MOST Analysis

Mission Statement

The first workshop of the High-Performance Innovation program leads to the formalization of a vision, a strategy and a questioning intended for potential contributors to the deployment of the IPM process, IPM meaning “Innovation Portfolio Management” or “Innovation Performance Management”. On this basis, a mapping of the maturities of the IPM process by organizational subset is built, hence the title of the workshop: scope definition.

Participants are exposed to the fundamentals of IPM during the workshop, in terms of strategy, process, organization and information systems, and are able to contextualize them according to their position in the field. They practice implementing them and produce a personalized framework for the IPM approach as a group. Collaborative tools that can be used in an IPM context are described and compared in order to lead participants to preselect the one that seems to them to be the most in tune with the culture of their organization. The adoption of a cellular, learning and agile organization is recommended and explained in order to begin a first phase of mobilization of part-time stakeholders. A portfolio of pilot projects is identified on the basis of the knowledge available to the participants, and will be completed between the first and the second workshop, thanks to the recommendation of a questioning method mentioned above. The content of this questioning is built by the participants via dedicated exercises. The performance indicators forming the basis of future monitoring dashboards are presented and projected onto the reality of the context of the organization concerned. The organization itself is broken down into coherent subsets from the point of view of the culture of innovation, and qualified in terms of the maturity of the initial IPM process. The IPM strategy is defined thanks to this maturity diagnosis, subset by subset, targeting the immediately higher level of maturity. A scale on 12 levels is used to concretize the formalization of the diagnosis as of the strategy. These elements will be supported by an initial communication plan favoring a participatory mode. The structure of a co-creation workshop that the participants can later facilitate themselves is provided, explained and tested during the session. The resulting content forms the basis of a heritage of stories and legends capable of creating or maintaining a culture of innovation. This dynamic can go beyond the sole framework of the organization via open innovation initiatives, the state of the art of which is described and the concepts tested in session. Participants are made aware of the importance of aligning innovative initiatives with the expectations of the ecosystem or the market, thanks in particular to the use of a method for qualifying a professional network.

At the end of the workshop, the key result is the mapping of the organizational subsets, their diagnosis of IPM Process maturity and the IPM strategy which is deduced therefrom. Thanks to the 12 fundamental skills acquired by the participants, these elements will be maintained over time, supplemented and amended before the second workshop, during which the innovation strategy will be qualified, if it exists, or established, if it doesn’t. IPM strategy and innovation strategy are two different things: the first is dictated by the level of maturity of the IPM process and consists of aiming for the next level; the second is dictated by the expectations of the market or the ecosystem and by the analysis of the organization’s offerings, products or services.

---

Objectives

01. IPM vision: what success rate to aim for, at what pace, based on what assumptions?
02. Scope of application: breakdown of the organization into coherent subsets from the point of view of the culture of innovation.
03. Mapping of maturities: evaluation of the IPM process on each subset using a 12-level scale.
04. Cellular organization: description of the fundamentals of cellular, learning and agile organizations, and their 5 meta-rules. Application to the context of each subset to identify potential contributors to the IPM approach.
05. Collaborative tool: description of a range of generic and specialized tools adapted to an IPM context. Pre-selection of a generic tool within the organization, to be confirmed between the first and the second workshop.
06. Network of pioneers: definition of the primary roles of potential contributors to the IPM approach.
07. Pilot portfolio: construction of an initial portfolio of innovative pilot initiatives. An initiative is either an idea generating potential projects, or a framed and piloted innovation project. This framing and this management respect at all times a key principle: to stimulate the creativity of the stakeholders.
08. Initial dashboard: identification of the first indicators applicable to the context of the organization.
09. IPM strategy: based on the maturity diagnosis by subset, determination of the IPM strategy consisting of aiming for the higher level.
10. Storytelling: identification of stories of past or future innovation projects, capable of creating or maintaining a culture of innovation. Learning methods for conducting co-creativity workshops.
11. Collaborative ecosystem: application of the principles of open innovation to the context of the organization.
12. Initial communication plan: identification of the reasons for communicating on the subject of innovation, as well as targets, issuers, channels, situations, content and means.

---

Strategies

01. IPM vision
a) Identify and assign key roles
b) Share a frame of reference for innovation initiatives
c) Give rhythm
02. Scope of application
a) Map the organization at the macro level
b) Qualify the innovation culture of each subset
c) Revisit the cartography at macro level
03. Mapping of maturities
a) Compare the as-is situation to known innovative business models
b) Establish a diagnosis
c) Specify the diagnosis
04. Cellular organization
a) Understand the situations conducive to the implementation of a cellular organization
b) Adapt the principles of cellular organizations to the context
c) Preparing for the experiment
05. Collaborative tool
a) Choose a collaborative solution
b) Customize the solution
c) Specify the key use cases
06. Network of Pioneers
a) Identify contributors potential
b) Anticipate collection of information
c) Mobilize contributors
07. Pilot portfolio
a) Visualize a portfolio target
b) Initialize a pilot portfolio
c) Zoom in on the operational and economic model: the Business Model Canva
08. Initial Dashboard
a) Highlight the key objective of a reporting process.
b) Identify promising market trends for the organization in question
c) Initiate a dashboard
09. IPM strategy
a) Understand the purpose of an IPM strategy
b) Define the IPM strategy
c) Plan next milestones for IPM strategy execution
10. Storytelling
a) Identify a bedrock of corporate stories and legends
b) Select stories with potential
c) Initiate the production of a collection of stories
11. Collaborative ecosystem
a) Position a target balance between internal innovation and open innovation
b) Prepare open innovation
c) Experiment open innovation
12. Initial communication plan
a) Framing the communication plan
b) Prepare the communication plan
c) Initiate the communication plan

---

Tasks

01. IPM vision
a) Identify and assign key roles
i. Identify the role of the Chief Innovation Officer.
ii. Identify IPM promoters. Qualify their roles.
iii. Characterize decision-maker, expert, project leader profiles.
b) Share a frame of reference for innovation initiatives
i. Know the differentiators of innovation projects.
ii. Define the success criteria of an innovation project.
iii. Define the criteria for focusing an innovation initiative.
iv. Define the types of problems that are the subject of innovation.
v. Confront a case study: the IPM vision of a pharmaceutical laboratory.
c) Give rhythm
i. Define the rhythm of production of visible steps on an innovation project.
ii. Define the pace of introduction of innovations.
iii. Formalize and share the result of group work.
02. Scope of application
a) Map the organization at the macro level
i. Appreciate the different cultures of innovation.
ii. Distinguish ideation, structuring and decision-making.
b) Qualify the innovation culture of each subset
i. List formal innovation processes.
i. List informal innovation processes.
ii. List examples of managerial initiatives promoting innovation.
iii. Analyze recent pivot decisions.
iv. Identify open innovation partnerships.
v. Identify examples of focused innovation projects.
vi. Identify examples of multipurpose innovation projects.
vii. Confront a case study: Pixar.
c) Revisit the cartography at macro level
i. Prepare for the collection of information in the field.
ii. Adjust the perimeter of the subsets.
iii. Formalize and share the result of group work.
03. Mapping of maturities
a) Compare the as-is situation to known innovative business models
i. Familiarize yourself with the recommended evaluation model.
ii. Use the model to diagnose the as-is situation.
b) Establish a diagnosis
i. Give a maturity score to each subset.
ii. Formalize the diagnosis.
iii. Confront a case study: breakdown of the scope of application of IPM at a pharmaceutical laboratory.
c) Specify the diagnosis
i. Characterize the strengths of each subset.
ii. Characterize the improvement areas.
iii. Formalize and share the result of group work.
04. Cellular organization
a) Understand the situations conducive to the implementation of a cellular organization
i. Situate cellular organizations in organization theory.
ii. Understand 5 meta-rules of cellular organizations.
b) Adapt the principles of cellular organizations to the context
i. Select pilot projects.
ii. Identify the pivots operated on these projects.
iii. Identify the components of project blueprints.
iv. Identify the regulatory constraints applicable to these projects.
v. Measure the value created.
vi. Confront a case study: assess stock of fishes in the oceans.
c) Preparing for the experiment
i. Promote places of exchange for contributors to innovation.
ii. Make the link between cellular, learning and agile organizations.
iii. Distinguish innovation strategy and tactics.
iv. Formalize and share the result of group work.
05. Collaborative tool
a) Choose a collaborative solution
i. Know the collaborative tools commonly used.
ii. Preselect a solution.
b) Customize the solution
i. Qualify the functionalities of the prospective collaborative solution.
ii. Analyze functional deviations from the target.
iii. Identify the functions of the common core.
iv. Identify differentiating functions.
v. Compare the solution to the culture of the organization.
vi. Facing a case study: consortium of 4 allied innovative companies.
c) Specify the key use cases
i. Describe information presentation formats.
ii. Describe the main use cases of the tool.
iii. Formalize and share the result of group work.
06. Network of Pioneers
a) Identify contributors potential
i. List outstanding questions.
ii. List the relevant interlocutors.
iii. Qualify the profiles of the interlocutors.
b) Anticipate collection of information
i. Qualify the networks of first-level interlocutors.
ii. Organize a survey.
iii. Confront a case study: contributors in a pharmaceutical laboratory.
c) Mobilize contributors
i. Anticipate future contributor roles.
ii. Formalize and share the result of group work.
07. Pilot portfolio
a) Visualize a portfolio target
i. Assess the situation of the existing portfolio.
ii. Set a critical mass target for innovative initiatives.
iii. Anticipate a targeted distribution of innovative initiatives.
b) Initialize a pilot portfolio
i. Identify candidate innovation projects.
ii. Frame candidate innovation projects.
c) Zoom in on the operational and economic model: the Business Model Canva
i. Understand the Business Model Canva tool.
ii. Confront a case study: Uber.
iii. Formalize and share the result of group work.
08. Initial Dashboard
a) Highlight the key objective of a reporting process.
i. Make the link between reporting and the decision-making process.
ii. Identify decision-making situations.
b) Identify promising market trends for the organization in question
i. Confront existing dashboards.
ii. Identify a first set of promising trends.
iii. Order trends according to their store of value.
iv. Confront a case study: the store of value of a financial group’s innovation portfolio.
c) Initiate a dashboard
i. Assess the level of progress of projects.
ii. Align projects with the IPM vision.
iii. Measure the store of value of innovation projects.
iv. Identify the need to pivot innovation projects.
v. Formalize and share the result of group work.
09. IPM strategy
a) Understand the purpose of an IPM strategy
i. Understand the differences between IPM strategy and innovation strategy.
ii. Visualize the IPM process.
b) Define the IPM strategy
i. Confront typical transitions from one level of maturity to another.
ii. Define the conditions for success.
iii. Confront a case study: Apple and connected glasses.
c) Plan next milestones for IPM strategy execution
i. Formalize the objective of increasing the level of maturity.
ii. Plan the horizon for reaching the next level of maturity.
iii. Identify strengths and obstacles.
iv. Develop a strategy for overcoming obstacles.
v. Formalize and share the result of group work.
10. Storytelling
a) Identify a bedrock of corporate stories and legends
i. Practice writing a story.
ii. Know the different forms of innovation storytelling.
iii. Characterize identities and styles of innovation.
b) Select stories with potential
i. Choose past or future innovation stories.
ii. Justify this choice.
iii. Confront a case study: Logistikos.
c) Initiate the production of a collection of stories
i. Apply the storytelling canvas adapted to an innovation context.
ii. Position the stories according to the 4 Ikigai axes.
iii. Vary the angles of the stories.
iv. Formalize and share the result of group work.
11. Collaborative ecosystem
a) Position a target balance between internal innovation and open innovation
i. Compare internal and external solutions.
ii. Shape recurring innovation processes of a technological or scientific nature.
iii. Appreciate the potential of an open innovation process.
b) Prepare open innovation
i. Capitalize knowledge.
ii. Sort knowledge.
iii. Select assets with potential.
iv. Confront a case study: the Valmido project.
c) Experiment open innovation
i. Identify sources of strategic information.
ii. Probe internal and external sources.
iii. Consider using open innovation platforms.
iv. Characterize a relational network in an innovative ecosystem.
v. Formalize and share the result of group work.
12. Initial communication plan
a) Framing the communication plan
i. Identify communication needs.
ii. Focus its communication on strategic themes.
b) Prepare the communication plan
i. Decline a 6 Ws & an H process. Why, whom, who, when, where, what & how.
ii. Confront case studies: in a banking group, at a major software publisher.
c) Initiate the communication plan
i. Build a communication strategy.
ii. Represent a table of correspondence between reasons for communicating and communication targets.
iii. Set a goal to stabilize or increase exposure.
iv. Formalize and share the result of group work.

---

Introduction

IPM scope definition

The first of the 48 stages of the deployment of the IPM approach is devoted to the breakdown of the scope of the organization into coherent subsets from the point of view of the culture of innovation. Each subset presents a certain homogeneity in terms of assets and challenges to be met to stimulate the performance of the portfolio of innovative initiatives. To be able to draw this cartography at a macroscopic level, the acquisition of a certain number of notions is necessary: what is an IPM vision? How to assess the maturity of an IPM process? How to co-construct a heritage of stories and legends in order to feed a participatory communication approach? What is Open Innovation? What is the difference between an IPM strategy and an innovation strategy? How to identify candidate pilot innovation projects for inclusion in a portfolio? How to measure the performance of innovation, according to which processes and with which tools? Who are the natural contributors to innovation? How to mobilize them? What is a cellular, learning and agile organization?

Workshop participants address these questions with the support of course manuals and associated exercises, as well as by bringing their knowledge of their field. The most useful contextual information during the workshop is as follows (if it is not available before participation in the workshop, do not panic: it will be collected between the first two workshops; this information is not essential prerequisites but allow you to become familiar with the vocabulary and practices of your organization in terms of innovation, whether the maturity of the IPM process is non-existent, low, advanced or intermediate):

• Knowledge of ongoing innovation projects: make a clear distinction between an innovation project and a project. An innovation project differs from another project in particular by the hope of leading to a unique capability on the market or in the ecosystem considered. An innovation is carried by a single actor, whereas an offering or a process that is only differentiated, and not innovative, is carried by a small club of actors, with one or more leaders and followers.

• Knowledge of stories of innovation projects, successes and failures, and the apparent or proven reasons for their conclusions: try to understand the methods used to analyze successes and failures, ask yourself the question of possible improvements.

• Collaborative tools used within the organization: are innovation-specific tools such as qmarkets, craft.io, planview or ideascale already used? Are other more generic tools such as Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Sharepoint, the Atlassian Confluence suite, the Google Meet + Google Docs suite, Dropbox Business or Slack also used to support innovation ? For what uses? If there are guidelines for use or constraints on use, try to obtain them. If similar tools are used, the same questions arise.

• Innovation dashboards: are there specific reporting processes for innovation projects? What indicators are monitored and why? Are these indicators reliable? What decision-making processes do they feed? Who is responsible for it?

• Potential contributors to the IPM approach: who are the project managers or project directors, official or informal, involved in innovative approaches? Who decides to invest in innovation? Who promotes innovation the most, by their actions or by their communication?

This information can be useful but should not be too detailed before the workshop, in order to maintain the spontaneity necessary for co-creation. Because deploying an IPM approach is in itself an opportunity to innovate, if only to reveal the potential of the organization concerned.

Pointing to the key innovation levers (Photo by Simon Lee on Unsplash)

Context of IPM scope definition

This High-Performance Innovation program is designed to provide companies, public bodies or non-profit structures with a state-of-the-art innovation performance management process. Frequently updated, it takes place over a period of 4 years, the typical duration of a transformation into an innovation-driven organization from a few hundred people to several hundred thousand. By participating into this program, you will experience both highly creative times and times for making dreams come true. At the end of the day, you will have deployed a state-of-the-art innovation portfolio management process in your organization. You will break it down into six key dimensions: maintaining the innovation strategy, realizing the potential of assets, facilitating participatory communication, evaluating innovation projects, involving sales and driving growth.

• In one year you will have deployed the approach on a pilot scope.
• At the end of the second year you will have customized your process in a variety of diversified contexts.
• The third year will be dedicated to transformation at scale, reaching all dimensions of the organization.
• Then, during the 4th year, it will be a matter of maintaining the momentum through a dynamic continuous improvement phase.

This first workshop in a series of 48 is dedicated to establishing a vision and strategy for managing innovation performance. It mobilizes decision-makers, project managers and contributors to innovation to help manage the portfolio of innovation projects within their organization.
Here are the key steps:

• IPM Vision: identifying the conditions of innovation performance relevant in the context of the organization under consideration.

• Scope of application: adapting an innovation portfolio management approach by subset of the organization.

• Mapping of maturities: knowing itself and appreciating its potential, thanks to a maturity scale on 12 levels.

• Cellular organization: fostering flexibility, fluidity of the process of creation, disappearance and transfer of teams dedicated to subsets in according to their constantly reassessed potential.

• Collaborative tool: sharing know-how in terms of Innovation Portfolio Management thanks to a quickly operational collaborative environment.

• Network of pioneers: mobilizing experts capable of answering outstanding questions relating to past innovation projects, in particular the factors of success and failure of these initiatives.

• Pilot portfolio: detecting projects encountering significant difficulties, or for which the need for pivoting emerges.

• Initial dashboard: defining essential characteristics of an innovation project, not only in terms of what defines it, but also and above all in terms of its potential for creating distinctive value.

• IPM Strategy: creating the conditions for raising the value generated by innovation initiatives within an organization.

• Storytelling: promoting stories of innovation on a variety of channels, oral, written, audiovisual, virtual and physical.

• Collaborative ecosystem: looking outside. How could the impact of innovation be multiplied by having recourse to external collaborations?

• Initial communication plan: focusing on a selection of stories collected during and after the first workshop.

This first workshop introduces participants to the worlds of IPM (innovation portfolio management), cellular organizations and collaborative ecosystems in a progressive, step-by-step manner. The typical training audience is recalled, made up of leaders, managers and experts called upon to drive innovation within their organization. The link is established between the position of the participants, their challenges, their responsibilities, their natural scope of intervention, their mission, their objectives relating to the dynamics of innovation and the potential and proven contributions of IPM. Emphasis is placed on the need to create a balance between the relative influence of creative talents and structuring talents, by analyzing an example of an innovative company known for its recurring successes. In particular, the notions of focusing and pivoting are closely studied.

IPM vision and innovation culture

The first outcome of the workshop is the development of an IPM vision, which must be personalized according to its scope of application. Participants are then invited to break down their organization into coherent subsets from the point of view of the culture of innovation, according to an iterative process. They start by choosing a first subset using a suitable set of characteristics, then a second, and so on, until they cover the entire organization. Each participant does this exercise on his or her known scope of intervention and is confronted with the points of view of the other participants.

A variety of existing innovation cultures (Photo by Mark König on Unsplash)

The IPM approach is eminently transversal and concerns all the functions of the organization. It applies both to departments exposed to the outside and to internal departments, to business units and to support functions, to recurring operations and to the management of exceptions. Each participant comes with their own experience of innovation and the context in which they are or will be responsible for promoting it and making it more manageable. Because a key challenge is its manageability. However, an innovation initiative is not managed like an initiative of imitation or reinvention. In this regard, realizing that a project, seen as a contribution to a transformation, consists either of innovating, of imitating, or of reinventing, is already a step forward. Knowing when to innovate (i.e. being creative while managing uncertainty and risk more than schedule and budget) and when to imitate (i.e. do what has already been done elsewhere avoiding the mistakes of the pioneers) is a key performance factor. It requires breaking down the issues addressed by the initiatives at the right level of granularity, avoiding over-practicing hybridization between innovation and imitation so as not to generate excessive complexity. As for reinvention, it is clearly to be avoided, which presupposes organizing functions for monitoring and sharing best practices. This last capability is also one of the key differentiators of hyper-growing innovative organizations such as unicorns ($1 billion in capitalization) or centaurs ($100 million in revenue). Their rate of reuse of external assets, for example that of open-source code integrated into a digital solution, advanced electronic components in a miniaturized device or pre-existing processes in the construction of a new service offering, has no equal but their level of focus. Reuse and specialization are then two other strong points of these structures, which the major established players are increasingly drawing inspiration from to identify business units or functions that are candidates for hypergrowth. Reuse avoids wasting energy reproducing what has already been done, thus allowing you to focus on a specialty. In summary, creating value by innovating amounts to establishing a quality, efficient watch, to assembling existing reusable components and to creating new ones associated with them, these three actions being carried out in any order. Indeed, nothing prevents starting by creating a new capability and asking the question of its assembly a posteriori, provided that at each stage a constantly updated alignment with the expectations of the market or the ecosystem is the basis of any structuring decision. To achieve this, it is necessary to stimulate creativity at all levels, to scrutinize and evaluate the right trends, to master the composition of its portfolio of innovative initiatives, to train the persons who are managing it, to invest wisely, to make the right informed decisions at the right pace, to know your assets with potential, to communicate at the right time with the right content for the right targets, among other typical tasks carried out by contributors to innovation. In short, pave the way for the deployment of IPM processes.

---

Scope of application

The IPM vision benefits from being shared, on the one hand because exposure to other eyes and other ears makes it possible to raise new key questions, on the other hand because it must be transformed into an action plan. However, because the various components of a company do not all have the same history in terms of innovation, because they do not always share the same imperatives of speed, flexibility, performance or quality, their relation to IPM may be different. It is therefore necessary to adapt an IPM approach to each of them, by finding the right level of granularity: neither too fine for the whole to remain controllable, nor too coarse to remain aligned with the reality of the field. The scope of application of the IPM is therefore most often broken down into distinct geographical or functional entities, each of them presenting a good level of homogeneity in terms of culture of innovation. For example, a research and development department generally has a tradition of leading innovation projects of its own, different from the approach of other departments less focused on the subject. The work of identifying the subsets of the organization, consistent from the point of view of their innovation dynamics, is primarily the responsibility of management. Typically, pairs made up of executive committee members and innovation project managers, steering committee members and innovation project managers, or leaders at various levels involved in innovation projects can contribute to this reflection upstream, before confronting it with other interlocutors to complete the collection of useful information for establishing the personalized scope of application of the IPM.

Breaking down the application scope of IPM (Photo by Samson on Unsplash)

By culture of innovation, we mean a set of common practices, processes and places of co-creation, collaborative tools, methods of project management or arbitration between competing avenues of resolution, examples given by the management of encouraging creativity via highlighting of promising initiatives or financing of prototypes, propensity to open up to external partnerships from the upstream phases of the development of an innovative product or service, all themes that will be developed in course manual 2 – scope of application.

If the organization has already been broken down into SBAs, or Strategic Business Areas, each operating in its own competitive universe, the division into coherent subsets from the point of view of their culture of innovation can be different. An innovation can cause a change in the competitive universe obtained, or even its creation. The first smartphone had no competitor when it was released, as did the first electric car, the first virtualized banking service or the first contract authenticated on a blockchain. In a less disruptive logic and on a different scale, the same was true of the first service for creating e-commerce catalogs or the first use of drones to assist firefighters in their work. The products and services offered by an SBA are presented to the market, users or beneficiaries using the same strategy. On the other hand, a coherent subset from the point of view of the culture of innovation can very well lead to the emergence of products and services presenting a great heterogeneity of economic and operational model. There is no a priori prior to the conduct of innovation initiatives hosted by such a subset, which has the advantage of not curbing the creativity of the parties concerned.

