doi:10.1038/495305a
– Keeley, L., Walters, H., Pikkel, R., & Quinn, B. (2013). Ten types of innovation: The discipline of building breakthroughs. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
– Kirzner, I. M. (1999). Creativity and/or alertness: A reconsideration of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur. Review of Austrian Economics, 11, 5–17. doi:10.1023/A:1007719905868
– Lawrence, K. (2013). Developing leaders in a VUCA environment. UNC Executive Development, 1–15. Retrieved from https://www.emergingrnleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/developing-leaders-in-a-vuca-environment.pdf
– Manshanden, W., de Heide, M., Koops, O., van der Horst, T., Poliakov, E., Bulasvkaya, T., … Bekkers, F. (2014). De Staat van Nederland Innovatieland: R&D: impuls voor economische groei. Special issue [The State of the Netherlands as an Innovation Country: R&D: Impetus for economic growth]. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.
– Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. London: Chelsea Green Publishing.
– Nagji, B., & Tuff, G. (2012). Managing Your innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review, 66. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/05/managing-your-innovation-portfolio
– O'Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
– O'Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2285704
– Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
– Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2014). Value proposition design: How to create products and services customers want. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
– Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. London: Chelsea Green Publishing.
– Reymen, I. M. M. J., Andries, P., Berends, H., Mauer, R., Stephan, U., & Burg, E. (2015). Understanding dynamics of strategic decision making in venture creation: A process study of effectuation and causation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 351–379. doi:10.1002/sej.1201
– Romme, G. (2016). The quest for professionalism: The case of management and entrepreneurship. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
– Sachs, J. D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. The Lancet, 379(9832), 2206–2211. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0
– Samuelsson, M., & Davidsson, P. (2009). Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 229–255. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9093-7
– Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 55). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
– Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
– Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.125
– Tushman, M., Lakhani, K., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2012). Open innovation and organization design. Journal of Organization Design, 1(1), 24–27. doi:10.7146/jod.6336
– United Nations. (2017, May 17). Innovators, UN discuss using tech to tackle world's development challenges. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/05/557562-innovators-un-discuss-using-tech-tackle-worlds-development-challenges
– Van De Vrande, V. (2017). Collaborative innovation: Creating opportunities in a changing world. ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/100028
– Walrave, B., van Oorschot, K. E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2011). Getting trapped in the suppression of exploration: A simulation model. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1727–1751. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01019.x
– Zwaan, B. van der. (2016). Haalt de universiteit 2040? Een Europees perspectief op wereldwijde kansen en bedreigingen [Will the university reach 2040? A European perspective on worldwide opportunities and threats]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.