Nevertheless, it is possible that a large number of different innovations, with similarities in their development process, are made available each year on the market or in an ecosystem by one or more subsets. In this particular case, this significant rhythm is linked to the scaling up of the innovation process itself, with a concern for the profitability of specific means such as a test bench, a supercomputer, a laboratory, a device for scientific experimentation or a resource-intensive process. Here the set of constraints imposed by an exceptional investment is compensated by the variety of its potential fields of application. These models are generally the prerogative of advanced innovative dynamics of a technological or scientific nature, capable of introducing dozens of patented novelties each year at the level of a single sub-assembly. This is the case, for example, of a highly robotized electronics laboratory producing prototypes of printed circuits with multiple potential uses.

On the other hand, there are few or no examples of organizational, behavioral, commercial, environmental, procedural, relational or societal innovations, whether or not associated with digital solutions, subject to the combination of a high level of specialization and a high rate of novelty introduction. These are generally more diverse in nature. This leads us to take a closer look at these typologies of innovation, which are at the heart of service organizations and in industries not dependent on a rapid pace of innovation. Given the growing share of the tertiary sector in the creation of global value (about three quarters of gross domestic product in the most developed countries and a little less than half in developing countries), they underpin the vast majority of initiatives managed in an innovation portfolio, objects of the deployment of the IPM process. They therefore influence the culture of a growing number of organizations, or rather subsets of these organizations. As much as it is natural to consider filing a patent to protect an innovation of a scientific or technological nature, it usually proves difficult to achieve this in another field: it is necessary to prove the originality of a process and its anteriority among a large number of potentially competing situations, without being able to rely on a tangible material basis. Indeed, a process of an organizational, behavioral, commercial, environmental, procedural, relational or societal nature, associated or not with digital solutions, above all manipulates information where a technological process above all manipulates matter (with the exception of information technologies underlying the digital solutions here). And information is more changeable, less palpable and less stable than matter. In this regard, the same reasoning applies to innovations and to process optimization or continuous improvement projects: a solution that deals with information is less stable over time than a solution that deals with matter. So highly specialized innovation processes in a technological or scientific field, manipulating stable matter, are theoretically capable of producing results at a more sustained rate than less specialized processes manipulating changing information. But the former are by definition less numerous than the latter. In reality, the majority of innovations create processes that are difficult to protect, pushing their promoters to protect the specificities of their brands and models instead. Communities of beneficiaries of innovations, users or customers, also provide effective protection, especially if they are particularly committed and loyal. Les différents réseaux sociaux, généralistes ou spécialisés, privés ou publics, largement déployés ou confidentiels, en fournissent un exemple patent. Their innovations are of a relational, societal, behavioral, commercial, procedural and organizational nature, each in their own way and above all in the way desired by their respective communities: young, old, passionate, instant video enthusiasts or other personae.

Splitting the landscape (Photo by ddp on Unsplash)

---

Mapping of maturities

Each subset of the organization thus identified gains from knowing itself and appreciating its potential. This depends on the maturity of its innovation dynamic, which can be measured using a scale of 12 levels, organized into 4 levels of 3 levels each. The first stage relates to the detection of innovation opportunities: are the detection and promotion of ideas and innovative projects with potential favored by the culture in place, or by observable initiatives in the field? Is there a need to provide know-how in this area, or even to propose a virtuous process? If such a detection and promotion capability is operational, widely deployed and effective, the subset can be evaluated at the level of the second stage, which concerns its capacity to measure the impact of the innovation: are there appropriate innovation performance indicators? Are they relevant and useful? Is their definition simple and shared? Are the processes for generating these indicators known and upgradable? Then the third stage relates to the level of openness of the sub-assembly to the outside, to its propensity to innovate by sharing know-how and by practicing cross-fertilization with external actors. Finally, the fourth level characterizes the subgroups that have implemented an agile capacity to prioritize their innovation projects, with rapid frequency, by being very connected to an internal and external ecosystem of witnesses from the targeted markets. Positioning yourself on this scale and aiming for the next level constitutes a unifying project capable of mobilizing the right people, project managers and directors of innovation projects, innovation leaders, functional and technical experts potentially involved, salespeople and communicators, decision makers.

A map of maturities (see example on figure B. below) provides an overview of the situation of the organization from this point of view. In the example below, we find a geographical unit at the “detection” level, i.e. on this perimeter the key issue consists in maintaining the process of revealing assets with potential held by the organization, or by accessible partners, and to eventually become capable of realizing this potential and measuring the associated value creation. Knowledge of an asset with potential in no way prejudges the problem – solution path pairs that will define the initiatives entering the innovation portfolio. If this asset is a distinctive, known and characterized skill, this does not a priori constrain the nature and the objective of an innovation project exploiting this asset. This seems less true for a building or a machine, even if the diversion of use is a process of innovation frequently encountered and at the origin of many successes. A typical example is provided by the express reconfiguration of cutting, welding and shaping machines usually used to produce veils or clothing, with a view to supplying protective masks against Covid 19 on a large scale. This has also caused the appearance of improbable shapes and colors that can bring either to smile, or to ecstasy in front of so much creativity. Beyond the dramatic nature of the underlying health crisis, a number of assets with potential were revealed on this occasion, from the production lines for masks to new logistics circuits, including systems for monitoring the progression of the pandemic or ways to accelerate clinical studies of vaccines without abdicating their necessary harmlessness.

A geographical unit forming a coherent subset from the point of view of the culture of innovation can be a country, a region, a continent, a city or a very localized site. The granularity of the unit in question is not dictated by a general principle but by the originality of its innovation process, whether it is deemed efficient or not. Thus in figure B, subset A is a geographic entity exhibiting such homogeneity. On the other hand, the other subsets, still within the framework of this example, are defined either by the scope of a business unit or by that of legal entities. The criterion of homogeneity of innovative approaches remains the same. It simply corresponds to contours of a different nature. If one of the legal entities has trained all of its staff in the challenges of its digital transformation thanks to a highly personalized online role-playing game adapted to its business, it has created a precedent that can be transposed to other needs such as recruitment or support for the taking up of positions for key managers, each new version constituting an innovation in itself. This way of introducing new capabilities and enhancing them is specific to this entity. Identifying and sharing the achievements of this experience on a simple and readable map, supplementing it with a definition of key success factors and pitfalls to avoid in an appropriate formalism, makes it possible to effectively assess the opportunity to inspire elsewhere in the organization.

---

Cellular organizations

As soon as the first potential contributors to IPM are identified, the question of organization comes to mind. Their assignments benefit from being done pragmatically, exclusively on a part-time basis, anticipating a so-called cellular model characterized by its flexibility, the fluidity of the process of creation, disappearance and transfer of teams dedicated to components of the scope of application in according to their constantly reassessed potential. Cellular organizations have been adopted by most multinational innovation leaders, in various versions and under various names, but always sticking to the fundamentals raised. This type of structure releases creativity while streamlining critical processes, including detection, measurement, openness and prioritization of innovation. But not everything is innovation. Care must also be taken to manage the phases after the introduction of a new capability, the day when it has matured and when the competition has structured itself into a real market, when the technological, managerial or relational advance has been transformed in dominance by optimizing the price-quality couple. Cellular organizations are also adapted to these issues. They are historically present among online distribution leaders who have generalized the concept of servicization, among information technology leaders who have placed the configuration management of products and services at the heart of their strategy, and among most companies so-called hyper-growing favoring a dynamic continuous innovation approach. They are now penetrating all sectors via the agile trend.

Anticipating Cellular Organization (Photo by Landon Arnold on Unsplash)

Agility is in fashion because the time horizon of strategists is getting shorter. The more the future is uncertain, the more piloting is done on sight. The risk is to generate fuzzy organizations, where responsibilities are diffused, where tactics prevail over strategy, while all innovative leaders without exception are on the contrary very structured around stable long-term objectives. Since the beginning of the adventure, Tesla’s roadmap has been communicated at 10 or even 15 years, even if inevitable readjustments of the initial copy are regularly recorded. LinkedIn’s growth levels before its takeover by Microsoft were anticipated over the long term thanks to relational network workforce growth models, even if the monetization of this progress was not fully understood in advance. If the strategy evolves in line with the evolution of the assumptions on which it is based, it corresponds to a vision that is more sustainable. Tesla’s bet is that an inescapable trend is at work, increasing the volume of demand and lowering the prices of electric vehicles, at least for 20 years. The pace of this movement is not precisely known at the start, but its assessment is more and more accurate over the years, the experience of this new market being carefully capitalized to build increasingly reliable forecasting models. On the LinkedIn side, the certainty that the need to streamline professional connections is growing has presided over all the major choices, at least in the first decade of its history. The more the network operation statistics were enriched with new data, the more the accuracy of the planning increased. This principle of articulation between vision and strategy is applicable to any idea that generates potential innovations. An innovation cell is easier to mobilize if its members believe in an asserted, shared and justified vision. If, moreover, this vision is confirmed over time thanks to a succession of positive events, support for the project is strengthened.

Well-thought-out agility is therefore not just an organizational principle and a method. It is also the result of a collection of visions (ideas that generate potential innovations) and implementation strategies (the framing of innovation projects). A cell exists from the moment when vision and innovation strategy form a coherent whole, confirmed by experience. If this is not or no longer the case, the cell disappears. It can be recreated to pursue new avenues of resolution, or wait to be called upon again, in this form or another.

---

Collaborative tool

The contributors to the establishment of an IPM vision and a mapping of maturities already devote part of their time, even a minor one, to training and applying the fundamentals of the approach. In the short term, the idea is to offer them a flexible mode of operation modeled on the model of innovation cells, without prejudging their future number or their speed of deployment: one cell per subset is a sufficient number to this stage. Their members, while being mainly mobilized on their usual tasks in the field, such as operations or projects, gradually acquire skills in terms of IPM that they apply where they are. To achieve this, they must effectively share their know-how through a rapidly operational collaborative environment. At this stage, while the work of collecting information and integrating the fundamental levers of IPM is in its early phase, preference is given to an existing collaborative tool respecting the orientations of the organization in terms of information systems. Later (part 2, month 4 of this program: selecting software), a panorama of solutions specific to IPM will be presented as well as the sets of appropriate selection criteria, in particular in terms of its openness to external innovation ecosystems.

Choosing a collaborative tool (Photo by Marvin Meyer on Unsplash)

But one tool is not everything. The way it is used, how it fits into the organization’s culture and virtuous processes, is at least as structuring as its catalog of features. A market leader in software packages specialized in IPM, such as Qmarkets or craft.io, offers advanced functions, such as measuring the level of attrition between the number of ideas generating potential innovations at a given time and the number of proven innovations successfully introduced hours, days or months later (a so-called “funnel” function). But for this to be useful, prerequisites must be honored, such as the sharing of selection criteria for ideas to be transformed into projects, and therefore to be financed, and a great lucidity with regard to the success factors of these initiatives. The attrition figure alone does not allow progress from this point of view: it must be combined with simple, reliable and well-chosen qualitative analysis elements. Another spectacular function of this type of tool is a graphical representation of the relative importance of the different trends at work in the ecosystem under consideration (examples among others: servitization, deep learning, dronization, green energy, agility, blockchain, cyberquantum, participatory communication). The density of innovation initiatives, the intensity of the investment granted or the average success rate recorded can be analyzed according to this trend axis in order to make concrete and structuring decisions, in particular that of changing the distribution profile of the initiatives in the innovation portfolio. It is a question of favoring the trends in which the organization believes, of abandoning those which in its view will not confirm or no longer confirm the hopes they gave rise to, and of piloting on a case-by-case basis the initiatives which do not come under either nor others. To make these reasonings and make these high-impact decisions, a simple graph is not enough. It is still necessary to qualify in a relevant way the reasons for which a trend turns out to be promising or not.

As soon as a tool is identified to support a given use, the question of its interoperability with the rest of the information system arises. However, at this stage, this need for interoperability is rather limited. Indeed, one of the classic pitfalls consists in initializing such a tool via a migration or the reuse of an existing space, already used to manage a portfolio of projects. It is rather desirable to entrust the constitution of the first portfolio of innovation initiatives to the pioneers (see next paragraph) and not to programs. Thus the amalgam is avoided between innovation projects, aimed at acquiring a unique capability on the market or in their ecosystem, and just projects. The quality of the content of the selected collaborative tool is by far preferable to its quantity or volume. It is with patience that a culture of virtuous innovation is built. Of course, justified exceptions exist. In particular, when a maturity diagnosis concludes that one of the subsets has already deployed a large-scale IPM process and has reached or exceeded the “opening” zone or the “prioritization” zone, the collaborative space is already operational and rich in usable data.

---

Network of pioneers

The members of the first innovation cells are intended to circulate information. Within a network of pioneers, they are called upon to identify opportunities for creating value, to share them and, if necessary, to make them happen with the support of other members, in particular that of decision-makers. This means that decision-makers are part of the innovation cells, in a proportion to be defined. Typically, at least 20% of the workforce must be able to make 80% of the focus, pivot or arbitration decisions, in consultation with the other managers involved. This is an important feature of cell-type organizations, where about one in 5-7 people has the power to move most issues forward by choosing one of the options offered to them by their cell co-members. After having piloted the establishment of an IPM vision and having declined it by homogeneous subset of the organization, the first contributors begin an initial assessment of the potential for value creation linked to the deployment of this approach on their own scope of work, and gradually constitute a first corpus of shareable data. The permanent confrontation with the field makes it possible to continuously refine these results. These actions respect a principle of simplicity and regularity, in accordance with an agile-type approach. The participants of the first workshop are invited to lead meetings with experts capable of answering outstanding questions relating to past innovation projects, in particular the factors of success and failure of these initiatives. Thus they will arrive at the second workshop equipped with new arguments to build their innovation strategy.

Initiating a network of pioneers (Photo by krakenimages on Unsplash)

Knowing what is happening inside and outside the organization, understanding the innovative dynamics at work and having the ability to connect the dots is an important key to performance. Many companies are opening open innovation manager positions, reporting to the Chief Innovation Officer. These professionals scan the market and supply the watch databases with potential assets, aligned with the innovation strategy. The same process can be implemented internally. Also, the post-mortems of internal innovation projects must be conducted with the right level of efficiency to avoid the pitfalls already encountered, reproduce the methods that work and exploit the potential of dormant assets. It is at this price that the number of projects reinventing what has already been invented is reduced and that energy is concentrated on real innovations or on conscientious imitations. The potential for gain linked to this dynamic is increasingly important, information relating to reusable components becoming more and more accessible, both in product and service oriented activities. It remains to discern in this mass of information what is useful and what is not. The best master the relationship between their discernment effort and its impact on the value provided by the growth of their effective reuse rate. In this context, artificial intelligence plays an increasingly important role and the formation of the network of pioneers must ultimately take this into account. If there is a trend affecting the IPM process itself, whatever the nature of the organization concerned, it is the development of artificial intelligence in the service of the maintenance of a catalog of assets at potential. This subject is at the heart of particularly promising innovation management research programs. As part of this training curriculum, it will be covered in more depth in the sessions part 2, month 8: promising trends and part 4, month 9: AI lever. Constantly revisited in the light of changes in the ecosystem, this content will be updated until then to take into account the progress observed in the field of IPM, because this discipline is in the grip of upheavals and new avenues for resolution are emerging every week. In the meantime, priority is given to the organization and reliability of the data on which these analysis engines will be based, through the constitution and maintenance of a portfolio of qualified initiatives. It is to this task that the network of pioneers will tackle, before possibly considering advanced solutions that can go as far as the creation of digital twins of IPM processes.

---

Pilot portfolio

There are more and more agile initiatives within a variety of organizations. Also the coexistence of innovation cells, Scrum or Sprint teams, Kaizen or Lean cells, must be well understood. They all share the same principle of flexibility of creation, decommissioning and transfer, which avoids piling up organizational strata that do not come apart when the need that presided over their constitution has disappeared. However, they each have different objectives. The long-term objective assigned to the innovation units is to help steer a portfolio of innovation projects from the perspective of their performance across the entire organization, in a way giving visibility to decision-makers or even shareholders on the actionable levers to improve, in the other way visibility for each employee, by capillarity, on the success factors of these improvements.

In the immediate term, this positioning is reflected in the constitution of an initial portfolio of pilot projects, based on the initial evaluations carried out by the members of the innovation cells in their respective fields. During the workshop and the informal meetings that follow, past, present and future innovation projects are discussed. Some of them meet the right criteria for forming an initial portfolio of innovation projects, either because they represent models to follow, or because they are encountering significant difficulties, or because the need for pivoting emerges (see figure C. hereafter).

Model projects are generally advanced, benefiting from sufficient hindsight for confidence in a happy ending to be strong. They benefit from being studied to detect common factors of success, to be confronted with the IPM vision in order to nourish and adapt it. Projects in great difficulty are generally subject to specific support measures and should not be disturbed more than they already are. However, the confrontation with the IPM vision can be the trigger for the exploration of new avenues of resolution, which should not be neglected. Projects for which the need for a change in operating or economic model has been identified are subject to appropriate monitoring. There are methods of accelerated pivoting that are insufficiently practiced today, especially in the service sector, such as TRIZ for example. However, they are mastered and have proven themselves in industry, particularly in high-tech electronics, and their transposition in the service sector or in the transverse functions of companies is one of the major challenges of the moment. Even if the members of the innovation cells do not necessarily have the skills to carry out these initiatives at this stage, they prepare for them by integrating these projects into the initial portfolio.

One of the key skills to acquire is the ability to assess whether to pivot or not. TRIZ, already mentioned, is a method for identifying, triggering and framing possible solutions adapted to a given problem. It has the advantage of rotating a concept upstream as many times as necessary before spending the first dollar on its actual prototyping. However, among the causes of inefficiency in innovation portfolios, late pivoting is in a good place. This is due to a very human and quite understandable reflex which consists in digging a path to the end before resolving to abandon it if it does not yield tangible results. However, if regular hindsights are organized in order to seriously ask the question of continuing on a path or changing it, supported by the right process, the right tools and the right methods, unnecessary efforts become avoidable. If a fortiori these hindsights are taken in anticipation even before the start of an innovation project, thanks to a reasoned anticipation of the most probable events capable of affecting its progress, the gain is all the greater. This is made possible by the progress made in simulation, without having to resort to IT capabilities, but rather by leading co-creation workshops that give pride of place to role-playing games.

What is TRIZ in a nutshell? This is a detailed guide for evaluating a problem using known and reusable innovation patterns. This method is further described in course manual 2: Scope of application – scientific and technological culture, as well as in sessions part 1, month 7: methodology sharing and part 2, month 7: facilitating innovation. It makes it possible to pivot upstream because it integrates a large number of concrete questions already asked in previous innovation projects (model projects) which have successfully brought out new avenues for resolution. It is not a question of tackling ready-made solutions on a context, but of following a proven decision tree. It is essential to maintain great flexibility at each stage of the method in order to free the creativity of the participants, according to the well-known principle of serendipity: TRIZ suggests, the participants imagine; they bounce off those suggestions and forge new paths, iterate, go back, go forward, and start again.

---

Initial dashboard

Assessing the performance of an innovation project supposes on the one hand to distinguish what an innovation project is and why it is useful to know it, on the other hand to have a simple, proven reporting grid that is effective, deployable in the field. Participants will emerge from the first workshop understanding the essential characteristics of an innovation project, not only in terms of what defines it, but also and above all in terms of its potential for creating distinctive value.

Whatever the nature of the organization considered, when the number of innovation projects is large enough, they constitute a collection of assets that must be managed. Just as an asset manager uses portfolio management techniques to optimize his/her risk/return ratio, a decision-maker makes choices by stimulating, initiating, stopping or adapting the level of investment in his/her innovation projects. Before growing the portfolio, it is necessary to anticipate the desired distribution according to the key axes which are the probability of success, the ambition of the disruptive or continuous type, the level of investment, the potential and regulatory obligations. Thus it will be possible to align the process of validating the entry of a project into the portfolio taking into account the right criteria, both bottom-up (need for IPM support from the field) and top-down (need for balancing the portfolio in terms of the risk /return ratio). This approach has points in common with that of an investment fund specializing in innovation, particularly in terms of its top-down dimension. It differs in particular insofar as synergies between innovation projects, and between innovation projects and other projects are sought in order to establish or develop a coherent corporate culture that generates sustainable growth. It also incorporates considerations unrelated to innovation as such, the organization not only having the vocation to innovate and enhance innovation, but also to enhance its non-innovative, competitive assets with a strong economic, environmental, and societal impact. The logic of managing the portfolio of innovation projects is also virtuous in that it makes it possible to better manage make or buy type choices, by ultimately comparing internal or outsourced solutions on perimeters deemed to be non-strategic. In the meantime, an initial dashboard is proposed, representing both the positioning of the first pilot projects in the portfolio, and the positioning expected in the future. We can thus anticipate that there will be fewer projects presenting at the same time a high probability of success, a disruptive aspect, a low level of investment, a high potential and a regulatory obligation (right column in Figure D. below), than continuous innovation projects requiring substantial investment with limited potential (third column from the right in the same figure).

The first time a portfolio of innovation initiatives is characterized in this way, the initial distribution may turn out to be surprising or even highly counter-intuitive. For example, if in a given field the contributors to innovation thought that the probability of success was low, it may turn out to be much higher in reality because non-innovative initiatives have been excluded from the analysis base: the denominator of this success rate decreases, so its value increases. Conversely, the level of cumulative investment in innovation, if it is considered low a priori, may turn out to be higher after analysis, in the case where innovation projects are financed by non-dedicated budgetary envelopes, therefore hard to identify, or on the margins of other projects or initiatives.

The Gaussian curve illustrated by the figure above seems to be a fatality. Experience shows that it is unreasonable to think that it is possible to drag the rightmost column (a priori the most enviable situation) towards the center, therefore towards the highest number of occurrences. On the other hand, each situation corresponds to an appropriate response. Even in the a priori most favorable case, for example when a disruptive approach is encouraged by the regulatory environment and trends, as may be the case for central bank digital currencies, the step is so high that it is good to limit the number of initiatives of this type: otherwise, the major risk is not to master their simultaneous scale-up phases. This leads us to systematically consider the couple innovative initiative / scaling up project. Beyond proof of the validity of an innovative concept, process, product or service, obtained at the end of the innovation project, the deployment or industrialization phase may turn out to be more or less resource-consuming and more or less risky. As by definition we do not know in advance the nature of an innovation, the a priori assessment of this level of resource consumption and risk is most often hazardous. To achieve this under the right conditions, the innovation project would have to be framed by an excess of hypotheses, thereby killing its innovative nature and curbing the creativity of the actors.

By accepting the inevitability of the Gauss curve of the innovation portfolio, virtuous effects emerge. For example, constraining the leftmost column to stay there is highly desirable. It reports on initiatives with a single characteristic (a high level of resource consumption), negative, without any compensation in terms of success rate, disruption, potential for value creation or stimulation by a regulatory trend. Multiplying initiatives of this kind would be at best a waste of energy, at worst endangering the economic model of the organization. However, if there is no clear measurement of the phenomenon, it is possible to miss it, or at least to detect it late. Another example is provided by a center column, reporting initiatives imposed by the regulator with a high probability of success. Given the dynamism of regulators in most sectors, trying to keep up with the rapid pace of introduction of innovations of an organizational, societal, environmental and technological nature, it is not possible to see a low success rate on this segment.

---

IPM Strategy

For each type of project, the success factors may vary. If all have in common a positive sensitivity to focusing and pivoting flexibility, other factors must be adapted according to the choices made. For example, the functional outline for a spin-off or IPO operation will be more suited to a disruptive innovation than to a continuous innovation. Similarly, an open innovation approach is generally more important for high-potential projects than for others. These considerations make it possible to break down the IPM vision into strategic axes for each subset of the organization, based on the assessment of its maturity (see above, figure B). They are federated into an IPM strategy, the purpose of which is to create the conditions for raising the value generated by innovation initiatives within an organization. The transformation of the IPM vision into an IPM strategy is facilitated by the availability of an initial portfolio of concrete projects that have been the subject of an initial assessment: the axes of the strategy being developed can be tested on this limited scope for purposes of reliability and pedagogy.

IPM strategy (Photo by Matt Ridley on Unsplash)

The questions most frequently addressed by an initial IPM strategy are, on the one hand, the level of connection of innovative initiatives to the expectations of their target ecosystem, and, on the other hand, the level of awareness and training of staff on the importance of managing the performance of its innovation portfolio while stimulating the creativity of all the players involved. Increasing the maturity of an organization according to these two axes is a challenge shared by organizations where innovation is opportunistic, the goodwill and spontaneous creativity of the actors being at the origin of most of the initiatives.

While it is important to maintain, and even encourage and develop the autonomous initiatives of contributors to innovation, verifying their alignment with the expectations of the targeted beneficiaries is a major performance lever. If the collection and updating of these expectations are neither organized nor optimized, they have little chance of influencing the innovation process on the desired scale. A key advantage of starting with this project is obtaining rapid results that can be promoted through appropriate communication, and generate a virtuous ripple effect. Indeed, the integration of witnesses of an ecosystem in working groups, co-creating avenues for resolution with the personnel of the organization, causes a positive shock. In the frequent case of doubt relating to the relevance of an innovative initiative, the uncontested arbiter is the beneficiary or his or her representative. If two internal departments clash over the design of a joint offering, the justice of the peace is the end customer. In addition, these witnesses with whom a closeness is established become the promoteurs of the organization around them and can express themselves on a number of subjects, in particular the comparison with the competing offerings to which they are exposed.

At the same time, starting to adopt an innovation management posture leads to redirecting initiatives that are out of step with the expectations of the ecosystem, or to abandon them if no pivoting is possible. An IPM approach necessarily brings together left brain and right brain, analysis and creativity, reasoning and spontaneity at each stage, including the first.

Defining your IPM strategy (Photo by kvalifik on Unsplash)

---

Storytelling

Rather than communicating directly on the IPM strategy, it is preferable at this stage to focus on its concrete illustration through examples. Successful innovative companies convey legends within their organization, positive and negative, contributing to the creation and maintenance of a specific culture, recognizable, symbolized and confirming a strong identity over time. A simple way to drive such momentum is to collect and promote stories of innovation on a variety of channels, oral, written, audiovisual, virtual and physical. The key asset of the initiative is a body of script-like texts. This Storytelling approach is an effective way to mobilize the members of the innovation cells and to invite them themselves to collect new stories and relay them around them, wherever they are. A simple and proven approach, inspired by the methods taught in screenwriting schools, is proposed. At this stage, it is applicable without extensive training. It will be deepened later (in particular part 3, month 3 of this program: training program).

When a recurring problem is particularly penalizing, there is always a first leader, then a second, and so on, to ask to be told the story of the most significant incidents, to understand what those who suffer it are going through and try to contribute to its resolution. Conversely, when an avalanche of success catches the attention of the same leaders, they want to be told the stories that got the organization to where it is today, because they believe they are then better able to replicate those successes elsewhere. When a serial entrepreneur plans to embark on a new adventure, in a sector that he or she does not yet know, she or he is “told the story” of this market, of this ecosystem. When it comes to promoting a talented employee, the decision-maker is told the story, the “curriculum” of the person concerned, and will dwell on the feats of arms, and even on the anecdotes translating and conveying the personality of the candidate. Telling stories is the best way to “make people understand what is happening”. And “understanding what is happening” is the condition of trust and adherence to any project. For example, let’s go back to the first case mentioned above, that of the penalizing recurring problem. The resolution process can be told as follows:

• first, the teams in charge of the subject identify the problem;
• they struggle with the symptoms, which arise when you least expect them;
• others look into the matter, moving from symptoms to causes;
• causes are eliminated through action plans;
• symptoms remain, new symptoms appear;
• the previous cycle (search for causes and action plan) is repeated;
• reports are shared with the hierarchy;
• a debate is taking place between those who think that the real causes have not been identified, and those who think that they are but that no solution has been found to eliminate them;
• another debate is taking place between supporters of so-called “classic” solutions (imitation of what has already worked elsewhere) and supporters of innovative, disruptive solutions;
• the outcome is uncertain, the emotion is at its peak.

Whether the conclusion is positive or negative, the audience of the story must identify with the protagonists and feel emotion. The highlights are reported by the witnesses of the experience and relayed by others. For example, the unexpected intrusion of actors outside the context can bring a fresh eye and pivot the avenues of resolution envisaged by the think tank in charge of the subject, or the pressure felt by the manager struggling with his or her problem can be rendered thanks to evocative verbatims. The passion and originality of the storytellers or writers do the rest.

---

Collaborative ecosystems

Participants are invited to revisit these stories of innovation by considering alternative scenarios. They are guided by the IPM strategy and by an introduction to the fundamentals of open innovation: how the impact of the innovation in question could have been multiplied by having more systematic recourse to external collaborations, including and especially upstream ? How could this contribution have been organized? This exercise makes it possible to offer an introduction to the collaborative ecosystems, their pitfalls as well as their virtues. Since open dynamics often take a long time to set up, it is good to make an effort to raise awareness on the subject as soon as possible. Indeed, many obstacles must be overcome. Among them, the fear of seeing the dilution of know-how which may have been subject to a high level of protection until now. It is therefore necessary to take the time to explain and convince with the help of business cases balancing the expected gain and the level of risk specific to each asset deemed sensitive (see part 3, month 8 of this program: open innovation). In the short term, only the fundamentals of the approach are shared (see figure E. below), emphasizing the importance of setting up sustainable and growing panels of customers and prospects, which can be mobilized regularly to test new offerings. In practice, there are often existing initiatives in this vein. At first, it is a question of identifying or revealing them, then of taking a close interest in them in order to understand the concrete ins and outs.

How do you find enough time to interact with these witnesses? We can return the question: where do these witnesses find the time to interact with the representatives of the subset considered? And above all, why do they find this time? What are their motivations and what makes them become loyal contributors, most often volunteers? In practice, by thinking about the future of their supplier, their partner or their customer, they are thinking about their own future. They benefit from this joint reflection like all the other stakeholders, insofar as they form an ecosystem. If these sessions are led by third parties, they benefit from their methodological contribution, their potentially offbeat perspective and their experience of other ecosystems. Concretely, imagine a session where a large audit and consulting firm invites representatives of large listed companies to reflect on the state of the art of management reporting formats in a sustainable development context. The firm will come out of the experience having received the expectations of its clients and prospects, while these companies will take with them ideas that they would not have had on their own; they may even implement them immediately, without waiting for the firm to include them in its catalogue of offerings. For this dynamic to work in the long term, the interests of the parties must be balanced. Facilitators of such sessions should ensure this.

---

Initial communication plan

Equipped with these initial results, IPM vision, scope of application, mapping of maturities, mission to mobilize a network of pioneers in cellular mode, selection of an existing collaborative tool, initiation of a first pilot portfolio and a first dashboard, IPM strategy, a bouquet of innovation stories and awareness of the potential of collaborative ecosystems, participants are ready to complete their copy by soliciting knowledgeable people around them. This first workshop being intended for leaders, managers, project managers and project innovation directors deployed in organizations with 1000 to 100,000 employees, and opening a sequence of 48 stages spread over 4 years during which the IPM process will first be tested in pilot mode, then customized, deployed and finally optimized, new contributors will join the initiative every month. They will have to be trained, made aware, informed and mobilized thanks to a duly updated communication plan. The first version of this communication plan focuses on a selection of stories collected during and after the first workshop.

There is no question at this stage of broadcasting hard-hitting announcements on a large scale, because there are still many steps to take before determining the major deployment milestones, adapting the approach to the culture of the organization and to have tested the most critical processes. The idea is to ask who needs to know what, in what order and for what? The objective of the second workshop being above all to design an innovation strategy consistent with the IPM strategy (see course manual 9 – IPM strategy, differences between IPM strategy & innovation strategy), the targets of the initial communication are contributors to the development of this strategy. The questions they need to answer include trends the organization chooses to believe in and stories of past innovative initiatives. Their contributions will have to be cross-checked, made reliable, also several people with similar profiles can be solicited.

After the workshop

After the workshop, the first time is devoted to sharing the IPM vision and collecting additional documentation, subset by subset. A selection of witnesses and potential experts are invited to participate in an initial meeting during which the factors of success and failure of innovation projects are discussed, as well as practices for steering innovation projects. The IPM vision is introduced and adapted in response to the debates in question, creating rebounds favorable to the expressions of need and testimonies expressed. The results are duly recorded and shared.

The results of the first meeting are analyzed in order to deepen the evaluation of the maturity of the innovation dynamic, always subset by subset. Informal exchanges with witnesses and experts may allow key points to be clarified. IPM strategy may be adapted accordingly. The choice of the prospective collaborative solution is submitted to the right decision-makers in a spirit of efficiency and respect for the organization’s orientations in terms of information systems. The idea is to favor a solution of continuity with an existing system, by adopting its doctrine of use with a minimum of changes, if any.

Bipartite meetings, involving one after the other operational decision-makers responsible for the perimeters on which pilot projects could constitute the start of a portfolio, are organized. The IPM strategy is shared and the testing of its areas of work is proposed. The project managers or project directors concerned are identified.

The identified project managers or project directors are informed by their hierarchy of their future involvement in testing the IPM strategy. They are the subject of a communication of the challenges of the initiative and are each invited to communicate a story of success or failure of an innovation project according to a framework provided.

Stories of innovation, successes and failures that make up the corporate culture are collected from the project managers and project directors approached.

An interim status report is drawn up, from the perspective of potential quick wins. For example, would one of the ambitious innovation projects identified benefit from being the subject of a focusing process? Can the packaging of software used internally be accelerated in order to present it more quickly on the market? Can the more frequent involvement of representatives of the target market in the design of a product increase its chances of success? Can the sharing of field information from salespeople help to arbitrate between two competing innovation projects?

These questions can already be asked before the first workshop and constitute a useful contribution, even if this approach is not at all compulsory. They are intended to be deepened before the second workshop in order to feed the reflection around the very powerful levers which are the pivoting of economic models, the search for disruptions, strategic alliances and acquisitions (concerning small agile players) or competitive analyzes exploiting the possibilities offered by advances in artificial intelligence and big data.

---

Case study – A banking & insurance group implements IPM

The following story comes from the leader of an innovation program to leverage the latest advances in process optimization to transform a global banking group.

As leader of the Societe Generale group’s Business Process Management entity, one of my key challenges was to improve the visibility and impact of the innovation projects led by my teams. I called on Mr. Auriach to choose, adapt and implement a method and management tools for both our employees and our partners, on the occasion of the general deployment of a process management initiative. The scope concerned covered all geographies and all business lines of the group, i.e. 24 business & service units and around 50 countries. By exploiting this contribution, we have grouped our innovation projects into a selective portfolio, each initiative of which must justify the creation of value according to a method that can be adapted to many different contexts. The deployment method is an innovation in itself, insofar as the performance of each introduction of a new capacity, a new product or a new service is measurable according to the same 4 axes, the result of an unprecedented modeling taking into account the very wide variety of contexts within the group: customer satisfaction, productivity, generation of net banking income and avoidance of losses. Each of these axes is broken down into criteria for assessing the value specific to the profession and possibly to the geography in question. The gains recorded vary between a few million euros and a few tens of millions of euros per year depending on the business / geography intersection considered.

The following canvas was used to visualize the performance of the innovation portfolio at group level.

---

Executive Summary

IPM and creativity

IPM stands for Innovation Portfolio Management. IPM starts with a vision. Are you dazzled by the creativity of the innovations produced by your organization? In fact, when it comes to innovation, we most often retain visible exploits. The more discreet achievements are forgotten. Further analysis reveals that the average success rate of an innovation project is closer to 20% than 80%. Why? because before the implementation of an IPM approach, there is no process for stopping, pivoting and stimulating projects that are specific to an innovative environment.

Is it therefore virtuous to think big and seek to maximize the average success rate of innovation projects? No please. It would kill creativity. It would be better to target a rate somewhere in the middle between the two extremes, making the most out of innovation without falling back into routine approaches.

So the solution is a trade-off between creative people, analytical people and finance people. A 3D approach, so to say. Still no. Trade-offs are not creating value. It would be better to identify the right criteria to pursue an innovation project based on its level of focus, its proven ability to pivot when necessary and to deliver interim results.

What about emotion? Yes, put a lot of emotion into it. Preferably positive emotions, please. Remember Apollo XIII. Following a technical problem, when there was not enough oxygen left to bring the astronauts back alive, the ground team gathered duplicates of all the objects available on board and fabricated a makeshift connector allowing to access an emergency tank. Having communicated the process to their colleagues, they saved their lives.
Innovation must also be cheap. Something like frugal innovation, or should we say Jugaad? Well, frugal innovation has been applied by many blue chips, like car manufacturers or big professional services companies. But it is only one approach out of many.

So we need to be creative even in the way we assess the value of innovation, and design the best possible IPM process, suited to our organization’s culture.

---

Creativity and analysis

Innovation requires two brains: the creative and the analytical. We are alternately one and the other, like Milad Fakurian, the digital artist author of the photo below. Sometimes even both simultaneously. So maybe we’re innovating.

Human organizations are in our image. They multiply the effect of the meeting between left brains and right brains. Wilbur Wright without his brother Orville probably would not have developed the control surfaces for his airplane. Walt Disney without Roy and without Ub Iwerks might not have made Snow White. Pierre Curie without his wife Marie would not have democratized radiography. Not to mention all the anonymous people who had a decisive role in the advances in knowledge and know-how of humanity.
We find in any company, any public body or any non-profit structure that has put innovation at the heart of its agenda, the meeting of at least three types of actors: the decision-makers, stimulators and arbiters of innovation financing; innovation pilots, project managers, innovation project directors; knowledgeable people and experts, memory of the organization and references from the core disciplines of innovation.

Digital art (Photo by Milad Fakurian on Unsplash)

They help transform ideas into products, services or effective internal capabilities. To qualify as an innovation, they must be unique. The key indicator of their performance is their competitive lead. It represents the time it would take a well-funded competitor to catch up with the organization owning the innovation in question.

---

A converging movement

The separation between new economy and historical players is no longer relevant. There is no longer a clear separation between startups, scaleups, centaurs and unicorns on the one hand, and so-called classic companies on the other. Some buy out others, alliances are formed, unicorns are institutionalized and leaders manage innovation strategically.

Today more than ever, any organization must find the right balance between managing and innovating. Yesterday’s startups, which have become leaders, are structuring themselves and adopting rigorous processes, while historical institutions and multinationals are deploying agile methods. There are not, on the one hand, light, reactive and rarely profitable structures, on the other, so-called inert giants exploiting so-called situational rents. This myth has lived, if it was ever relevant. A new model of convergence between ex-classics and ex-moderns is gradually emerging. The convergent model is centered on an Innovation Portfolio Management process. In this expression there are both the words management and innovation, and their respective weights are equivalent. The notion of portfolio, implying a portfolio of projects and assets with potential, is also a synthesis of the innovative approach by the project and the managerial approach by the assets. This process is central because it conditions a deeply strategic balance. Its role is to help the organization manage this balance. It is itself a field of innovation, and potentially processes a large amount of data. Indeed, all organizations are faced with the same challenge: retaining partners, customers or users over time, in a world made uncertain and sometimes even unreadable by a continuous and growing flow of information and knowledge. These data are both value creation opportunities and loss of reference factors. An Innovation Portfolio Management process, articulated in six capabilities, is a strategic and operational response to this key question posed by our ecosystem. The adoption and deployment of a convergent model are then recommended, thanks to experience in managing innovation acquired in various sectors, notably financial services, healthcare, professional services, digital and education.

So innovation portfolio management is the key performance lever in any organization. It’s the process of identifying, prioritizing, and investing in a diverse range of innovation projects within an organization. By maintaining a balanced portfolio of projects that range from short-term, incremental improvements to longer-term, disruptive innovations, organizations can maximize the return on their innovation investments. They can also better manage the risks associated with pursuing new ideas.

---

IPM Vision

Are innovative companies systematically outperforming their conservative competitors? No, obviously. So where is the desirable value of innovation? The development of an IPM vision makes it possible to aim for the right balance between the satisfaction of being at the origin of something new and that of having brought useful and profitable products and services to the market, by identifying the conditions of innovation performance relevant in the context of the organization under consideration. All you have to do is visualize a set of innovation projects in progress within an organization, some at the start-up stage, others very advanced, some very visible at top management level, others confidential, and realize that 2 out of 10 will generate tangible value, to be convinced of the need to give the innovation dynamic a new impetus. This ratio of 2 out of 10 corresponds to the average success rate of innovation projects, all types of organization combined, before the implementation of an IPM process. Whether it’s startups or internal initiatives in a large diversified group, the situation is similar. A vision of the success factors of an innovation project serves to focus investment on innovation projects with potential. However, we must avoid aiming for a success rate that is too high in order to give free rein to the creativity and collective intelligence of the organization (see figure A. below).

Creative talents and structuring talents are indeed necessary, jointly, to transform an idea into a measurable competitive advantage. The acceptance of failure is paradoxically a key condition for the emergence of new capabilities, both in continuity and in rupture with the existing one. Because the fundamental difference between an innovation project and another project lies in the level of uncertainty inherent in the discovery of something new. The objective of an innovation project is to provide an organization with a new capability, unparalleled here or elsewhere, without however setting a deadline or budget at the start, even less a quality requirement, the contours of the finished product or ready-to-use service being by definition insufficiently known at the outset. In this respect, disruptive innovations present a higher level of uncertainty than continuous innovations. In addition, it may be that the benefits of an innovation are not visible at the end of the project in question, in which case the measure of value creation is deferred. The contribution of an IPM vision lies at the level of the conditions for creating value specific to the innovation projects of the organization in question. For example, focus and pivoting flexibility are most often critical success factors. During a co-creation workshop conducted in agile mode, a well-trained team can routinely pivot 3 to 5 times, i.e. repeatedly evolve one or more components of the operating model or the economic model of the capability considered in order to avoid investing time and money in the wrong direction.

---

Measuring the maturity of the IPM Process

There are benchmarks in the universe of companies known for their success in innovation. By analyzing the reasons for their success, especially lasting successes, a maturity pattern emerges. It allows you to position yourself and to deduce progress objectives. The Blue Ocean movement, promoted by W. Chan Kim and R. Mauborgne (Harvard & Insead), inaugurated the era of the analysis of hyper-growth companies at the turn of the 2000s, with a theoretical approach that was very useful to understand what was going on but difficult to apply in the field. In particular, the subject deals with strategy but little with process and organization. The reasoning and observations proposed in this first workshop go beyond this work, radically changing the angle and proposing a new process-oriented, operational and concretely usable framework for analysis in the field. This framework also benefits from the experience acquired over the past two decades, particularly in terms of the dynamics of open innovation, the measurement of innovation performance and the application of portfolio management theory to innovation.

So, once the organization has been broken down into subsets, it is a matter of evaluating the maturity of its innovation process in order to deduce the related challenges. A model with 4 main levels is proposed, each of them being broken down into 3 secondary levels, ie 12 secondary levels in total. This model is the result of field experience acquired in the environments of large diversified and multinational groups as well as scale-ups with potential, unicorns or mid-sized companies, in industry and in services. It identifies the common denominators of innovative organizations experiencing recurring and lasting success.

An analysis canvas detailing the 12 levels is provided, allowing the situation of each subset to be quickly qualified and to begin to bring out ideas for change with potential. On this occasion, the order of priority of the sub-assemblies may change, as the assessment of the potential for value creation becomes more specific. The notion of innovation performance is then addressed. A parallel is drawn between innovation performance and levels of maturity of the innovation dynamic.

---

IPM Strategy

In order to determine and structure virtuous change objectives, a theoretical contribution on the theme of IPM is proposed. It explains how to transform an IPM vision into an IPM strategy. There are typical IPM strategies, which can be combined, amended or simplified depending on the context of each subset. A maturity level of the innovation dynamic corresponds to an IPM strategy consisting of aiming for the next level by engaging in appropriate transition processes.

The participants develop their IPM strategy by organizational subset, based on the breakdown already carried out. It is intended to be shared with other contributors after the workshop, in order to identify possible opportunities for quick wins thanks to the implementation of levers for improving the performance of pilot innovation projects. The initiation and selection of a first portfolio of pilot innovation projects is carried out during and after the workshop. After the workshop, the approach consists of confronting the context of ongoing innovation projects with the axes of IPM strategy.

---

Collaborative information systems

While it is essential to adopt a strategy and translate it into effective processes, information systems also play an essential role. They are even more and more structuring vis-à-vis strategies and processes. No matter how hard we try to balance the axes of analysis between these three dimensions, the pressure of technological innovation is often stronger. We could even replace the historical model of Porter’s 5 forces (bargaining power of customers and suppliers, potential of new entrants and substitute products, intensity of competition) by a model of 4 forces (power and influence of ecosystem trends along the lines of strategy, process, technology and organization). Because the ecosystems of companies, public services and associations are exposed to these innovations as much as their suppliers and partners. For example, a state-of-the-art supply chain process will integrate a number of automations, real-time traceability devices or integration of artificial intelligence engines in planning management, made possible by fast progress on the technological dimension. It is therefore necessary to be particularly attentive to the importance of concomitant innovations in terms of strategy, process and organization, by evaluating the opportunities for consolidation of the actors in order to cover more global geographical areas and more and more temperature ranges, by adopting agile industrial transposition processes, new techniques and mores for leading a community of market witnesses, advanced societal and environmental impact measurement benchmarks or cellular and learning organizations.

These 4 dimensions must feed each other rather than compete. The adoption of a collaborative approach is an important condition for the performance of innovation. As the participants to this workshop perform various sets of exercises, notably a breakdown of the organizational scope of application of IPM, an assessment of the maturity of the innovation dynamic by subset and a detailed IPM strategy, their results should be duly saved, shared and exploited after the workshop. Also a simple and effective collaborative tool must be chosen for this purpose. It is preferably a pre-existing tool within the organization in order to avoid adding to the discovery of the IPM approach the discovery of a new tool, with the delays of integration and appropriation inherent in this type of particularly structuring solution. Later during this course (part 2, month 4 – selecting software), an overview of integrated IPM solutions and their typical uses will be offered in order to help participants make a more sustainable choice, once the approach is sufficiently matured within the organization. A theoretical contribution on the theme of collaborative ecosystems is proposed, highlighting the differences between internal innovation and open innovation, the possibilities offered by collaboration with external contributors and the success factors of such approaches.

A pre-selection form is provided. Participants identify one of the tools they use or know about within their organization. This is a pre-selection insofar as the selection must potentially go through a post-workshop validation. The chosen tool must on the one hand be capable of capitalizing and sharing knowledge, on the other hand of managing access rights to potentially strategic information, such as the identification of a future spin-off to be diverted and IPOed eventually. Participants are invited to simulate the standard uses of the tool during the session. Among the most widespread tools, Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Sharepoint , the Atlassian Confluence suite, the Google Meet + Google Docs suite, Dropbox Business, Slack can be used alone or in combination, in accordance with the orientations taken by the organization concerned.

---

Who contributes to innovation?

In addition to the participants in this training, other witnesses and experts can usefully contribute to the IPM approach. The witnesses are or have been exposed to innovation projects and it is useful to debrief them in order to fully understand the typology of the factors of success and failure of the projects, specific and not specific to the organization. Experience shows that the most frequent cases are rather considered as half-success or half-failure, the Gaussian curve still having a bright future ahead of it. Experts of the innovation processes already in place can provide the relevant existing documentation and help the participants to refine their appreciation of the maturity of the innovation dynamic; emerging ideas for change can be tested with them, by adopting a collaborative and participatory style of communication, especially not giving lessons. The communication approach is therefore balanced and not purely top-down. A theoretical contribution on the theme of cellular organizations applied to innovation is proposed. It emphasizes the flexibility of creation, disappearance and mutation of innovation cells, light organizational entities made up of part-time contributors trained in IPM, on the complementarity of the skills represented there, and on the impact of the adoption of this organizational principle on the performance of innovation projects.

Network of IPM pioneers (Photo by Jewel Mahmud on Unsplash)

During the completion of the first exercises, and in particular a breakdown of the organizational scope of application of IPM, the assessment of the maturity of the innovation dynamic by subset and an IPM strategy, questions have been raised. The participants take stock of these questions and complete them with others aimed at completing the level of information allowing the analysis to be refined. They use an adapted framework distinguishing between questions relating to the maturity of the innovation dynamic and questions relating to the potential identification of opportunities for quick wins. They deduce from these questions the profiles of potentially mobilized contributors, their functions and their natural scope of intervention.

---

Portfolio management

The heart of this program is addressed from the first workshop: portfolio management of innovation initiatives. Its effectiveness is particularly linked to the creation of synergies between projects. Here are some typical levers: multiplying the effects of innovations by combining them, mitigating their average risk of failure by diversifying their approaches or avenues for resolution, deploying mature innovations more widely by practicing cross-selling, sharing good practices for improve the average success rate, measuring the performance of innovation in an efficient, homogeneous and consolidable way, stimulating creativity, communicating effectively, accelerating the decision-making process to pivot, stop, stimulate or finance a project, to name just a few examples. The objective is essentially to increase the average success rate of innovation initiatives, to transform good ideas into value creation projects, to provide visibility on the overall amount invested in innovation and on its return on investment, to map assets with potential and to realize this potential, while encouraging initiatives and autonomy in the field.

A first portfolio of innovation projects is initiated. Already mentioned above (IPM strategy), this process references projects on which the IPM strategy can be tested as a priority. Indeed, once the witnesses and experts have been identified, the fundamentals of the IPM approach communicated, the outstanding questions worked on together, new ideas naturally emerge and make it possible to refine the IPM strategy by subset. Thus the IPM strategy can be tested by the very people who contributed to feeding it. The process of initializing a first innovation portfolio is an alternation of workshops potentially led by the participants and taking a step back carried out in collaborative mode, ideally thanks to the capitalization and knowledge sharing tool identified.

Participants practice leading collaborative workshops involving witnesses and experts, then documenting and analyzing the outcome. This know-how is more or less easy to acquire depending on their experience and knowledge of leading co-creation workshops. Also a panorama of the techniques of creativity stimulation is proposed, by privileging a small number of tested approaches. Each participant sets at this stage the perimeter on which he or she will intervene after the workshop. These are one or more homogeneous subsets from the point of view of the maturity of the innovation dynamic.

---

Curriculum

High-Performance Innovation – Workshop 1 – Scope Definition

1. IPM Vision
2. Scope of Application
3. Mapping of Maturities
4. Cellular Organization
5. Collaborative Tool
6. Network of Pioneers
7. Pilot Portfolio
8. Initial Dashboard
9. IPM Strategy
10. Storytelling
11. Collaborative Ecosystem
12. Initial Communication Plan

---

Distance Learning

Introduction

Welcome to Appleton Greene and thank you for enrolling on the High-Performance Innovation corporate training program. You will be learning through our unique facilitation via distance-learning method, which will enable you to practically implement everything that you learn academically. The methods and materials used in your program have been designed and developed to ensure that you derive the maximum benefits and enjoyment possible. We hope that you find the program challenging and fun to do. However, if you have never been a distance-learner before, you may be experiencing some trepidation at the task before you. So we will get you started by giving you some basic information and guidance on how you can make the best use of the modules, how you should manage the materials and what you should be doing as you work through them. This guide is designed to point you in the right direction and help you to become an effective distance-learner. Take a few hours or so to study this guide and your guide to tutorial support for students, while making notes, before you start to study in earnest.

Study environment

You will need to locate a quiet and private place to study, preferably a room where you can easily be isolated from external disturbances or distractions. Make sure the room is well-lit and incorporates a relaxed, pleasant feel. If you can spoil yourself within your study environment, you will have much more of a chance to ensure that you are always in the right frame of mind when you do devote time to study. For example, a nice fire, the ability to play soft soothing background music, soft but effective lighting, perhaps a nice view if possible and a good size desk with a comfortable chair. Make sure that your family know when you are studying and understand your study rules. Your study environment is very important. The ideal situation, if at all possible, is to have a separate study, which can be devoted to you. If this is not possible then you will need to pay a lot more attention to developing and managing your study schedule, because it will affect other people as well as yourself. The better your study environment, the more productive you will be.

Study tools & rules

Try and make sure that your study tools are sufficient and in good working order. You will need to have access to a computer, scanner and printer, with access to the internet. You will need a very comfortable chair, which supports your lower back, and you will need a good filing system. It can be very frustrating if you are spending valuable study time trying to fix study tools that are unreliable, or unsuitable for the task. Make sure that your study tools are up to date. You will also need to consider some study rules. Some of these rules will apply to you and will be intended to help you to be more disciplined about when and how you study. This distance-learning guide will help you and after you have read it you can put some thought into what your study rules should be. You will also need to negotiate some study rules for your family, friends or anyone who lives with you. They too will need to be disciplined in order to ensure that they can support you while you study. It is important to ensure that your family and friends are an integral part of your study team. Having their support and encouragement can prove to be a crucial contribution to your successful completion of the program. Involve them in as much as you can.

Successful distance-learning

Distance-learners are freed from the necessity of attending regular classes or workshops, since they can study in their own way, at their own pace and for their own purposes. But unlike traditional internal training courses, it is the student’s responsibility, with a distance-learning program, to ensure that they manage their own study contribution. This requires strong self-discipline and self-motivation skills and there must be a clear will to succeed. Those students who are used to managing themselves, are good at managing others and who enjoy working in isolation, are more likely to be good distance-learners. It is also important to be aware of the main reasons why you are studying and of the main objectives that you are hoping to achieve as a result. You will need to remind yourself of these objectives at times when you need to motivate yourself. Never lose sight of your long-term goals and your short-term objectives. There is nobody available here to pamper you, or to look after you, or to spoon-feed you with information, so you will need to find ways to encourage and appreciate yourself while you are studying. Make sure that you chart your study progress, so that you can be sure of your achievements and re-evaluate your goals and objectives regularly.

Self-assessment

Appleton Greene training programs are in all cases post-graduate programs. Consequently, you should already have obtained a business-related degree and be an experienced learner. You should therefore already be aware of your study strengths and weaknesses. For example, which time of the day are you at your most productive? Are you a lark or an owl? What study methods do you respond to the most? Are you a consistent learner? How do you discipline yourself? How do you ensure that you enjoy yourself while studying? It is important to understand yourself as a learner and so some self-assessment early on will be necessary if you are to apply yourself correctly. Perform a SWOT analysis on yourself as a student. List your internal strengths and weaknesses as a student and your external opportunities and threats. This will help you later on when you are creating a study plan. You can then incorporate features within your study plan that can ensure that you are playing to your strengths, while compensating for your weaknesses. You can also ensure that you make the most of your opportunities, while avoiding the potential threats to your success.

Accepting responsibility as a student

Training programs invariably require a significant investment, both in terms of what they cost and in the time that you need to contribute to study and the responsibility for successful completion of training programs rests entirely with the student. This is never more apparent than when a student is learning via distance-learning. Accepting responsibility as a student is an important step towards ensuring that you can successfully complete your training program. It is easy to instantly blame other people or factors when things go wrong. But the fact of the matter is that if a failure is your failure, then you have the power to do something about it, it is entirely in your own hands. If it is always someone else’s failure, then you are powerless to do anything about it. All students study in entirely different ways, this is because we are all individuals and what is right for one student, is not necessarily right for another. In order to succeed, you will have to accept personal responsibility for finding a way to plan, implement and manage a personal study plan that works for you. If you do not succeed, you only have yourself to blame.

Planning

By far the most critical contribution to stress, is the feeling of not being in control. In the absence of planning we tend to be reactive and can stumble from pillar to post in the hope that things will turn out fine in the end. Invariably they don’t! In order to be in control, we need to have firm ideas about how and when we want to do things. We also need to consider as many possible eventualities as we can, so that we are prepared for them when they happen. Prescriptive Change, is far easier to manage and control, than Emergent Change. The same is true with distance-learning. It is much easier and much more enjoyable, if you feel that you are in control and that things are going to plan. Even when things do go wrong, you are prepared for them and can act accordingly without any unnecessary stress. It is important therefore that you do take time to plan your studies properly.

Management

Once you have developed a clear study plan, it is of equal importance to ensure that you manage the implementation of it. Most of us usually enjoy planning, but it is usually during implementation when things go wrong. Targets are not met and we do not understand why. Sometimes we do not even know if targets are being met. It is not enough for us to conclude that the study plan just failed. If it is failing, you will need to understand what you can do about it. Similarly if your study plan is succeeding, it is still important to understand why, so that you can improve upon your success. You therefore need to have guidelines for self-assessment so that you can be consistent with performance improvement throughout the program. If you manage things correctly, then your performance should constantly improve throughout the program.

Study objectives & tasks

The first place to start is developing your program objectives. These should feature your reasons for undertaking the training program in order of priority. Keep them succinct and to the point in order to avoid confusion. Do not just write the first things that come into your head because they are likely to be too similar to each other. Make a list of possible departmental headings, such as: Customer Service; E-business; Finance; Globalization; Human Resources; Technology; Legal; Management; Marketing and Production. Then brainstorm for ideas by listing as many things that you want to achieve under each heading and later re-arrange these things in order of priority. Finally, select the top item from each department heading and choose these as your program objectives. Try and restrict yourself to five because it will enable you to focus clearly. It is likely that the other things that you listed will be achieved if each of the top objectives are achieved. If this does not prove to be the case, then simply work through the process again.

Study forecast

As a guide, the Appleton Greene High-Performance Innovation corporate training program should take 12-18 months to complete, depending upon your availability and current commitments. The reason why there is such a variance in time estimates is because every student is an individual, with differing productivity levels and different commitments. These differentiations are then exaggerated by the fact that this is a distance-learning program, which incorporates the practical integration of academic theory as an as a part of the training program. Consequently all of the project studies are real, which means that important decisions and compromises need to be made. You will want to get things right and will need to be patient with your expectations in order to ensure that they are. We would always recommend that you are prudent with your own task and time forecasts, but you still need to develop them and have a clear indication of what are realistic expectations in your case. With reference to your time planning: consider the time that you can realistically dedicate towards study with the program every week; calculate how long it should take you to complete the program, using the guidelines featured here; then break the program down into logical modules and allocate a suitable proportion of time to each of them, these will be your milestones; you can create a time plan by using a spreadsheet on your computer, or a personal organizer such as MS Outlook, you could also use a financial forecasting software; break your time forecasts down into manageable chunks of time, the more specific you can be, the more productive and accurate your time management will be; finally, use formulas where possible to do your time calculations for you, because this will help later on when your forecasts need to change in line with actual performance. With reference to your task planning: refer to your list of tasks that need to be undertaken in order to achieve your program objectives; with reference to your time plan, calculate when each task should be implemented; remember that you are not estimating when your objectives will be achieved, but when you will need to focus upon implementing the corresponding tasks; you also need to ensure that each task is implemented in conjunction with the associated training modules which are relevant; then break each single task down into a list of specific to do’s, say approximately ten to do’s for each task and enter these into your study plan; once again you could use MS Outlook to incorporate both your time and task planning and this could constitute your study plan; you could also use a project management software like MS Project. You should now have a clear and realistic forecast detailing when you can expect to be able to do something about undertaking the tasks to achieve your program objectives.

Performance management

It is one thing to develop your study forecast, it is quite another to monitor your progress. Ultimately it is less important whether you achieve your original study forecast and more important that you update it so that it constantly remains realistic in line with your performance. As you begin to work through the program, you will begin to have more of an idea about your own personal performance and productivity levels as a distance-learner. Once you have completed your first study module, you should re-evaluate your study forecast for both time and tasks, so that they reflect your actual performance level achieved. In order to achieve this you must first time yourself while training by using an alarm clock. Set the alarm for hourly intervals and make a note of how far you have come within that time. You can then make a note of your actual performance on your study plan and then compare your performance against your forecast. Then consider the reasons that have contributed towards your performance level, whether they are positive or negative and make a considered adjustment to your future forecasts as a result. Given time, you should start achieving your forecasts regularly.

With reference to time management: time yourself while you are studying and make a note of the actual time taken in your study plan; consider your successes with time-efficiency and the reasons for the success in each case and take this into consideration when reviewing future time planning; consider your failures with time-efficiency and the reasons for the failures in each case and take this into consideration when reviewing future time planning; re-evaluate your study forecast in relation to time planning for the remainder of your training program to ensure that you continue to be realistic about your time expectations. You need to be consistent with your time management, otherwise you will never complete your studies. This will either be because you are not contributing enough time to your studies, or you will become less efficient with the time that you do allocate to your studies. Remember, if you are not in control of your studies, they can just become yet another cause of stress for you.

With reference to your task management: time yourself while you are studying and make a note of the actual tasks that you have undertaken in your study plan; consider your successes with task-efficiency and the reasons for the success in each case; take this into consideration when reviewing future task planning; consider your failures with task-efficiency and the reasons for the failures in each case and take this into consideration when reviewing future task planning; re-evaluate your study forecast in relation to task planning for the remainder of your training program to ensure that you continue to be realistic about your task expectations. You need to be consistent with your task management, otherwise you will never know whether you are achieving your program objectives or not.

Keeping in touch

You will have access to qualified and experienced professors and tutors who are responsible for providing tutorial support for your particular training program. So don’t be shy about letting them know how you are getting on. We keep electronic records of all tutorial support emails so that professors and tutors can review previous correspondence before considering an individual response. It also means that there is a record of all communications between you and your professors and tutors and this helps to avoid any unnecessary duplication, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation. If you have a problem relating to the program, share it with them via email. It is likely that they have come across the same problem before and are usually able to make helpful suggestions and steer you in the right direction. To learn more about when and how to use tutorial support, please refer to the Tutorial Support section of this student information guide. This will help you to ensure that you are making the most of tutorial support that is available to you and will ultimately contribute towards your success and enjoyment with your training program.

Work colleagues and family

You should certainly discuss your program study progress with your colleagues, friends and your family. Appleton Greene training programs are very practical. They require you to seek information from other people, to plan, develop and implement processes with other people and to achieve feedback from other people in relation to viability and productivity. You will therefore have plenty of opportunities to test your ideas and enlist the views of others. People tend to be sympathetic towards distance-learners, so don’t bottle it all up in yourself. Get out there and share it! It is also likely that your family and colleagues are going to benefit from your labors with the program, so they are likely to be much more interested in being involved than you might think. Be bold about delegating work to those who might benefit themselves. This is a great way to achieve understanding and commitment from people who you may later rely upon for process implementation. Share your experiences with your friends and family.

Making it relevant

The key to successful learning is to make it relevant to your own individual circumstances. At all times you should be trying to make bridges between the content of the program and your own situation. Whether you achieve this through quiet reflection or through interactive discussion with your colleagues, client partners or your family, remember that it is the most important and rewarding aspect of translating your studies into real self-improvement. You should be clear about how you want the program to benefit you. This involves setting clear study objectives in relation to the content of the course in terms of understanding, concepts, completing research or reviewing activities and relating the content of the modules to your own situation. Your objectives may understandably change as you work through the program, in which case you should enter the revised objectives on your study plan so that you have a permanent reminder of what you are trying to achieve, when and why.

Distance-learning check-list

Prepare your study environment, your study tools and rules.
Undertake detailed self-assessment in terms of your ability as a learner.
Create a format for your study plan.
Consider your study objectives and tasks.
Create a study forecast.
Assess your study performance.
Re-evaluate your study forecast.
Be consistent when managing your study plan.
Use your Appleton Greene Certified Learning Provider (CLP) for tutorial support.
Make sure you keep in touch with those around you.

---

Tutorial Support

Programs

Appleton Greene uses standard and bespoke corporate training programs as vessels to transfer business process improvement knowledge into the heart of our clients’ organizations. Each individual program focuses upon the implementation of a specific business process, which enables clients to easily quantify their return on investment. There are hundreds of established Appleton Greene corporate training products now available to clients within customer services, e-business, finance, globalization, human resources, information technology, legal, management, marketing and production. It does not matter whether a client’s employees are located within one office, or an unlimited number of international offices, we can still bring them together to learn and implement specific business processes collectively. Our approach to global localization enables us to provide clients with a truly international service with that all important personal touch. Appleton Greene corporate training programs can be provided virtually or locally and they are all unique in that they individually focus upon a specific business function. They are implemented over a sustainable period of time and professional support is consistently provided by qualified learning providers and specialist consultants.

---

Support available

You will have a designated Certified Learning Provider (CLP) and an Accredited Consultant and we encourage you to communicate with them as much as possible. In all cases tutorial support is provided online because we can then keep a record of all communications to ensure that tutorial support remains consistent. You would also be forwarding your work to the tutorial support unit for evaluation and assessment. You will receive individual feedback on all of the work that you undertake on a one-to-one basis, together with specific recommendations for anything that may need to be changed in order to achieve a pass with merit or a pass with distinction and you then have as many opportunities as you may need to re-submit project studies until they meet with the required standard. Consequently the only reason that you should really fail (CLP) is if you do not do the work. It makes no difference to us whether a student takes 12 months or 18 months to complete the program, what matters is that in all cases the same quality standard will have been achieved.

---

Support Process

Please forward all of your future emails to the designated (CLP) Tutorial Support Unit email address that has been provided and please do not duplicate or copy your emails to other AGC email accounts as this will just cause unnecessary administration. Please note that emails are always answered as quickly as possible but you will need to allow a period of up to 20 business days for responses to general tutorial support emails during busy periods, because emails are answered strictly within the order in which they are received. You will also need to allow a period of up to 30 business days for the evaluation and assessment of project studies. This does not include weekends or public holidays. Please therefore kindly allow for this within your time planning. All communications are managed online via email because it enables tutorial service support managers to review other communications which have been received before responding and it ensures that there is a copy of all communications retained on file for future reference. All communications will be stored within your personal (CLP) study file here at Appleton Greene throughout your designated study period. If you need any assistance or clarification at any time, please do not hesitate to contact us by forwarding an email and remember that we are here to help. If you have any questions, please list and number your questions succinctly and you can then be sure of receiving specific answers to each and every query.

---

Time Management

It takes approximately 1 Year to complete the High-Performance Innovation corporate training program, incorporating 12 x 6-hour monthly workshops. Each student will also need to contribute approximately 4 hours per week over 1 Year of their personal time. Students can study from home or work at their own pace and are responsible for managing their own study plan. There are no formal examinations and students are evaluated and assessed based upon their project study submissions, together with the quality of their internal analysis and supporting documents. They can contribute more time towards study when they have the time to do so and can contribute less time when they are busy. All students tend to be in full time employment while studying and the High-Performance Innovation program is purposely designed to accommodate this, so there is plenty of flexibility in terms of time management. It makes no difference to us at Appleton Greene, whether individuals take 12-18 months to complete this program. What matters is that in all cases the same standard of quality will have been achieved with the standard and bespoke programs that have been developed.

---

Distance Learning Guide

The distance learning guide should be your first port of call when starting your training program. It will help you when you are planning how and when to study, how to create the right environment and how to establish the right frame of mind. If you can lay the foundations properly during the planning stage, then it will contribute to your enjoyment and productivity while training later. The guide helps to change your lifestyle in order to accommodate time for study and to cultivate good study habits. It helps you to chart your progress so that you can measure your performance and achieve your goals. It explains the tools that you will need for study and how to make them work. It also explains how to translate academic theory into practical reality. Spend some time now working through your distance learning guide and make sure that you have firm foundations in place so that you can make the most of your distance learning program. There is no requirement for you to attend training workshops or classes at Appleton Greene offices. The entire program is undertaken online, program course manuals and project studies are administered via the Appleton Greene web site and via email, so you are able to study at your own pace and in the comfort of your own home or office as long as you have a computer and access to the internet.

---

How To Study

The how to study guide provides students with a clear understanding of the Appleton Greene facilitation via distance learning training methods and enables students to obtain a clear overview of the training program content. It enables students to understand the step-by-step training methods used by Appleton Greene and how course manuals are integrated with project studies. It explains the research and development that is required and the need to provide evidence and references to support your statements. It also enables students to understand precisely what will be required of them in order to achieve a pass with merit and a pass with distinction for individual project studies and provides useful guidance on how to be innovative and creative when developing your Unique Program Proposition (UPP).

---

Tutorial Support

Tutorial support for the Appleton Greene High-Performance Innovation corporate training program is provided online either through the Appleton Greene Client Support Portal (CSP), or via email. All tutorial support requests are facilitated by a designated Program Administration Manager (PAM). They are responsible for deciding which professor or tutor is the most appropriate option relating to the support required and then the tutorial support request is forwarded onto them. Once the professor or tutor has completed the tutorial support request and answered any questions that have been asked, this communication is then returned to the student via email by the designated Program Administration Manager (PAM). This enables all tutorial support, between students, professors and tutors, to be facilitated by the designated Program Administration Manager (PAM) efficiently and securely through the email account. You will therefore need to allow a period of up to 20 business days for responses to general support queries and up to 30 business days for the evaluation and assessment of project studies, because all tutorial support requests are answered strictly within the order in which they are received. This does not include weekends or public holidays. Consequently you need to put some thought into the management of your tutorial support procedure in order to ensure that your study plan is feasible and to obtain the maximum possible benefit from tutorial support during your period of study. Please retain copies of your tutorial support emails for future reference. Please ensure that ALL of your tutorial support emails are set out using the format as suggested within your guide to tutorial support. Your tutorial support emails need to be referenced clearly to the specific part of the course manual or project study which you are working on at any given time. You also need to list and number any questions that you would like to ask, up to a maximum of five questions within each tutorial support email. Remember the more specific you can be with your questions the more specific your answers will be too and this will help you to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or duplication. The guide to tutorial support is intended to help you to understand how and when to use support in order to ensure that you get the most out of your training program. Appleton Greene training programs are designed to enable you to do things for yourself. They provide you with a structure or a framework and we use tutorial support to facilitate students while they practically implement what they learn. In other words, we are enabling students to do things for themselves. The benefits of distance learning via facilitation are considerable and are much more sustainable in the long-term than traditional short-term knowledge sharing programs. Consequently you should learn how and when to use tutorial support so that you can maximize the benefits from your learning experience with Appleton Greene. This guide describes the purpose of each training function and how to use them and how to use tutorial support in relation to each aspect of the training program. It also provides useful tips and guidance with regard to best practice.

---

Tutorial Support Tips

Students are often unsure about how and when to use tutorial support with Appleton Greene. This Tip List will help you to understand more about how to achieve the most from using tutorial support. Refer to it regularly to ensure that you are continuing to use the service properly. Tutorial support is critical to the success of your training experience, but it is important to understand when and how to use it in order to maximize the benefit that you receive. It is no coincidence that those students who succeed are those that learn how to be positive, proactive and productive when using tutorial support.

Be positive and friendly with your tutorial support emails

Remember that if you forward an email to the tutorial support unit, you are dealing with real people. “Do unto others as you would expect others to do unto you”. If you are positive, complimentary and generally friendly in your emails, you will generate a similar response in return. This will be more enjoyable, productive and rewarding for you in the long-term.

Think about the impression that you want to create

Every time that you communicate, you create an impression, which can be either positive or negative, so put some thought into the impression that you want to create. Remember that copies of all tutorial support emails are stored electronically and tutors will always refer to prior correspondence before responding to any current emails. Over a period of time, a general opinion will be arrived at in relation to your character, attitude and ability. Try to manage your own frustrations, mood swings and temperament professionally, without involving the tutorial support team. Demonstrating frustration or a lack of patience is a weakness and will be interpreted as such. The good thing about communicating in writing, is that you will have the time to consider your content carefully, you can review it and proof-read it before sending your email to Appleton Greene and this should help you to communicate more professionally, consistently and to avoid any unnecessary knee-jerk reactions to individual situations as and when they may arise. Please also remember that the CLP Tutorial Support Unit will not just be responsible for evaluating and assessing the quality of your work, they will also be responsible for providing recommendations to other learning providers and to client contacts within the Appleton Greene global client network, so do be in control of your own emotions and try to create a good impression.

Remember that quality is preferred to quantity

Please remember that when you send an email to the tutorial support team, you are not using Twitter or Text Messaging. Try not to forward an email every time that you have a thought. This will not prove to be productive either for you or for the tutorial support team. Take time to prepare your communications properly, as if you were writing a professional letter to a business colleague and make a list of queries that you are likely to have and then incorporate them within one email, say once every month, so that the tutorial support team can understand more about context, application and your methodology for study. Get yourself into a consistent routine with your tutorial support requests and use the tutorial support template provided with ALL of your emails. The (CLP) Tutorial Support Unit will not spoon-feed you with information. They need to be able to evaluate and assess your tutorial support requests carefully and professionally.

Be specific about your questions in order to receive specific answers

Try not to write essays by thinking as you are writing tutorial support emails. The tutorial support unit can be unclear about what in fact you are asking, or what you are looking to achieve. Be specific about asking questions that you want answers to. Number your questions. You will then receive specific answers to each and every question. This is the main purpose of tutorial support via email.

Keep a record of your tutorial support emails

It is important that you keep a record of all tutorial support emails that are forwarded to you. You can then refer to them when necessary and it avoids any unnecessary duplication, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation.

---

Individual training workshops or telephone support

Please be advised that Appleton Greene does not provide separate or individual tutorial support meetings, workshops, or provide telephone support for individual students. Appleton Greene is an equal opportunities learning and service provider and we are therefore understandably bound to treat all students equally. We cannot therefore broker special financial or study arrangements with individual students regardless of the circumstances. All tutorial support is provided online and this enables Appleton Greene to keep a record of all communications between students, professors and tutors on file for future reference, in accordance with our quality management procedure and your terms and conditions of enrolment. All tutorial support is provided online via email because it enables us to have time to consider support content carefully, it ensures that you receive a considered and detailed response to your queries. You can number questions that you would like to ask, which relate to things that you do not understand or where clarification may be required. You can then be sure of receiving specific answers to each individual query. You will also then have a record of these communications and of all tutorial support, which has been provided to you. This makes tutorial support administration more productive by avoiding any unnecessary duplication, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation.

---

Tutorial Support Email Format

You should use this tutorial support format if you need to request clarification or assistance while studying with your training program. Please note that ALL of your tutorial support request emails should use the same format. You should therefore set up a standard email template, which you can then use as and when you need to. Emails that are forwarded to Appleton Greene, which do not use the following format, may be rejected and returned to you by the (CLP) Program Administration Manager. A detailed response will then be forwarded to you via email usually within 20 business days of receipt for general support queries and 30 business days for the evaluation and assessment of project studies. This does not include weekends or public holidays. Your tutorial support request, together with the corresponding TSU reply, will then be saved and stored within your electronic TSU file at Appleton Greene for future reference.

Subject line of your email

Please insert: Appleton Greene (CLP) Tutorial Support Request: (Your Full Name) (Date), within the subject line of your email.

Main body of your email

Please insert:
1. Appleton Greene Certified Learning Provider (CLP) Tutorial Support Request
2. Your Full Name
3. Date of TS request
4. Preferred email address
5. Backup email address
6. Course manual page name or number (reference)
7. Project study page name or number (reference)

Subject of enquiry
Please insert a maximum of 50 words (please be succinct)
Briefly outline the subject matter of your inquiry, or what your questions relate to.

Question 1

Maximum of 50 words (please be succinct)

Maximum of 50 words (please be succinct)

Question 3

Maximum of 50 words (please be succinct)

Question 4

Maximum of 50 words (please be succinct)

Question 5

Maximum of 50 words (please be succinct)

Please note that a maximum of 5 questions is permitted with each individual tutorial support request email.

---

Procedure

* List the questions that you want to ask first, then re-arrange them in order of priority. Make sure that you reference them, where necessary, to the course manuals or project studies.
* Make sure that you are specific about your questions and number them. Try to plan the content within your emails to make sure that it is relevant.
* Make sure that your tutorial support emails are set out correctly, using the Tutorial Support Email Format provided here.
* Save a copy of your email and incorporate the date sent after the subject title. Keep your tutorial support emails within the same file and in date order for easy reference.
* Allow up to 20 business days for a response to general tutorial support emails and up to 30 business days for the evaluation and assessment of project studies, because detailed individual responses will be made in all cases and tutorial support emails are answered strictly within the order in which they are received.
* Emails can and do get lost. So if you have not received a reply within the appropriate time, forward another copy or a reminder to the tutorial support unit to be sure that it has been received but do not forward reminders unless the appropriate time has elapsed.
* When you receive a reply, save it immediately featuring the date of receipt after the subject heading for easy reference. In most cases the tutorial support unit replies to your questions individually, so you will have a record of the questions that you asked as well as the answers offered. With project studies however, separate emails are usually forwarded by the tutorial support unit, so do keep a record of your own original emails as well.
* Remember to be positive and friendly in your emails. You are dealing with real people who will respond to the same things that you respond to.
* Try not to repeat questions that have already been asked in previous emails. If this happens the tutorial support unit will probably just refer you to the appropriate answers that have already been provided within previous emails.
* If you lose your tutorial support email records you can write to Appleton Greene to receive a copy of your tutorial support file, but a separate administration charge may be levied for this service.

---

How To Study

Your Certified Learning Provider (CLP) and Accredited Consultant can help you to plan a task list for getting started so that you can be clear about your direction and your priorities in relation to your training program. It is also a good way to introduce yourself to the tutorial support team.

Planning your study environment

Your study conditions are of great importance and will have a direct effect on how much you enjoy your training program. Consider how much space you will have, whether it is comfortable and private and whether you are likely to be disturbed. The study tools and facilities at your disposal are also important to the success of your distance-learning experience. Your tutorial support unit can help with useful tips and guidance, regardless of your starting position. It is important to get this right before you start working on your training program.

Planning your program objectives

It is important that you have a clear list of study objectives, in order of priority, before you start working on your training program. Your tutorial support unit can offer assistance here to ensure that your study objectives have been afforded due consideration and priority.

Planning how and when to study

Distance-learners are freed from the necessity of attending regular classes, since they can study in their own way, at their own pace and for their own purposes. This approach is designed to let you study efficiently away from the traditional classroom environment. It is important however, that you plan how and when to study, so that you are making the most of your natural attributes, strengths and opportunities. Your tutorial support unit can offer assistance and useful tips to ensure that you are playing to your strengths.

Planning your study tasks

You should have a clear understanding of the study tasks that you should be undertaking and the priority associated with each task. These tasks should also be integrated with your program objectives. The distance learning guide and the guide to tutorial support for students should help you here, but if you need any clarification or assistance, please contact your tutorial support unit.

Planning your time

You will need to allocate specific times during your calendar when you intend to study if you are to have a realistic chance of completing your program on time. You are responsible for planning and managing your own study time, so it is important that you are successful with this. Your tutorial support unit can help you with this if your time plan is not working.

Keeping in touch

Consistency is the key here. If you communicate too frequently in short bursts, or too infrequently with no pattern, then your management ability with your studies will be questioned, both by you and by your tutorial support unit. It is obvious when a student is in control and when one is not and this will depend how able you are at sticking with your study plan. Inconsistency invariably leads to in-completion.

Charting your progress

Your tutorial support team can help you to chart your own study progress. Refer to your distance learning guide for further details.

Making it work

To succeed, all that you will need to do is apply yourself to undertaking your training program and interpreting it correctly. Success or failure lies in your hands and your hands alone, so be sure that you have a strategy for making it work. Your Certified Learning Provider (CLP) and Accredited Consultant can guide you through the process of program planning, development and implementation.

Reading methods

Interpretation is often unique to the individual but it can be improved and even quantified by implementing consistent interpretation methods. Interpretation can be affected by outside interference such as family members, TV, or the Internet, or simply by other thoughts which are demanding priority in our minds. One thing that can improve our productivity is using recognized reading methods. This helps us to focus and to be more structured when reading information for reasons of importance, rather than relaxation.

Speed reading

When reading through course manuals for the first time, subconsciously set your reading speed to be just fast enough that you cannot dwell on individual words or tables. With practice, you should be able to read an A4 sheet of paper in one minute. You will not achieve much in the way of a detailed understanding, but your brain will retain a useful overview. This overview will be important later on and will enable you to keep individual issues in perspective with a more generic picture because speed reading appeals to the memory part of the brain. Do not worry about what you do or do not remember at this stage.

Content reading

Once you have speed read everything, you can then start work in earnest. You now need to read a particular section of your course manual thoroughly, by making detailed notes while you read. This process is called Content Reading and it will help to consolidate your understanding and interpretation of the information that has been provided.

Making structured notes on the course manuals

When you are content reading, you should be making detailed notes, which are both structured and informative. Make these notes in a MS Word document on your computer, because you can then amend and update these as and when you deem it to be necessary. List your notes under three headings: 1. Interpretation – 2. Questions – 3. Tasks. The purpose of the 1st section is to clarify your interpretation by writing it down. The purpose of the 2nd section is to list any questions that the issue raises for you. The purpose of the 3rd section is to list any tasks that you should undertake as a result. Anyone who has graduated with a business-related degree should already be familiar with this process.

Organizing structured notes separately

You should then transfer your notes to a separate study notebook, preferably one that enables easy referencing, such as a MS Word Document, a MS Excel Spreadsheet, a MS Access Database, or a personal organizer on your cell phone. Transferring your notes allows you to have the opportunity of cross-checking and verifying them, which assists considerably with understanding and interpretation. You will also find that the better you are at doing this, the more chance you will have of ensuring that you achieve your study objectives.

Question your understanding

Do challenge your understanding. Explain things to yourself in your own words by writing things down.

Clarifying your understanding

If you are at all unsure, forward an email to your tutorial support unit and they will help to clarify your understanding.

Question your interpretation

Do challenge your interpretation. Qualify your interpretation by writing it down.

Clarifying your interpretation

If you are at all unsure, forward an email to your tutorial support unit and they will help to clarify your interpretation.

---

Qualification Requirements

The student will need to successfully complete the project study and all of the exercises relating to the High-Performance Innovation corporate training program, achieving a pass with merit or distinction in each case, in order to qualify as an Accredited High-Performance Innovation Specialist (AHPIS). All monthly workshops need to be tried and tested within your company. These project studies can be completed in your own time and at your own pace and in the comfort of your own home or office. There are no formal examinations, assessment is based upon the successful completion of the project studies. They are called project studies because, unlike case studies, these projects are not theoretical, they incorporate real program processes that need to be properly researched and developed. The project studies assist us in measuring your understanding and interpretation of the training program and enable us to assess qualification merits. All of the project studies are based entirely upon the content within the training program and they enable you to integrate what you have learnt into your corporate training practice.

High-Performance Innovation – Grading Contribution

Project Study – Grading Contribution

IPM Vision – 10 %
Scope of application – 5 %
Mapping of maturities – 10 %
Cellular organization – 5 %
Collaborative tool – 10 %
Network of pioneers – 5 %
Pilot portfolio – 10 %
Initial dashboard – 10 %
IPM Strategy – 10 %
Storytelling – 5 %
Collaborative ecosystem – 10 %
Initial communication plan – 10 %
TOTAL GRADING: 100 %

Qualification grades

A mark of 90% = Pass with Distinction.
A mark of 75% = Pass with Merit.
A mark of less than 75% = Fail.
If you fail to achieve a mark of 75% with a project study, you will receive detailed feedback from the Certified Learning Provider (CLP) and/or Accredited Consultant, together with a list of tasks which you will need to complete, in order to ensure that your project study meets with the minimum quality standard that is required by Appleton Greene. You can then re-submit your project study for further evaluation and assessment. Indeed you can re-submit as many drafts of your project studies as you need to, until such a time as they eventually meet with the required standard by Appleton Greene, so you need not worry about this, it is all part of the learning process.

When marking project studies, Appleton Greene is looking for sufficient evidence of the following:

Pass with merit

A satisfactory level of program understanding
A satisfactory level of program interpretation
A satisfactory level of project study content presentation
A satisfactory level of Unique Program Proposition (UPP) quality
A satisfactory level of the practical integration of academic theory

Pass with distinction

An exceptional level of program understanding
An exceptional level of program interpretation
An exceptional level of project study content presentation
An exceptional level of Unique Program Proposition (UPP) quality
An exceptional level of the practical integration of academic theory

---

Preliminary Analysis

Reading

Here are some specific readings to prepare you to enter the context of IPM. They are not an essential prerequisite but allow to approach the main managerial schools from which the IPM comes. The positions of these schools are also described, deepened and supplemented in the High-performance innovation course.

Books

• Change by design, by Tim Brown, CEO and president of IDEO, published by Harper business.
• The lean startup, by Eric Ries, entrepreneur and author, published by Penguin books.
• Frugal innovation, by Navi Radjou, published by Economist books.
• Value proposition design, by Alexander Osterwalder, published by John Wiley & Sons.

Article

https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/importance-of-innovation-in-business

Skills assessment

In order to prepare to start the High-performance innovation cycle, it is useful to start by taking stock of your innovation skills. According to the sources, at least one profession out of 5 will disappear within 20 years and the new professions appearing over this period will concentrate the largest workforces (more than 50%). In such a context, everyone should take stock of what they know how to do, their knowledge and their experience, in order to determine the key areas of learning to focus on. However, it is difficult to anticipate that this or that skill will be the most promising, and at the same time will be adapted to your skills and your desires.

The High-performance innovation cycle includes the description of sustainable professions such as project facilitator, asset pilot or ecosystem animator (not exhaustive). These terms are generic enough to encompass job families that some have not yet seen the light of day, and specific enough to designate concrete and useful roles, functions and skills today. While waiting to discover them and be guided in the adoption of such and such a role, the idea here is to characterize your starting point according to three axes:

Knowledge: What skills does the word innovation evoke for you? Picture your apprenticeships, the courses you attended, any continuing education in management or engineering, the books and articles you read, and list the skills you acquired.

Know-how: Which of these skills have you experienced in the field? Under what circumstances? Individually or in a team?

Interpersonal skills: Has testing these skills in the field led you to change your posture, attitude, style of communication?

Innovation in no way prejudges the field in which the innovation occurs. It can be a breakthrough at the societal, relational, commercial, economic, environmental, methodological, technological, scientific or organizational level, to name but a few. To help you, you can seek the answers to these three questions by reviewing the following typical circumstances, and asking yourself if you have encountered them yourself:

• You have been at the origin of an innovation. Example in the technological field: an employee of a well-known consulting firm found himself on inter-contract for a month. To keep busy, his manager advised him to browse the firm’s knowledge databases and suggest improvements to their content and organization. He gave him carte blanche in terms of topics or types of suggestions, calling on his creativity and initiative, and emphasizing that his self-starter side was an asset. This junior collaborator did it and quickly noticed a recurring security problem that endangered the integrity of the information consulted. As he was also used to working in the financial sector, he was particularly aware of the subject of securing sensitive data. Having time, he designed several solutions, one of which turned out to be very promising since it became a product widely distributed worldwide (a portable security code generation device, automatically synchronized with a remote server without any connection between them). Anecdotally, this consultant simply posted an idea on a database and was not involved in its development, prototyping and scaling up; he discovered what had become of his idea several months later, when he received his device in the mail.

• You participated in the design of an innovation. Example in the relational field: an employee of a publishing company is encouraged to find ways of promoting the know-how of his colleagues, who are very literary, in order to generate new streams of income. She searches in a suggestion box and selects the one that seems to her to be both relevant in terms of the problem addressed and the way of solving it. Starting from the observation that the authors whose manuscripts are refused are often frustrated, they will be offered to subscribe to paid writing workshops to be explained the quality criteria adopted by the publishing house and to be helped to progress in their art. The collaborator assigned to the subject designs a workshop structure and interacts with experts to develop it, without being an expert herself.

• You participated in the prototyping of an innovation. Example in the environmental field: a department head was mobilized to test and develop a new method for sorting files in paper form, as part of the prototyping of a dematerialization process whose objective is to virtualize 80% of the company’s documents.

• You have participated in the scaling up or industrialization of an innovation. Example in the commercial field: an innovative offering has been successfully prototyped, involving the sales department so that it mobilizes witness customers and prospects giving their opinion on the perceived quality and relevance of the new product. The same sales department is then responsible for organizing the deployment of the innovation on the scale, by designing an awareness-raising and training course for its employees as well as an appropriate communication plan in collaboration with the communication department.

Governance

You start alone or in a group in the program. Whatever the circumstances, you will have to interact with other stakeholders as the course unfolds. The high-performance innovation program including times for acquiring knowledge, experimentation and implementation in the field, sponsors of your initiative will be welcome in due course.

You can now identify the key roles or the people potentially approached to play these key roles. The exact titles of the functions mentioned below are not necessarily universal, so other names may be given to them within your organization.

The CIO (Chief Innovation Officer): First and foremost responsible for the deployment of IPM (innovation portfolio management) processes, consisting of stimulating the performance of innovative initiatives in a cross-functional way, in terms of creativity, exploitation of assets with potential and to achieve tangible results. She or he carries a vision and an innovation strategy. In some organizations, he or she combines this role with others.

Other leaders: In charge of defining and executing the organization’s general strategy, they synchronize regularly with the CIO and the various contributors to innovation. General strategy and innovation strategy must nourish and serve each other.

Project managers or innovation project directors: In charge of innovative initiatives from the idea generation stage to the end of design and prototyping.

Experts: At the level of a profession, a method, an ecosystem or a technique, who can be mobilized to participate in co-creation sessions and provide their support for the choices made.

Financiers: In charge of allocating and controlling innovation budgets, either cross-functional or specific to organizational subsets. Indeed, any innovation requires a more or less important, more or less visible, but very real investment.

The other potential contributors: Managers involved, generators of ideas, natural leaders capable of carrying innovative initiatives, all have their part in the innovation dynamic.

---

Course Manuals 1-12

Course manual 1: IPM Vision

The nature of the organization

The organization to which the participants belong is either a private sector company, or a non-profit association, or a public body, or a hybridization of two or three of these typologies. Hybridizations are, for example, companies owned both by public bodies and by private investors or corporate foundations. In all these cases, the impact of innovation is assessed on a broad spectrum of measurement indicators, taking into account an ecosystem dimension and not just a financial one. Whatever the nature of the organization concerned, the objectives of its innovation projects are therefore expressed along economic, societal and environmental axes. Experience shows that these three dimensions feed off each other and potentially generate virtuous multiplier effects.

Innovation project or initiative

According to the organizations, innovation is a matter of project or initiative. Both are worth it. However, the connotation given to the word initiative is in the domain of agile movements, even if in the agile manifesto preference is given to the word project (twice). In practice, the word initiative is defined in an agile context as a collection of epics, themselves broken down into stories, or elementary experiences of the beneficiary of the innovation. An epic is a block of work focused on creating a cohesive set of stories. An initiative is a collection of epics working toward a common strategic goal. In the rest of this training, we will speak indifferently of project or initiative, which in an innovation context have the same meaning: the mobilization of human energy to create something new or improve the existing through the introduction of a novelty.

Innovation projects and agile initiatives (Photo by Josue Isai Ramos Figueroa on Unsplash)

Innovation Portfolio Management, or IPM

The purpose of innovation portfolio management is to create value through innovation. It considers all known innovation projects within an organization or affecting this organization, measures their individual and overall performance using indicators adapted to their context and their innovative nature, detects their potential for improvement, stimulates the creativity of the actors concerned and maintains a virtuous dynamic over the long term.

A successful innovation combines the coverage of a need hitherto not covered or less well covered, and a performance gain compared to other solutions in the sense of its beneficiaries and its promoters. Innovation is a source of value creation both for the company (through increased profitability, the improvement of its image, the motivation of its talents, the enhancement of its assets, a positive impact on its ecosystem and better risk management), and for its customers having a better experience. To manage and achieve this value creation, it is necessary to have visibility on existing and potential innovation projects, and on their level of performance. All of the existing and potential innovation projects identified at a given time constitute what is called an innovation portfolio.

The innovation portfolio management process should not kill creativity, but on the contrary reveal it and transform it into value. This permanent debate makes it possible to achieve the right balance between excess of control and excess of subsidiarity, between management and ideation, between rationality and the emergence of opportunities. The approach adopted is therefore of the training-action type, by mobilizing a flexible network within the company. Long-term management of a portfolio of innovations means raising awareness among various players inside and outside the company of a method and a culture materialized by a shared process. Defining the right scope of application for this process is one of the keys to the success of its deployment. It is possible to break down your IPM project (management of a portfolio of innovations) into successive phases, each corresponding to a subset of the company, taking into account both the workforce to be mobilized and the acceptability of the project by the stakeholders.

Creative talent and structuring talent

If according to Kant the creative genius is innate, according to Nietzsche it is only the fruit of a work. We choose to give reason to one and the other. A successful innovation supposes the alliance of at least two talents. A creative talent is revealed by a structuring talent, without prejudging who is more creative than structuring. The Wright brothers were two, alternately at the origin of an idea transformed by the other and transforming the idea of the other. An innovative organization promotes collaboration between creatives and processors at the right time. The concept of cellular organization (see course manual # 4 of this workshop) is adapted to a flexible network of innovators.

---

Difference between an innovation project and another type of project

An innovation project is characterized by:

• A high degree of focus. Even if in the end a product, a service or a complex capability can benefit from it, the innovation itself is thought of as an elementary, continuous or disruptive advance, which can itself be aggregated with other new features or existing components. The day man set foot on the moon, he did not benefit from a single innovation, but from the combination of a large number of innovations aggregated into a complex system.

• Moving goals. An innovation project does not have a fixed perimeter. It is first defined by a problem, a lack or an imbalance, and by the objective of investigating new solutions to change the situation. Also, during the life of an innovation project, one or more pivots occur to refine the objective, or even to reconsider the initial observation, depending on the progress made, the avenues discarded, the ideas generated.

• A high degree of uncertainty. The flexibility of the objectives mentioned above results in a high degree of uncertainty concerning its budget, its timetable, the resources necessary for its accomplishment and its chances of success.

• Varying success rate. The success rate of an innovation project is highly dependent on the quality of its management process, in particular on a rate of pivoting adapted to the evolution of the field of knowledge built by the project and its degree of focus. Depending on the organizations considered, the average success rate of innovation projects typically varies from 20% to 80%. This means that depending on the level of maturity of the IPM, the chances of success of an innovation project at its start can vary by several tens of points around the optimum.

• The existence of an optimal average success rate. The most desirable success rate is not 80%. Why? Because aiming for a maximum success rate kills creativity, therefore deprives projects of their innovative dimension. Indeed, the conditions for maximizing the success rate are the predictability of the existence of a solution to the initial observation, the predictability of the resources to be mobilized and the predictability of the effective mobilization of these resources. However, the success of an innovation project is defined by the confirmation in fine of the existence of a new capability, improving the customer experience and the experience of the organization itself. And this capability is most often known only at the end. Rather than aiming for a maximum success rate, we must therefore aim for an optimal success rate by ensuring that new capabilities emerge at a reasonable pace to satisfy customers, employees, partners, shareholders or investors.

• The notion of aligned visible step. To judge the advisability of stopping or continuing an innovation project, the regular achievement by this project of visible stages aligned with the resolution of its initial observation is the key criterion. A visible milestone is either new knowledge, a compelling prototype, or the justified elimination of a resolution track. It leads either to the continuation of the next visible step, or to a need for pivoting. The aligned visible stage is the pivot of the management of an innovation portfolio, which makes it possible to energize it, that is to say to stop early the projects unable to produce them at a frequency deemed acceptable by the stakeholders, and empowering others by helping them either mobilize the right resources or pivot at the right time under the right conditions.

• The preferred rhythm over duration. At a given time, we do not know the end date of an innovation project. We don’t know if it will still pivot or not. On the other hand, we know that we must reach visible milestones regularly. Rhythm is therefore preferred to duration. This rhythm benefits from being defined in good understanding with the strategic stakeholders, key customers, key partners, key employees, shareholders or investors.

• The final report. An innovation project does not end when it has produced the expected deliverable, because there is no expected deliverable. The end signal is given when the impact of the last visible step is judged to be sufficiently virtuous and there is no new pivot on the horizon. A virtuous impact can be defined as the achievement of forecast profitability thresholds at a sufficiently close deadline, the improvement of customer satisfaction measurable by relevant indicators, stimulation of growth, reduction of a carbon footprint or any positive change in environmental, societal and economic parameters.

• An induced scaling up project. After the end of an innovation project, if it is a success, the relay is taken over by a project to scale up the solution, which may or may not itself be an innovative project.

---

Establishing the IPM vision

Depending on the organizations considered, and their external ecosystems, the optimum lies somewhere between the two observed extremes, typically around or slightly above 50%. Imagine an organization in which 100 innovation projects are underway. In terms of level of progress, they are most often distributed according to a Gaussian curve, ie there are more half-finished projects than projects starting up or at the end of the cycle. The reason is simple: before the deployment of an IPM approach, the stopping, pivoting and stimulation processes specific to innovation projects do not exist, or are too much inspired by traditional project management methods. We also wait for current projects to end before starting new ones, swelling the group of half-finished projects. When a project is in difficulty, the reflex is too often to seek to plan the rest to be produced with as much precision as possible, depriving it of its innovative essence. It would be better to either stop it, stimulate it, or pivot it. By introducing IPM, the stopping, pivoting, and pacing processes energize the portfolio and force it to produce visible steps at a target rate, with these steps being converted to either continuation, pivoting, or termination, either stopped.

These considerations gain from being formalized in an IPM vision adapted to the context of the organization. It is made up of:

• The definition of what constitutes the success of an innovation project: the achievement of an end report, as mentioned above, i.e. the report that the impact of the last visible stage is deemed sufficiently virtuous and that there is no new pivot on the horizon. It remains to define this virtuous impact:

– Achievement of a forecast break-even point. There may be several levels of thresholds depending on the ambition and the resources mobilized, so there may also be several categories of innovation projects.
– Maximum deadline, expressed in months, for reaching the forecast profitability objective.
– Improved measurable customer satisfaction.
– Relevant indicators for measuring customer satisfaction. Example: the Net Promoter Score, if it is possible to link it to the direct or indirect contribution of the innovation project concerned.
– Process for measuring relevant indicators.
– Stimulation of growth.
– Reduction of a carbon footprint.
– Significant increase in the average level of competence within the organization.
– Any positive development of environmental, societal and economic parameters.

• The characteristics of an innovation project:

– The degree of focus, reflected in the context of the organization under consideration.
– The categories of problems, lacks or initial imbalances typical of the organization.
– The number of successful innovation projects per year. This figure corresponds to the rate of production of new capabilities, improving the customer experience and the experience of the organization itself.
– The number of visible steps aligned per year and per innovation project.

• The success factors of an innovation project: this section will be specified later (in particular during this workshop, course manual # 3: mapping of maturities, and in part 1, month 2: strategic positioning). At this stage, it remains informal and based on retro-analysis of successful innovation projects.

• Sponsors and levels of decision-making involved: Participants in this training can be the sponsors themselves, or identify the key roles within the organization and their level of decision-making. The roles and levels to be identified are as follows:

– Maintenance, sharing and promotion of the definition of what constitutes the success of an innovation project.
– Maintenance, sharing and promotion of the characteristics of an innovation project.
– Maintenance, sharing and accountability vis-à-vis the success rate target.

• The average success rate target. It is deduced from:

– S: target number of successes per year.
– T: target number of visible stages aligned per year (all innovation projects combined).
– N: average target number of visible steps aligned per innovation project.

Target Hit Rate = S x N/T.

It can also be expressed according to the resources mobilized:

– E: average resources to produce an aligned visible step.
– R: total resources mobilized on innovation projects per year.

T = R/E.

Target Hit Rate = S x N x E/R.

---

Case study – A pharmaceutical laboratory builds its IPM vision

A world-class pharmaceutical laboratory forms an internal think tank, made up of decision-makers, experts and project managers, whose mission is to examine the performance of its innovation projects. The members of the group pool the information they have about the group’s innovation portfolio, without initially worrying about accuracy or completeness. They agree to start with two subsets of the group, on the one hand the innovation projects of the research & development (R&D) department, on the other hand the Lean or related projects (among others: operational excellence, Lean Six Sigma, Kaizens). They note that within the scope of R&D there are two types of innovation projects: those seeking to find new molecules and file patents, and those seeking to improve the functioning of the department. The former are broken down into basic research and applied research, the latter are called operational performance projects. Innovation projects falling into the Lean and related projects scope, on the other hand, are broken down into improving the customer experience, the employee experience, the partner experience and the shareholder experience. 6 categories of innovation projects are therefore identified in total. After discussions, the IPM vision is formalized as follows:

• Definition of a success:

– Fundamental research: confirmation or invalidation of a thesis.
– Applied research: patent filing and intellectual protection of a new molecule.
– Operational performance: proven reduction in R&D cost in relation to the number of patents filed.
– Customer experience: proven impact on the NPS (net promoter score).
– Employee experience: proven impact on attrition.
– Partner experience: improvement of the joint SLA.
– Shareholder experience: exceeding the break-even point in less than 1.5 years, ROI of less than 2.5 years.

• The degree of focus of an innovation project:

– Fundamental research: framing the thesis according to academic criteria.
– Applied research: targeting an active ingredient.
– Operational performance: targeting a process improvement lever.
– Customer experience: targeting a family of products or a family of services.
– Collaborator experience: target a process improvement lever.
– Partner experience: target a family of indicators.
– Shareholder experience: target a lever for improving profitability.

• Typical initial problems, deficiencies or imbalances

– Fundamental research: biosynthesis.
– Applied research: oncology.
– Operational performance: advanced simulation means.
– Client experience:

a) BtoB: low visibility on industrialization projects.
b) BtoBtoC: not very ergonomic partner portals.

– Employee experience: loss of skills during retirement.
– Partner experience: Process misalignment.
– Shareholder experience: success rate of innovation projects not measured.

• Target number of innovation project successes per year (order of magnitude)

– Fundamental research: 5 projects confirming or invalidating a thesis.
– Applied research: 120 patent filings per year.
– Operational performance: 20 innovative levers contributing to decrease level of investment from 25 million dollars per patent to 20 million dollars per patent.
– Client experience:

a) BtoB: 3 innovative levers helping to improve 5 key services provided to BtoB customers.
b) BtoBtoC: 10 innovative levers for redesigning customer relationship management processes.

– Employee experience: 3 innovative levers for mobilizing seasoned experts on a knowledge capitalization and training initiative.
– Partner experience: 10 innovative process alignment levers.
– Shareholder experience: 5 innovative levers for improving profitability.

• The number of visible steps aligned per year and per innovation project. A priori, this rhythm is not considered as dependent on the perimeter considered, but constitutes a cultural link between the different departments of the group while being compatible with the constraints of each one. It is decided to set this rhythm at 1 visible step aligned every 2 months.

• The success factors of an innovation project:

– Basic research: openness to specialized universities and smooth organization of interactions with partner laboratories.
– Applied research: efficient means of simulation.
– Operational performance: creative time/routine time balance.
– Client experience :
a) BtoB : knowledge of irritants.
b) BtoBtoC : knowledge of best practices.
– Collaborator experience: time management for experts.
– Partner experience: sufficient joint volumes for the partners to agree to invest.
– Shareholder experience: reliable performance measurement model.

• Sponsors and levels of decision-making involved: the think tank itself.
• Average success rate target: +5 points. At this stage the current success rate is not measured, and the members of the think tank are unable to form a sufficiently precise idea without investigating further. On the other hand, they think that it is significantly lower than 50%, a substantial part of the portfolio of innovation projects tending to be perpetuated from one year to the next and to become recurring budget lines, somewhat like of a maintenance item. So they decide to set themselves two objectives: on the one hand they want to initialize a portfolio of innovation projects and measure its success rate, on the other hand they aim for an improvement of 5 points and anticipate that such a gain can generate a creation of significant value.

---

The role of the CIO in the construction and dissemination of the IPM vision

At least three roles contribute to establishing an IPM vision: decision-makers, innovation project leaders and experts. A single person can carry several roles, either at the same time or sequentially. In particular, the Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) can both be endowed with cross-departmental decision-making power and choose to get involved from time to time in the operational management of selected innovation projects. If the CIO comes from the organization in question, she or he also benefits from knowing part of its history. The agenda of a CIO when taking office covers in particular cultural, organizational and technological subjects. The first challenge consisting in building a vision and sharing it with correspondents who will become supports or even pillars of the approach, he or she must intimately understand the power map within which she or he must fit: who decides what, who is a referent of this or that knowledge, who is known for recurrent successes as a bearer of innovative subjects. In particular, the CIO must choose how to work with vertical managers, typically the heads of business units who guarantee compliance with their budget in terms of revenue, operating costs and investment. She or he therefore benefits from relying on a network of motivated and recognized project managers and experts to introduce this additional transversality that is innovation. On the technology side, the challenge is to sort out assets with potential and promising trends (see part 1, month 6 of this program: asset potential & part 2, month 8: promising trends).

The CIO is also the guarantor of the alignment between the general strategy of the organization and the IPM vision. He or she captures the expectations of General Management and the evolution of its agenda. The “new eye” effect is then a key asset. For example, it can be used to stimulate high-potential innovation projects that have hitherto suffered from a lack of resources or attention.

---

Exercise 1 – IPM Vision

Participant’s roles

Optimizing the performance of its portfolio of innovation projects. This is ultimately the objective pursued by the participants in this training. Also their roles are diverse, from the member of the executive committee in charge either of piloting innovation at the scale of a group, or of declining an innovation approach on its scope of intervention, to the functional expert, technical or relational contributing to generate ideas and transform them into value-creating capabilities, through project managers, project directors and leaders of innovative initiatives.

Up to 5 pairs

Pairs can be created during the course of the training, and this from this first workshop. The idea is to confront the point of view of decision-makers and experts, or experts and pilots of innovation projects, or decision-makers and pilots of innovation projects, knowing that no one is confined to just one of these functions. Most participants having several roles in the company, they choose the one they want to play during this training by asking themselves the following questions:

• Am I naturally led to arbitrate between the budgets of two competing innovation projects? Am I the guarantor of the innovation budget and its contribution to the creation of value for the organization? Do I have to report on my management of the portfolio of innovation projects within my scope of intervention? Am I evaluated according to performance indicators for innovation projects? Do I have the authority to allocate resources to innovation projects autonomously? NB: If the above questions are not yet applicable to my current situation, ask yourself if they will be in the medium term. Am I particularly motivated to meet the challenges associated with the above questions? If the answers to these questions are mostly positive (positive answers in the medium term have the same weight as positive answers applicable to the present situation), then one of your key facets is the role of decision-maker.

• Have I ever contributed to generating innovative ideas within the organization? Do I like this? Am I recognized as having a good knowledge of a functional, technical or relational subject? NB: By relational subject, we mean knowledge of an ecosystem of customers, prospects, partners, or a formal or informal internal network. Do I ultimately like to delve into a subject until I know it like the back of my hand and intimately understand the ins and outs of it in order to be able to answer most of the questions concerning it? NB: If the above questions are not yet applicable to my current situation, ask yourself if they will be in the medium term. Am I particularly motivated to meet the challenges associated with the above questions? If the answers to these questions are mostly positive (positive answers in the medium term have the same weight as positive answers applicable to the present situation), then one of your key facets is the role of knowing.

• Have I already piloted innovation projects inside or outside the organization? Do I like leading a team? Do I enjoy setting a goal and mobilizing a team to achieve it? Am I a good time manager? Do I have knowledge or practice, even partial or in its infancy, of co-creation session facilitation methods, agile methods, innovation project management? NB: If the above questions are not yet applicable to my current situation, ask yourself if they will be in the medium term. Am I particularly motivated to meet the challenges associated with the above questions? If the answers to these questions are mostly positive (the positive answers in the medium term have the same weight as the positive answers applicable to the present situation), then one of your key facets is the role of innovation project leader.

Decision makers, project managers and knowers (Photo by Anne Nygård on Unsplash)

In case the configuration of the group of participants does not allow the formation of pairs, because one of the roles is in the majority (implying that two similar roles are found in the same pair), then form 2 teams of 5 instead, trying to assign at least one representative from each role on each team.

Group work: development of its IPM vision

Each team rolls out the process of building their IPM vision, on the perimeter they know best. At this stage, it is useless to collect precise data. The main thing is to conduct logical thinking in the correct order, stimulating creativity. Creativity is possible since we are essentially talking about the target. The collection of information on the ground will follow later, in particular when it comes to measuring what already exists to establish a starting point.

1. On each perimeter considered, visualize what can be a typical success of an innovation project. Describe it.
2. What does it mean to be focused? How to avoid amalgamating too many different issues in a single innovation project, thus creating a need for parasitic coordination when one must concentrate on the search for something new? Give a typical example.
3. What are the most critical issues, gaps or imbalances, those that persist year after year without a classic solution?
4. How many value-creating innovations should be introduced each year, to visibly reduce the stock of problems, deficiencies or imbalances mentioned above?
5. At what average frequency should an innovation project produce a visible milestone (a new knowledge, a convincing prototype or the justified elimination of a solution track) to avoid the bogging down of unpromising innovation projects and to adequately stimulate promising innovation projects?
6. What are the success factors of an innovation project? List them.
7. Who are the sponsors? Who can be usefully charged with maintaining, sharing and promoting the definition of what constitutes the success of an innovation project? Of the maintenance, sharing and promotion of the characteristics of an innovation project? Maintenance, sharing and accountability vis-à-vis the success rate target?
8. What average success rate target should be set and why? Absolute target? Relative target?

Once the teams have produced their IPM vision, they share it and establish affinity groups prefiguring homogeneous perimeters from the point of view of the culture of innovation.

---

Course manual 2: Scope of application

Culture of innovation

A culture of innovation is made up of a combination of skills, desires, experiences and issues that are often very varied. It can be conveyed by captions highlighting exceptional successes or, on the contrary, resounding failures, or even simple behaviors typical of a certain way of innovating. Different cultures can coexist within the same organization, each being specific to a geographical, legal or functional entity, or to a group of such structures. They come from an experience that is good to know in order to build the rest of the story on a solid base.

---

Case study – Pixar and its culture of innovation

The famous animation company has grown and embellished alongside successive partners and shareholders while maintaining its own culture of innovation. Admittedly, it was inspired by these capital-intensive collaborations and alliances to grow and nurture its legends, but it has always retained a backbone that can be found in many actors known for their exceptional creativity: the articulation between first the ideation and the prototyping, then the structuring, finally the decision. These three stages are characteristic of organizations that frequently renew their ranges of capabilities, products and services by incorporating innovations. They may have other names and differ in their application on the ground, but their logic is the same.

Genesis of the company Originally the economic model of the Pixar studios, which was called Graphics Group and was part of the LucasFilm group, was based on the development of innovative tools that could be used by creators of animated films. It was therefore a BtoB activity. But profitability was not there: the company had to pivot to survive. We can decline the beginning of this story according to the 3 stages mentioned above.

Stage 1: Ideation and prototyping – Apply advanced graphics technologies in the animated film industry.

Stage 2: structuring – Produce tools that can be used by studios, according to a BtoB model.

Step 3: strategic decision at the right time – As soon as the business model has proven to be unviable, decision to pivot with the help of a partner.

1st pivot When Steve Jobs bought the company, the confrontation between two cultures, that of animation software and that of computer hardware, caused a first major pivot towards the production of machines dedicated to graphic design. The most buoyant market turns out to be that of health, and not that of film. However, the company must pivot again to survive.

Stage 1: Ideation and prototyping – Combine software and hardware know-how to produce highly specialized machines.

Step 2: Structuring – Targeting the health sector.

Step 3: strategic decision at the right time – The new economic model has also proven to be unsustainable. Decision to pivot again, with new partners.

2nd pivot It seeks to enhance its assets and refocuses on the most promising areas of development: first making short films to demonstrate its know-how, then advertisements, finally animated films on order from Disney. It comes out of the red.

Step 1: ideation and prototyping – Enhance the asset by producing animated films.

Step 2: Structuring – First short film, then advertising, finally animated films commissioned by Disney.

Step 3: strategic decision at the right time – This economic model is viable: decision to scale up.

Scaling up and maturing A succession of successes in collaboration with Disney changed the size of the company. It naturally leads to a redemption of one by the other.

Step 1: ideation and prototyping – Take advantage of the complementarities between Pixar and Disney.

Step 2: Structuring – Articulate Pixar’s differentiated production and Disney’s mature distribution.

Step 3: strategic decision at the right time – Maintain a pragmatic multi-channel approach (cinemas, DVD, streaming).

The culture of innovation at Pixar studios (Photo by Sebastian Svenson on Unsplash)

Case study – Pixar: Key Lessons

Pixar’s culture of innovation, resulting from this succession of phases during which it was nourished by the contribution of other organizations, is characterized by at least 5 constants that are rich in lessons.

An ideation & prototyping / structuring / decision-making articulation that spans the years The partners, client sectors, shareholders and even the name may have changed over the years, but the innovation processes are stable and anchored in the company’s culture. However, Edwin Earl Catmull, emblematic leader of the company, does not cease to proclaim in substance that the excess of formalism kills creativity and that it must be constantly released. In fact, there is a structure at Pixar, but this structure must be at the service of the creation of innovative value by promoting the emergence of assets with potential (ideation and prototyping), the transformation of these assets into value (structuring), finally courageous decision-making at the right time (decision).

A successful multiplication of individual creativity Underlying the three-step macro-process mentioned above, good practices have crystallized in the form of decision-making meeting points, operating rules (including rules contributing to protecting and enhancing individual creativity), use of tools and methods (from the upstream design phase to the product distribution phase), mechanisms for detecting value creation opportunities, finally steering the competitive edge based on the valuation of assets with potential. The whole constitutes a process repository that is both rigorous and highly scalable, centered on the strategic choice of leveraging individual creativity through the collective while constantly improving the operational performance of products.

The economic model: a principle of reality Each time the confrontation with the market has invalidated the hoped-for viability of an economic model, a rapid shift has taken place, transforming a threat into an opportunity. This is only possible by firmly believing in the potential value of its assets, whether technological, human, organizational or relational. The initial intuition is followed by trial and error, an assessment carried out at the right time and the resulting decision: pivoting or scaling up, opening of a new market or industrialization… It is at this price that Pixar and its ecosystem transform innovation into performance.

Ecosystem and cross-fertilization At the corporate level as well as at the individual level, Pixar never works alone. Customers, partners, shareholders, colleagues, all have a decisive, recognized and valued contribution to the innovation process. Apparently competing processes (resulting from a history of successive rapprochements between different corporate cultures) can and must coexist in order to mutually feed each other and make possible the famous equation 1 + 1 = 3. On this subject, Edwin Earl Catmull reveals five operating principles of Pixar. In essence: everyone must have the freedom to communicate with whoever they want, proposing ideas must never put their author in danger, we must remain close to the innovations that are emerging in university circles, we must remain in the rails (interpretable as being aware at all times of the economic virtue of a project and its success factors), finally we must rely on post-mortems to constantly progress. He adds: leaders sift through a mass of ideas to find those that fit into a cohesive whole – that support the story – which is a very difficult task.

Focus Pixar is a specialized company, which means that it takes the risk of betting on the value of its assets rather than a strategy of diversification and risk distribution. His communication is also focused on his specialty. These two choices characterize many hyper-growth companies.

---

Define the scope of application of the IPM

Identifying the different cultures of innovation at work within the organization allows it to be split into coherent subsets. To return to the example of Pixar and Disney, the respective maturities of the two entities in terms of innovation were different at the time of their merger. If one was inspired by the other to progress and vice versa, the innovation processes and the behaviors induced remained distinct and each evolved at their own pace.

The work of breaking down the organization into coherent subsets from the point of view of the culture of innovation is necessary in order to envisage the setting of objectives adapted to each context. The level of granularity of this division must not be too fine so that the whole remains controllable, nor too coarse to remain aligned with the reality on the ground.

The proposed approach is iterative, starting in a first step by grouping geographical, legal or functional entities sharing a homogeneity:

• of innovation processes (example: ideation & prototyping / structuring / decision-making),
• of informal innovation processes,
• of stimulation of individual and collective creativity, of risk-taking,
• in pivoting operational and economic models,
• of openness and curiosity about other innovative contexts and environments,
• of focused innovation initiatives.

For a global player with a workforce greater than or equal to 100,000 people, typically consider up to ten subgroups. For an actor present in at least ten countries with a workforce of 20,000 people, consider up to 5 subsets. For an SME employing 1,000 people, consider up to 3 subsets.

This first division is not final. At this stage, it is based on the knowledge of the participants and is not yet the subject of a collection of information in the field. On the other hand, it is useful to visualize now how to collect this data in the long term.

In a second step, it is a question of ordering these subsets by evaluating their respective priorities in terms of the application of IPM. The prioritization criteria are as follows:

• Number of situations for which confrontation with the IPM vision would be useful. A situation is either an innovation project in progress, or an asset held by the organization conducive to innovation (distinctive know-how, capability potentially entering into the composition of an innovative service or product).
• Investment made in innovation (order of magnitude of cumulative known investments) or that it would a priori be justified to make in innovation given the perceived potential of the assets.

The risk appetite

Strong innovation cultures often go hand in hand with a propensity for risk taking. Many leaders of hyper-growth companies link their success to the reasoned endangerment of their structure, at key moments in their history. Is it a fatality? Isn’t it possible, even desirable, to innovate without betting?

As we saw above (see course manual 1: IPM Vision), an innovative project is characterized, among other differences compared to a classic project, by a higher level of uncertainty as to the result, and which is most often only lifted at the end. So yes, risk taking is inherent in innovation. But this risk is lower than that of not innovating. Not innovating means losing opportunities for value creation greater than those presented by an exclusive agenda of sustainability, continuous improvement, imitation and the race for volumes. This assertion is based in particular on the results of research carried out by W. Chan Kim and R. Mauborgne, of INSEAD, and by all those who succeeded them in the blue ocean strategy movement. In short, by observing a large panel of companies over long periods, it turns out that since the end of the 20th century, innovation has created more value than the race for volumes, therefore optimizing the price / perceived quality. More generally, the creation and maintenance of blue oceans (little or no competitive universes), as opposed to red oceans (competitive universes), is a clearer and more sustainable growth factor.

The result is a panorama of players positioning themselves in relation to this dynamic by adopting, formally or not, a more or less ambitious risk appetite. The good news is that players who have been innovating intensely for a long time see their probability of success skyrocket once their portfolio of innovation projects has reached a certain maturity (see part 2, month 9: portfolio management). The reason is simple: the investment in innovation is then distributed in a balanced way over a large number of projects and the success factors are known and mastered thanks to experience. Foremost among these success factors is the ability to arbitrate and pivot as soon as necessary, as we saw above (see course manual 1: IPM Vision).

The right balance between interior and exterior

Another success factor concerns the center of gravity of innovation: innovative forces exist both inside and outside the organization. Inside, they are generators of ideas and transformers of these ideas into value. They can be found within an R&D department, in a cross-functional department or in any entity with innovation topics on its agenda. Outside, they are witnesses of the market, promoters of new technologies, distributors of new managerial practices, promoters of social projects or simply highly listened to influencers. A positive tension exists between these internal and external forces of innovation.

For example, salespeople are naturally exposed to market witnesses (customers and prospects) and tend to consider that the best possible innovation is the one that will make it easier for them to sell. At a time when multi-channel dynamics are becoming more widespread, the sales function is increasingly integrating the responsibility of capturing and relaying trends, this role becoming as important as that of salesperson.

But there are many functions that are not very exposed to the outside. In such a context, the best possible innovation is one that optimizes a process or improves the quality of a service at the level of a team or a department. The customer, the partner, the shareholder and the regulator are seen through the filter of other internal actors, sometimes through a cascading succession of other entities. They suffer from being too virtual.

A key element of the culture of innovation is the share of the workforce exposed to the outside world. The potential exposure levers are multiple. Here is a sample:

• Prospecting and sales function.
• Participation in professional events.
• Participation in webinars to which an external speaker is invited.
• Involvement in an interactive communication project.
• Involvement in a showcase project in the metaverse.
• “Live my life” experience (exchange of positions to live the life of another professional in a different structure).
• Immersive training (virtual reality).
• Employee profit-sharing in the company’s capital and active participation in general meetings.
• Periodic immersion in a fablab. Note: a fablab is a physical place of exchange between inside and outside. Equipped with prototyping tools adapted to current innovation projects, it is either designed as an internal capability inviting external actors, or as a common capability for several organizations or even an entire city inviting representatives of these organizations for sessions lasting up to a few days. These sessions can bear the name of hackathon, sprint, or other designations specific to each actor. They confront different points of view and contribute to aligning internal vision and external vision.

By activating these levers on a large scale, the organization aligns itself with external issues on the customer, user or beneficiary side as well as on the partner, regulator or shareholder side. On the contrary, by restricting the number and frequency of opportunities to open up to the outside, it focuses on internal issues. Between these two extremes, several cases exist, and can also coexist within the same organization.

---

Frugal innovation cultures

In the wake of their outward orientation, a number of organizations have adopted a frugal innovation approach. Based on the research results of Navi Radjou (Cambridge), the aim here is to make something new with little, that is to say, to sublimate the existing to transform it into something new that can be valued. To explain the concept, we can draw a parallel with Apollo 13 (Ron Howard’s film): following a malfunction in the space capsule, when there was no more oxygen for more than two astronauts in the main tanks, how to connect to an emergency tank to bring the three crew members back to earth safe and sound? If the vital risk situation did not require it, no one would dream of digging the track for this emergency tank deemed inaccessible in this phase of the flight. Under duress, on the other hand, a team on the ground gathers a duplicate of all the objects the astronauts have on board, and makes a makeshift pipe to connect a round connector to a square connector: an ingenious DIY, which costs 1,000 times cheaper than standard equipment. By transmitting their instructions to the crew members to carry out this innovative equipment, the engineers on the ground save their lives.

This same process can be applied to a number of situations in the daily life of a company, a public service or an association, provided that the innovation is made replicable and marketable. The idea is that many potential innovations lie before our eyes and are just waiting for a spark, a particular circumstance, to emerge. This circumstance can be fortuitous or provoked. How to provoke it? The best trigger is the customer, the beneficiary or the user, who himself or herself potentially adopts the same approach. Major car manufacturers have integrated frugal innovation approaches on a large scale and have thus involved their subcontractors and suppliers in the adventure. Their calls for tenders are very constrained, forcing bidders to justify a frugal use of energy, capital and human time. Most sectors have experimented with the same kind of process to force BtoB players to innovate under constraints, including the public sector imposing increasingly high levels of savings on their suppliers, forcing incumbent providers to reconfigure or resort to partnerships with agile and frugal start-ups, which yesterday were still deemed too fragile to simplify their public inquiry or statistical study processes. Frugal innovation is contagious and pushes young and old to rethink their models frequently, most often in depth.

Cultures of innovation through rebound

Frugality leads to saving production costs, investments or R&D envelopes, including by reusing the experience of others. Innovation by rebound consists in succeeding where others have failed, therefore in benefiting from their achievements, particularly in terms of design and the customer, user or beneficiary experience.

In order not to be the first to experience something new, some therefore wait for competitors to break their noses and then analyze their failure by highlighting its key causes. It only remains for them to avoid the pitfalls into which their predecessors fell. This strategy worthy of a hermit crab (a small marine animal squatting in the habitat of other animals) presupposes having a specific monitoring function and linking it with an agile decision-making process. For example, who is currently working on the next generation of connected glasses, democratizable on a large scale thanks to proven usefulness and comfort? This probably requires a detailed understanding of the mores of the targeted users, who may be part of a generation yet to be born. A culture of innovation by rebound is therefore inseparable from a culture of advanced monitoring capable of judging the timing of an innovation with above-average reliability and precision. If an innovation project always presents a certain level of risk, rebound approaches have the advantage – or the disadvantage, as the subject is difficult – of limiting this risk to the field of uses, or proven causes of failure of competitors. Of course, one cause may hide another, but part of the way has been covered. Artificial intelligence and big data are trends that can come to the aid of the rebounding innovator to complete the journey.

Scientific and technological cultures

The center of gravity for innovation may be closer to a design office than to the marketing department. This may be the case of organizations employing mostly scientists and engineers, accustomed to designing new products and new services in the laboratory. The key to performance is therefore taking into account the expectations of the target markets thanks to an appropriate co-creation method.

In this respect, the example of TRIZ is eloquent. Originally, it was a co-creation method devised by a Russian engineer consisting of identifying reproducible innovation mechanisms and looking for opportunities to apply them. Today, the approach is deployed on a large scale in companies such as Samsung, for example, which considers it absolutely strategic. The principle is simple: by analyzing tens of thousands of patents, recurring patterns of innovation emerge. They are 40 in number in most versions of the method. But to apply them, several preliminary steps are necessary, including the identification of contradictions. The notion of contradiction is at the heart of TRIZ. It is a trigger for innovation. It can reflect an incompatibility between two components of a product, a discrepancy between a user’s expectation and the design of a process, an irritant frequently denounced in satisfaction surveys in contrast to test reports, the misuse of a service in opposition to a regulation, or simply a gap between the stated objectives of an innovation project and the way it is conducted. By ordering the contradictions in order of importance, we obtain a list of innovation potentials.

TRIZ makes the link between this list and the innovation schemes inspired by the analysis of a large number of patents, thanks to a succession of stages which will be described later ( see part 2, month 2: innovation cycle and part 2 month 7: facilitating innovation of this program). It naturally directs innovation initiatives towards problems, shortcomings or value creation opportunities by taking into account the assets with potential held by the organization. Like other methods before it, it is also starting to be adapted to service environments, even if its level of adoption is still very low compared to that of industrial environments.

Artistic and design cultures

In sectors as varied as luxury, fashion, the automobile industry or the entertainment world, designers and artists are at work. They are sometimes both designers and artists, the difference residing solely in the use made of the result of their work. Art would rather be a matter of contemplation and enjoyment, design would rather have a practical vocation. A musical production can for example become the soundtrack of a training video, in which case we will speak of design, or be broadcast on a streaming platform with a cultural vocation, in which case we will speak of art. However, it is exactly the same melody with the same arrangements. It can also be successively exploited in an artistic context and in a so-called practical context. The designer is concerned about this use during the construction of the work, which is more often called conception than creation.

The design thinking movement has developed the use of designers in organizations which previously distinguished the function of an offering from the presentation of this offering. Today it is commonly accepted that the designer cares about all the experiences of the target beneficiary, from the upstream presentation, the responsibility of marketing, to downstream recycling.

---

Exercise 2 – Scope of application

Group work

The participants form teams according to the same principle as before, that is to say by confronting different points of view within each team. This time, it is not a question of establishing a vision for the future, but of characterizing the present, and even going back a little in the past to understand the springs of the culture of innovation at work today and spot the differences between different subsets of the organization from this perspective.

1. Establish on a shared medium (collaborative tool, paper board or whiteboard) the list of formalized innovation processes of which the participants are aware within the organization. Briefly describe them. What is their level of dissemination and buy-in from stakeholders? Note: if the culture of innovation is still in its infancy, such processes may not exist; then consider a particular innovation project and outline its major stages.
2. Do the same for informal processes.
3. List the communication media and initiatives encouraging individual and collective creativity, examples given by managers to stimulate the generation of ideas through the use of appropriate methods or tools. This may include, for example, suggestion boxes (a collection of innovative ideas that will be studied and prioritized before possibly triggering projects), “innovation” sections in newsletters, animation of regular co-creation sessions, encouragements to take risks and experiment.
4. List decisions similar to pivots of innovation initiatives that participants are aware of over the past few months or years. Are these decisions frequent? What is their impact? Is it appropriate to intensify this practice? Can we deduce that there is a decision-making process specific to the pivoting of innovation projects?
5. List known partnerships or exchanges related to innovative initiatives. Are these exchanges and partnerships between different subsets of the organization? Do they go beyond its limits to open up to the outside?
6. Identify an example of a relatively focused innovation project and an example of an innovation project whose effort is relatively dispersed. Between these two extremes, possibly identify an example of an intermediate case.

Opposite each item identified on the 6 lists thus constituted, include the entities or groupings of entities concerned by the practice in question. Coherent subsets emerge, corresponding to cultures of innovation different from each other, materialized by specific combinations of processes, initiatives stimulating creativity, rate of pivoting, openness and level of focus of the projects of innovation.

---

Case study – A pharmaceutical laboratory assesses its innovation cultures

The laboratory whose IPM vision we determined above has, as we have seen, a research and development (R&D) department. It also has, among other things, a sales force and a marketing function deployed internationally, several factories, a quality department represented in each factory and a set of cross-functional functions grouped together at the head office (general services, talent management, information systems management, finance, legal department, communication, compliance, purchasing, internal control and general management). A working group is working on the cultures of innovation at work within the organization. It constitutes 6 lists.

Innovating in life sciences (Photo by Raimond Klavins on Unsplash)

List 1: formalized innovation processes

• TRIZ (benchmark and innovation method particularly suited to the industrial world). Little distributed, TRIZ is the business of a few specialists. Scope: R&D.
• Design thinking approach. Design thinking workshops are led by external speakers with the aim of accelerating ongoing innovation projects. The skill does not exist or hardly exists internally. Scope: marketing.
• Scientific Committee. The managers of the R&D department meet every Monday morning to take stock of the news of their work and their discipline in general. It is an instance of information and sharing more than of decision. Scope: R&D.
• Market survey. Some salespeople have structured a systematic and regular approach to surveying a sample of prospects and customers in order to supply marketing with new ideas aligned with market expectations. The articulation with the innovation dynamic could be improved. The conclusions of these surveys still too rarely trigger the development of new products and services. Scope: sales force.

List 2: informal innovation processes

• Scientific watch. Scope: R&D.
• Technology watch. Scope: factories.
• Brainstorming on market expectations. Scope: marketing.

List 3: communication and initiatives stimulating creativity

• Suggested boxes. Scope: Talent management.
• Monthly newsletter. Few innovation projects are highlighted in internal communication, always the same. The references are starting to date. Scope: communications.
• External Blog. The same innovation projects as for the newsletter are put forward. In the feedback obtained from a panel of customers, these projects are seen as long-term axes of innovation allowing to rub shoulders with innovative subjects, the concrete impact on the catalog of products and services being still too confidential. Scope: communications.

List 4: swivel flexibility

• Visibility on the few major known innovation projects, which have been successful. Indeed, they pivoted several times under pressure from members of the Executive Committee directly involved, given the amount of the investment made and their marked interest in innovative dynamics. Scope: general management.
• Lack of visibility on other innovation projects, often managed at local management level. Scope: transverse functions, factories.

List 5: opening

• Communication with academia. Conferences, apprenticeship contracts, financing of theses and chairs, all these initiatives make it possible to keep up to date and to confront the objectives of R&D with the opinion of competent and creative third parties. However, there are few co-development projects identified, framed and funded, and the steering methods are the same as for projects that do not include an innovative component. Scope: R&D, finance, information systems management.
• “Make or buy” partnerships. The factories have coordinated with each other to create a production scheduling tool entrusted to third parties, these third parties being bound by an SLA (service level agreement) whose definition and periodic valuation are automated. This process is considered an innovation in itself. Scope: factories, purchasing, information systems management.

List 6: focus

• Major known innovation projects are focused. The challenge is to scale them up so that a greater number of business functions benefit from them, across the board. Scope: transverse functions.
• An example of failure linked to too wide a dispersion of objectives. The legal department and the regulatory compliance control department launched an ambitious project to dematerialize marketing authorization files, which included functions exploiting the possibilities of artificial intelligence, a modern scanning device and state-of-the-art automatic document analysis, a workflow offered to external (including authorities) and internal actors in order to streamline exchanges and updates (inspired by a transposition to the world of the pharmaceutical industry of digital twins used to plan and control the assembly of aircrafts). Beyond a variety of advanced technical devices, still at an exploratory stage for the most part, the mores of the internal and external interlocutors were not adapted to all these simultaneous changes. They could have joined one transformation at a time, but not all of them at the same time. In addition, the governance of the project being entrusted to two departments with little physical representation in the factories, communication proved difficult and too fragmented with internal interlocutors who were key, at the heart of the industrialization issues addressed. Scope: legal and compliance.

Breaking down its scope while respecting the cultures in place
(Photo by Shubham Dhage on Unsplash)

Thus, several cultures of innovation coexist within the organization. 4 subsets are identified.

• First subset: R&D. R&D has a culture of experimentation and monitoring, having used advanced methods such as TRIZ for example, but not having deployed a large-scale innovation process.
• Second subset: cross-functional & marketing functions. There is a desire to innovate, relying on external skills and expertise and favoring major projects that are very visible and too rare. Lack of focus is a key issue to address for some critical initiatives.
• Third subset: sales force. This function is poorly integrated into innovation processes and suffers from their lack of transversality. Yet it has a marked desire to innovate and has structured a survey process that would benefit from being valued by downstream operations.
• Fourth subset: factories. Overall, there is a desire for openness to both internal and external players. An external collaboration process was even the subject of an innovative and successful project, carried out jointly by the plant network, purchasing and the information systems department.

Consider collecting information in the field

As an option, and in addition to the characterization of the culture of the different subsets of the organization, a questionnaire can be constructed by the participants for an internal or internal and external panel, in order to feed future updates of this report.

---

Course manual 3: Mapping of maturities

At this stage, the identification of the different cultures of innovation existing within the organization, and of the corresponding subsets, in no way prejudges their respective levels of performance. Which suffer from a lack of performance, either measured by indicators, or only perceived? Who on the contrary are considered as models to follow? For the latter, is there nevertheless room for improvement?

From this point of view, the rapid confrontation with the IPM vision makes it possible to classify the subsets from the most priority to the least priority in the first analysis, using the two criteria recalled below (see their definition in the course manual 2 – scope of application):

• Number of situations for which confrontation with the IPM vision would be useful.
• Investment made in innovation.

This classification has the advantage of giving a first glimpse of the gap between vision and as is, but it has several disadvantages:

• It lacks precision. Some protagonists may feel unfairly judged and take umbrage, especially upstream of feedback from the field.
• One is tempted to favor short-term actions within the priority subgroups and to neglect the lesser priority ones. However, feedback from the field on these subjects, still to come, can reverse the trend and reveal unsuspected potential.
• It can only be confirmed, consolidated and therefore communicated on the day when a portfolio of concrete innovation projects has been constituted and evaluated.
• The sub-assemblies that are a priori less of a priority also harbor potential for value creation thanks to the deepening of an IPM approach, which cannot be neglected without further analysis.

A maturity scale with 12 levels

To overcome these drawbacks, a maturity scale of the IPM process is proposed. It is broken down into four zones of 3 levels each, for a total of 12 levels. This scale has been developed over more than a decade spent supporting companies, public services and associations in their strategic innovation process. It is constantly updated according to advances in the understanding of the mechanisms of innovation and the promotion of this innovation.

As mentioned in the introduction to this workshop, the first zone relates to the detection of innovation opportunities: are the detection and promotion of ideas and innovative projects with potential favored by the culture in place, or by observable initiatives in the field? Is there a need to provide know-how in this area, or even to propose a virtuous process? Contrary to popular belief, innovative ideas can be classified into recognizable patterns, such as the application to the sector in question of economic models that have been proven in other sectors (inter-sector transposition pattern), or an unprecedented combination of physical parameters introduced into an industrial process, to cite only these two examples. The idea here is not to constrain creativity, but on the contrary to stimulate it by raising new hypotheses. There is a wide variety of stimulating detection methods, of which TRIZ is an example (already mentioned above in course manual 2: Scope of application and in the case study: A pharmaceutical laboratory assesses its innovation cultures).

If such a detection and promotion capacity is operational, widely deployed and effective, the subset can be evaluated at the level of the second zone, which concerns its capacity to measure the impact of the innovation: are there appropriate innovation performance indicators? Are they relevant and useful? Is their definition simple and shared? Are the processes for generating these indicators known and upgradable? This measurement dynamic is too often absent from organizations, or insufficiently present. The assessment of innovation performance is done in a way that is too conventional, too aligned with the standards applicable to non-innovative projects. However, we have seen how much the management of an innovative project differs from that of a classic project (see course manual 1 – IPM vision), for example in terms of the need to pivot at the right time. In other cases, performance is simply not measured, but informally appreciated if post-mortems of innovation projects are carried out (whether this is a perceived success or failure). However, when the portfolio of innovation projects grows, the cumulative investments become substantial and an informal or unsuitable measure is not enough to support the decision-making that is required every day, every week and every month.

Then the third zone relates to the level of openness of the sub-assembly to the outside, to its propensity to innovate by sharing know-how and by practicing cross-fertilization with external actors. Benefiting from a strategy of openness to an innovative ecosystem presupposes having solved its problems of confidentiality of information and fluidity of communication according to the need to know. This requires a widely shared open innovation operating charter and tools in line with the content of this charter. Equipped with such a capacity, an organization becomes capable of self-assessing its innovation projects in the light of competition, or – better – the non-competition observed in the ecosystem in question. The unicorns or centaurs operating in the targeted fields of activity constitute privileged benchmarks for gauging oneself with precision, either by standing out from them, or by getting in their wake.

Finally, the fourth zone characterizes the subgroups that have implemented an agile capacity to prioritize their innovation projects, with rapid frequency, by being very connected to an internal and external ecosystem of witnesses from the targeted markets. Organizations reaching this level of maturity of their IPM process are able not only to pivot their innovation projects at the right time, with the right level of delegation, but to pivot and more generally to pilot effectively at the highest level groups of innovation projects called clusters. The clusters are typically formed by buoyant trend, by strategic asset or by issue of maintaining competitive advance.

An organization may not qualify in any of these 4 areas. It therefore innovates according to an informal dynamic, the value of innovation resting on individual or collective initiatives not federated by a transverse process.

---

The detection zone

The detection zone is broken down into 3 levels.

• Voice of the ecosystem: the level is reached when there are working groups involving customers, prospects or representatives of the targeted markets, whose objective is to identify and trace their trends and expectations. The method is available, facilitators from the voices of the ecosystem are ready to intervene on request, and the practice has become sufficiently commonplace to be triggered wisely. There is no longer any space where innovations emerge without checking in advance that they stick to a proven expectation and that the target market makes sense; indeed, this pitfall is one of the main causes of energy loss and explains the majority of innovation failures.

• Dedicated cross-functional structure: the level is reached when an innovation unit exists at least at management level, made up of professionals dedicated to IPM. The IPM may bear another name, such as “innovation management”, “innovation steering”, “transversal innovation”, “participatory innovation”, or other names or acronyms covering or sharing the space of the IPM. IPM can also be covered by several cross-functional teams working together, for example when technological subjects are separated from organizational subjects, but the level is only reached when their efforts are coordinated through a common portfolio of innovation projects and that no obstacle linked to this division slows down the process.

• Training program: the level is reached when a training program is available for employees wishing to train in continuous or disruptive innovation. This program is internal or external, or a combination of both. Note: participants will be “trained to train” during this curriculum (see part 2, month 7 of this program: facilitating innovation & part 3, month 3: training program & part 4, month 4: HR lever ).

---

The measure zone

The measure zone is broken down into 3 levels.

• List of assets with potential: the level is reached when the list of assets with value-added innovation potential is continuously maintained by the cross-functional unit, relayed by local innovation units. Examples: distinctive skill, software developed for internal needs adaptable to an external need, under-exploited e-commerce site. The local cells are made up of part-time contributors trained in IPM and operating in agile mode. Cells appear and disappear as needed.

• Dedicated dashboard: the level is reached when a report measuring innovation performance and reporting on current and future action plans is produced and shared with decision-makers. From this first workshop an initial dashboard can be built, focusing on the distribution of pilot projects desired in the long term and comparing it to the embryo of pilot portfolio already formed at this stage (see course manual 8 – initial dashboard). It is intended to be supplemented and made more reliable during future deployment, as well as to coexist harmoniously – or even be integrated – with pre-existing reporting processes. A strong criterion of maturity is the bidirectional side of the system: there is practically as much information circulating in the expert to decision-makers direction as in the decision-makers to experts direction, a sign that decisions are taken quickly and are supported by up-to-date data.

• Hyper-growing spin-offs: the level is reached when within the company there are stories of creating new activities with success comparable to that of a centaur or a unicorn. These structures have either been cut out functionally or separated capitalistically, but in all cases they are focused on a specific field of innovation and have focused their communication on the field of innovation in question. They represent benchmarks in the innovative ecosystem both for the organization itself and for its competitors and potential partners. There are always projects to stimulate structures with such potential. There is a limit case of operation to this dynamic: the economic model of investment funds in innovation; it is not necessarily targeted or achieved, a synergistic group model being most often preferred.

---

The openness zone

The openness zone is divided into 3 levels.

• IPM Software: The level is achieved when state-of-the-art innovation portfolio management software is deployed in the organization. This solution supports the use of open innovation, exchanges with contributors spread over various platforms, and the IPM process as a whole. It is potentially interfaced with one or more CRMs, one or more ERPs or other solutions with which it must interact. All managed data is consistent and, where applicable, free of migration defects from other systems.

• Open innovation: the level is reached when the company practices open innovation in a concerted manner, ie the use of external players contributing to the innovation process, in a logic of controlled reciprocal transparency. Conversely, it contributes to projects piloted by others. Open innovation contributes a significant, duly measured part of the value created. Trade-offs between internal and external innovation are becoming common practice thanks to the fluidity of the IPM process in place.

• Self-assessment: the level is reached when the organization compares itself to other actors, inside and outside its sectors of intervention, from the point of view of innovation performance. It has evaluation models adapted to recognizable innovation patterns, typical of its culture and that of its regular partners. It is able to get out of these patterns when necessary to develop new models and then mobilizes one or more dedicated cells in agile mode. It steers the competitive edge of innovation projects for which this point of view is critical.

---

The prioritization zone

The prioritization zone is broken down into 3 levels.

• Communicated Strategy: The level is achieved when the company’s innovation strategy is communicated to the right people based on their need-to-know. Varied formats and channels, particularly interactive, convey exchanges of know-how and news at least on a daily and weekly basis, with content adapted to the frequency. The strategic communication of innovation is part of the culture of each subgroup and makes it possible to federate energies while protecting the intellectual property of key assets.

• Involvement of sales: the level is reached when the commercial functions as a whole are associated from the upstream phases of an innovation process. Part-time correspondents and members of innovation cells disseminate their know-how where they operate, in their markets with their prospects, customers or intermediaries.

• Generalized IPM: the level is reached when the IPM process is known and operated by all of the company’s employees, allowing daily and weekly management of key subjects. The headings of daily management are in particular (non-exhaustive list) the needs for pivoting, stopping innovation projects, arbitration between open and closed innovation, quality review of visible stages. The headings of the weekly or monthly management are in particular the evolution of the IPM parameters (examples: rhythm of the visible stages, success rate), the validation of emerging trends, the investment or the scripting of new economic models; they may be subject to an acceleration of the information and decision-making process if exceptional conditions justify it.

---

Maturity Assessment

An organization may be more mature on a high dimension (openness and prioritization) than on a low dimension (detection and measurement). It is therefore important to take this into account in the assessment of its overall maturity, so that the starting point is reliable and constitutes a useful reference during the deployment of the IPM process. Also, it would be simplistic to consider an organizational subset as being exclusively positioned in one area among the 4 possible ones. In practice, the order of the zones follows a logic of deployment efficiency. Indeed, putting a global measurement system on an organization that does not detect or insufficiently detects its innovation opportunities would risk representing a waste of time, or even prove to be adapted on a small scale and unsuitable the day when detection would work on the entire perimeter. Similarly, generalizing an agile prioritization system in a closed organization would suffer from a lack of information concerning the market and competition which would prevent it from making the right decisions at the right time. On the other hand, this does not exclude measuring the performance of the innovation tactically before having stabilized its ability to detect, or prioritizing its portfolio of innovation projects (again on a tactical basis, this is i.e. before having all the information relating to the complete portfolio), before having completely assumed its openness to the outside world.

It is therefore proposed, in order to take into account the potentially non-linear distribution of the maturity of the IPM process on a given subset, to evaluate it as follows:

• Confront your own perception of the current situation of the subset with the definition of each of the 12 levels.
• If the subset meets the definition, add 1 to the maturity score.
• Divide the final score by 12 and obtain the maturity of the subset expressed as a percentage.

---

Case study – a pharmaceutical laboratory assesses the maturity of its IPM process

Situation A medium-sized pharmaceutical laboratory (present in around ten countries on 3 continents with a workforce of 30,000 people) is struggling to materialize its innovation projects.

Symptoms In its areas of specialization, the research and development (R&D) department is losing ground in the face of more agile biotechs that are forging partnerships with its direct competitors. Its research budget is substantial (15% of turnover). Consequently, the occupancy rate of the factories is decreasing and the know-how for developing new products is being lost. In terms of human resources, it is becoming more and more difficult to attract and retain the right experts. At the level of the financial management, it is planned to reduce the budget devoted to innovation, contrary to what has been the practice until now (upward reassessment of the budget each year since the creation of the company). A counter-example draws all attention: a very innovative project based on the use of connected objects has enabled the production department to lower its fixed costs by 12% in Germany. A unit specializing in innovation has been set up in this country, where only the production department is represented.

Causes identified

The management of innovation projects is not part of the culture of the R&D department, even if the production department has implemented training in IPM for its most experienced executives. On this occasion, IPM software was tested but its deployment failed.

There is no permanent body to survey the representatives of the target markets with regard to their expectations and the trends deemed to be promising, whereas the marketing and communication department, attentive to good competition practices, preaches in favor of such initiatives and has had occasional successes in this regard.

The professionals of the R&D department closely follow the work of several universities that they contribute to finance, but do not share their own progress with them (on the other hand, the HR departments share the results of their projects of innovative organizations with the university research communities).

An innovation project is considered as a necessary investment to maintain skills, its successful conclusion cannot be anticipated. There is no result objective assigned to innovation projects, even if the financial department has set up an innovation efficiency dashboard on part of the group’s scope, fed by information plots.

There is no regular inventory of ongoing innovation projects, which are most often entrusted to middle managers and financed either by R&D envelopes or by recurring operating budgets.

The success of the project to implement connected objects was the subject of an organizational experiment: an agile and independent structure was created, transformed into an autonomous subsidiary nevertheless having unlimited access to information and experts from the industrialization of processes. This subsidiary has become a spin-off selling its services to competitors to increase the value of its assets. Its operation is closely monitored by finance and the general management of the group.

Perimeter of application breakdown

5 subsets are identified, each with its own maturity of the IPM process.

• Successful spin-off: the locomotive of the whole. A raw maturity of 58%, centered on measurement, openness and prioritization. Shortcomings in detection, understandable given the highly focused model of the subsidiary.
• Germany and entities of the production division present in other countries: incubators. A raw maturity of 25%, centered on measurement and detection. Have already spawned spectacular success and are likely ready to do it again, or even become a school for the rest of the band.
• Cross-functional functions (general management, talent management, finance, marketing & communication): promoters. A gross maturity of 16%, with no net centering (except for the general management and finance, measurers). Promoters and experimenters can unite to progress.
• The R&D department: the follower. A gross maturity of 8%, reflecting the department’s links with universities. Must catch up on competition.
• The other departments: not evaluated. Raw maturity unknown due to lack of information available at this stage. To be qualified during the information gathering process.

---

Exploitation of the level of maturity of the IPM process

The qualification of the starting point of the organization makes it possible to envisage a future progression adapted to its own situation. Course manual 9 – IPM Strategy will be devoted to the development of an IPM strategy taking into account existing capabilities and those that are particularly lacking. The study of an initial portfolio of pilot projects (see course manual 7 – Pilot portfolio) will make it possible to specify this initial diagnosis and possibly, in the long term, to redirect ongoing initiatives. The measured evolution of the level of maturity of the IPM process provides a benchmark for all stakeholders and constitutes an element of motivation shared by all strata of the organization. By explaining what each level holds in terms of value creation potential, the IPM relays train their colleagues and spread the IPM culture by using a common frame of reference on which clear objectives are positioned.

---

Exercise 3 – Mapping of maturities

The participants form teams again. They now master the process. They will be required to refine the qualification of the IPM scope of application by establishing a maturity score by subset. To achieve this, they will apply the method described above to their own context.

1. As a group, read the description of the criterion for reaching the first level of the first zone: “Voice of the ecosystem”.
2. Ask yourself if the level is actually reached.
3. Justify the answer.
4. If the level is reached, increase your score by one unit. Document in one sentence the justification for this first assessment.
5. If it is not achieved, identify in one sentence the most priority potential for improvement in your opinion.
6. Start again with the second level: “Dedicated cross-functional structure”, then with the third, and so on until the twelfth level.
7. Divide the final score by 12 and deduce the estimated maturity of the subset expressed as a percentage.

Compare the results of the different subsets and derive a map of the maturities in the form of a simple graph.

---

Course manual 4: Cellular organization

The work carried out by the participants must be confronted with the points of view of other witnesses within the organization. These witnesses will therefore be required to spend time, even if this time is limited and said to be “reasonable”, to comment on the IPM vision and the assessment of the maturity of the subset for which they are testifying. They can also react to the organizational breakdown and suggest scope adjustments, justifying it by their experience or by reasoning. This mechanism of confrontation of points of view is potentially repeated in the future, transforming simple witnesses into recurring contributors.

Variability and uncertainty of contributions

As soon as a witness is called upon, and we anticipate that this will not be the last time we do so, the question arises of an organization adapted to this type of operation, where the dosage of a contribution is as variable as it is uncertain: variable in nature, in time, in level of influence; uncertain because it cannot be predicted, given the risky nature of any innovation project. Beyond the conduct of innovation projects, there is a need for support and animation of the IPM process. The professionals who are in charge of it should not constitute an organizational overlay generating an overhead, but benefit from being deployed on these very projects which enter into the portfolio to be managed. They also benefit from keeping a field function outside the innovation project if the opportunity arises, because they thus remain connected to its realities. If this multiplication between 2 or 3 roles seems incoherent with the need for focus mentioned above with regard to any innovation project (see course manual 1 – IPM vision), this is not the case. Indeed, the field operational role (for example: operating a back-office process two half-days per week, being deployed in a customer support function 2 days per week, carrying out compliance audits one week per month) can be chosen according to the challenge of the innovation project on which the same professional is deployed, and represent a valuable source of information to feed the design of an offering or a capability.

Cellular Organizations

If the theory of cellular organizations dates back to the last quarter of the twentieth century, its concrete advent on a large scale dates from the 2010s, on the occasion of the intrusion of agile methods in most organizations. François Jolivet is its pioneering theoretician. He led small and large projects in uncertain environments and deduced an appropriate organizational model that he described in his work in management between 1975 and 2000. Microsoft, for example, systematized the principle of cellular organization on its innovation projects from the beginning of the 2000s, on this basis.

François Jolivet notably led construction projects such as the Channel Tunnel linking Great Britain to the European continent: an avalanche of innovations were necessary to achieve objectives as ambitious as they were shifting, after decades of failed attempts. The same is true for the water supply in Riyadh or the construction of a lot of several thousand prefabricated housing units in Singapore. The common points between all these projects are the following:

• High level of competition creativity, constantly on the lookout.
• Instability of goals.
• Instability of allocated resources.
• Speed requirement.
• Imperative of control and compliance with draconian standards.

In such a context, the challenge boils down to producing a final deliverable as quickly as possible that everyone agrees on, by being a permanent force of proposal in order to compensate for the instability of the roadmap and the expectations of a particularly complex ecosystem. The adoption of a classic hierarchical organization, based solely on team leaders, project leaders, project directors and program directors constituting the 4 usual layers of project management, to which it would have been necessary to add the project steering level or even delegated project steering levels, would have inevitably led these initiatives to failure. Indeed, the decision-making process inherent in hierarchical organizations is sequential, takes the time to go up the information and go down the conclusion along the organization chart, and is only effective in a relatively stable environment.

The central idea of cellular organizations is to make the field team decide itself based on meta-rules. Rather than waiting for a decision from above, it is based on a repository of do’s and don’ts constantly enriched by the project pilots who can thus delegate, and therefore speed up, most decisions. If bad decisions are made, the framework provided by metarules avoids undue consequences. Moreover, it is better to tolerate the risk of making a statistically limited number of bad decisions than to systematically slow down the process by making sequential decisions ineffective. The impact of a limited number of bad decisions is negligible compared to that of immobility.

---

First meta-rule: follow the contours of the finished product

When the contours of the finished product evolve, which is the case for François Jolivet’s projects as for any innovation project, the contours of the organization evolve in symbiosis. So, if the project pivots and a new skill needs to replace the previous one, the composition of the team changes instantly. The organization is therefore above all not based on the function, as is often the case, but on the component of the finished product for which it is responsible, hence the name cellular organization. Cells form and die as needed. Assembled, they reflect the current state of the product. This type of operation has many advantages, in particular that of making possible a concrete or even pictorial report of progress by comparing the current organization to the previous one, and by deducing the progress made. A classic effect of this type of choice is the reduction in the importance of major decision-making functions such as purchasing or human resources, which on the other hand are transformed into collections of cells integrated into the project. Local recruitment and sourcing, in line with a logic of short circuit and generation of positive impact on the ecosystem, are common practices in these contexts.

---

Second meta-rule: the centrality of the blueprint

Thanks to software solutions, it is possible to share a single vision of a blueprint at all levels of the project. A blueprint is a plan representing on the one hand a vision of the assembled finished product, component by component (valid as well for a product, for a service, as for a capability), on the other hand the description of the roadmaps of its different components, including in particular the next meeting points between cells. If the short term is well described, the long term is barely sketched. Since everything is not known with certainty before the end of the project, we speak of valid hypotheses at a given time. If these assumptions turn out to be unrealistic, the project will pivot in due course, during one of the next formal meeting points. It is therefore useless to detail the long term and this method makes it possible to overcome it, therefore to achieve substantial savings in time and money. An innovation project characterized, among other things, by its rate of production of visible stages and its rate of pivoting or non-pivoting decision, fits naturally into this type of operation. The IPM process itself perfectly follows this logic, its blueprint being made up of 6 components tested in year 1, customized in year 2, deployed on a large scale in year 3 and optimized in year 4 (maintain innovation strategy, realize assets potential, facilitate participatory communication, evaluate innovation projects, involve sales and drive growth). Another example is the BIM movement (building information model, or digital model of the building) used in particular in major infrastructure projects.

---

Third meta-rule: break down the norms

Our century is more and more fond of standards. Whether accounting or non-accounting standards, health and safety instructions, respect for personal data, conditions for authorization to market products and services, or the obligation of information, the number of constraints to be respected is in constant increase. Innovation projects are no exception to the rule. How do you stay agile while ensuring compliance with the standards applicable to each context? By breaking them down into controllable perimeters, on a human scale. For example, on innovative and ambitious infrastructure projects, the roles of editors-updaters are responsible for translating the standards into constraints applicable to each cell, according to the nature of its contribution to the finished product. We must at all costs avoid a type of operation which would consist of sending a regulatory bundle of several hundred pages to all the cells asking them to apply what must be done taking into account their own context.

---

Fourth meta-rule: measure the value created

Cellular organizations are alive. They act in the moment and their assembly constitutes a capability in a certain state at that moment. This assembly has a value that grows from meeting to meeting (the visible stages of an innovation project). It is still necessary to have a benchmark for valuing the capabilities created or in the process of being created. Also, beyond the only contribution to a final result that will only be known… at the end, each visible step is an opportunity to take a step back and wonder about the exploitation of the gradually formed asset. It is possible, for example, that the launch of new innovation projects is deemed relevant, given an intermediate advance making new achievements possible.

---

Fifth meta-rule: promote exchange

A place conducive to innovation, such as a fablab, has the advantage of promoting exchanges and avoiding the divergence of cells that are by definition very autonomous. At Microsoft, for example, an innovative project management methodology provides that representatives of the same role in different cells benefit from getting to know each other and getting closer to each other regularly to exchange their experiences and thus naturally detect potential inconsistencies: testers talk to testers, product managers talk to product managers, developers talk to developers, user experience leads talk to user experience leads, release managers talk to release managers, … The same practice is desirable for any cellular organization having put innovation at the heart of its strategy.

---

Case study – how to assess the stock of endangered species in the oceans?

The European Commission commissioned a consortium to assess, using innovative and economical methods, the stock of endangered species on European coasts. The principle of cellular organization was applied from start to finish by the consortium in question, which made it possible to substantially lower the cost of the study and to effectively manage the complexity of the context, linked in particular to the multiplicity of actors. How were the meta-rules broken down ?

Innovating to protect endangered species (Photo by Erastus McCart on Unsplash)

• Meta-rules 1 and 2: The blueprint of the final result being frequently reviewed, the consortium is composed of a flexible alliance between 4 companies whose respective contributions vary in duration and intensity according to the need. At a given time, one of the companies is working on a comparison between several technical solutions, another on a comparative study of the legislation specific to each country concerned with access to the sea, another on a personalization of the method of measuring species by species and the last on the technical implementation of an interface. Biologists, computer scientists, innovation management consultants and engineers are together aiming for the next visible step, ie a prototype that will be tested by a panel of representatives of potential users. Once the prototype has been evaluated by the panel, a pivot is decided towards a different technical architecture. The members of the consortium are redeploying according to the new architecture, each cell identifying itself with the component for which it is responsible: one deals with security, the other with hosting, the other with the evaluation model of the stock. And so on.

• Meta-rule 3: Sea fishing regulations vary from country to country. Here you need a permit, there it is not necessary, here again we distinguish the case of fishermen on board a boat and that of coastal fishermen. It was decided to entrust the supervision of the stock of endangered species to a leading player in each country, established locally and familiar with local legislation. Each identified actor is invited to personalize a generic mobile application provided by the consortium and financed by the European Commission.

• Meta-rule 4: taking a step back along the way is a good way to detect new opportunities to innovate, with a constant concern for economy and efficiency. The context is typically that of a frugal innovation (see course manual 2 – Scope of application). For example, when it is decided to entrust the supervision of each country to a local actor, it becomes necessary to plan a generic basis to be made available to them, to quantify its cost and to compare it with the expected gain.

• Meta-rule 5: as contributors are spread over a large geographical area, the choice of a collaborative environment that is flexible, functional and compatible with the security rules of the institutional client is retained. In this case, it is Wimi, which becomes the place for all exchanges in all formats, video, text, images, voice and data.

---

Link with the theory of the evolution of organizations

Professional organizations have evolved from an artisan model to an arena model, passing through the following succession of stages (theorized by Henry Mintzberg and Petro Georgiou):

• Craftsmanship: one single agent has one single goal. The professional identifies with his or her mission.

• Company: several agents share one single goal. This common goal is the vision or purpose of the company, translated into a formal or informal strategy. Professionals identify with their organization.

• Ecosystem: multiple agents have multiple goals. These multiple goals are the cross-responsibilities of agents belonging to matrix organizations, responding to several competing hierarchies inside or even outside their organization. These agents can also be self-employed and mobilized through a system of contracts.

• Arena: multiple agents have no goal. The objective, while becoming more complex, becomes too diffuse to be stated clearly. The era of innovation has come. The goal is to innovate intelligently. Admittedly, universal objectives such as the preservation of the planet for example, for which a frame of reference can be given by the IPCC, have the potential to federate energies on a large scale and can even inspire the reasons for being of individuals, businesses and ecosystems. But the means of achieving these objectives are still unknown and therefore make them part of an innovation approach capable of making them evolve, pivot, refine themselves or disappear.

Promote disruption

Cellular organizations were born from the need to break with the inevitability of the complexity of projects carried out in uncertain environments. Constraint has stimulated the inventiveness of practitioners who have post-theorized their practice, in a mode analogous to frugal innovation (see course manual 2 – scope of application). The 5 meta-rules themselves form a set of constraints designed to stimulate creativity and innovation. Indeed, by construction they avoid or bypass the pitfalls recognized as most frequently explaining the failure of a project, in particular: lack or excess of representation of the finished product, lack of communication, poor balance between compliance with standards and economic added value, poor perception of value creation levers. By their small number and their simplicity, they lead its practitioners to concentrate on the essential. They are therefore particularly suitable for solving recurring problems for which several approaches have previously been tried without success, which constitutes a privileged ground for innovation. One of the great advantages of cell organizations is that if a project is deemed impossible, it is either reconsidered from a completely new angle, or stopped as soon as possible and the corresponding organizational cell dissolved. In both cases the energy losses are limited.

Tactics, strategy and trends

Cellular organizations are sometimes criticized for their too short-sighted orientation. On the contrary, in practice they can be part of a strategy and stick to basic trends in which the organization chooses to believe (see part 2, month 8 of this program: promising trends). They even facilitate adoption. Simply, they refuse the imperative to plan everything well in advance because they realize that it is a waste of time and energy when the ecosystem is eminently unstable. Also the IPM “tick”, that is to say the period materializing the rhythm of production of visible stages, is at the heart of the strategy and imposes the horizon of the detailed planning. Most of the projects carried out by cellular organizations are also carried out in agile mode. We can draw a parallel between their operation and that of software editors, in particular one of their key functions, release management. Release management consists of anticipating the next version of software by dynamically integrating new components as they are ready, tested by representatives of the target users, and above all forming a coherent whole (a version badly managed could integrate good quality components, ready but which would not be able to communicate with each other because their interfaces are not ready for example). Also setting the right IPM tick is particularly strategic, neither too slow so as not to miss the need to pivot or correct a trajectory, nor too fast to make it impossible to create value at each visible step.

Variations

Cellular organizations are most often known by their various names, such as “agile organizations”, “DevOps organizations”, “cross-functional organizations”, or even “do-ocracies” or “holacracies”. These expressions each correspond to additional choices made beyond the 5 meta-rules cited above and the related methods are codified by each organization in its own way. The important thing here is not to forget the 5 fundamental meta-rules, in favor of rites promoted by a particular method. An insurance company manager testified: “A team of experts came to set up an agile approach and systematized a so-called daily meeting, which after 3 days put everyone to sleep because it was obviously not necessary or poorly framed”. Each of the variations of cellular organization has its merits, provided that the essential is not overlooked.

---

Exercise 4: Cellular organization

Organized in teams, the participants choose an innovation project that they know at least a little, in order to be able to describe its field of investigation and to qualify its progress, even roughly. If they are not directly exposed to a concrete innovation project, they can choose a famous project like the invention of the first smartphone or the last conversational AI.

1. Identify 2 or 3 consecutive stages in the development of the chosen innovation.
2. Deduce a simple definition of the final blueprint, as it is seen at each of these stages.
3. What are the potential changes to this blueprint with each stage change?
4. What organizational changes are potentially induced by the evolution of the blueprint?
5. What regulatory aspects should be taken into account?
6. How do you break down the regulatory problem into manageable units?
7. How to assess the value created at each stage? According to what criteria or what models, described in broad outline?
8. What privileged place for exchanges between stakeholders is the most appropriate? Why?

If the innovation project is in progress, ask yourself if the application of the 5 meta-rules is already effective, or if it would make it possible to gain in performance? In the case of an innovation project that has already been completed, do you think that the principles of a cellular organization have been applied? If so, were they virtuous? If not, could they have improved the overall performance of the project?

Cellular organizations (Photo by fly:d on Unsplash)

Each group makes a synthetic restitution to the other groups.

---

Course manual 5: Collaborative tool

At this stage, the assets resulting from the IPM approach are at least 3 in number:

• IPM Vision
• Breakdown of the scope of application of the IPM
• Mapping of maturities

In order to manage their future developments, to share them according to the need to know and to anticipate future needs for collecting and aggregating information, a technical solution of the collaborative type must be chosen. It must be accessible by the mobilized stakeholders and become a common reference on which to base the deployment of the IPM process. It provides benchmarks such as the desired annual rate of introduction of innovations, the average rate of production of stages visible by an innovation project, success factors, the names and contact details of the relays of the method, or a target success rate. The breakdown of the scope of application is described there, as well as the evaluations of the maturities of the various subsets.

Eventually, it will host the repository of innovation projects, aggregate key indicators and feed into the decision-making and arbitration process for the portfolio, independently or via interfaces with third-party applications.

Functions to be provided by the collaborative environment

Its most important functions are:

• Electronic document management: storage of a validated current version, shareable with all authorized stakeholders online, of the key documents mentioned above.

• Securing documents: access management with different levels of authorization depending on the rules adopted for the need-to-know.

• Management and assignment of tasks: assignment of tasks preferably during joint sessions in order to avoid the “fire and forget” phenomenon, i.e. unconcerted offloading of tasks onto others, therefore without the interested party can qualify the request and possibly bring its added value (this could result in a lack of mobilization, or even a unilateral deprioritization of the task). This function is particularly structuring because it must respect a principle of part-time mobilization that does not encroach on the ability of those concerned to carry out their operational missions, in the spirit of a cellular organization. In addition, the people proposing the assignment of a task may have transverse coordination responsibilities without vertical hierarchical responsibility; they can most often act only within the limits of an overall time devoted by the person concerned to the IPM following an agreement with his superiors.

• Interactive representation of the tasks by stage of an innovation project (Kanban type): Kanban type representation in a succession of columns, each column corresponding to a project or process stage, and carrying ordered tasks. The order of the tasks in a column is either of the “first in – first out” type, or by priority level, or of another type depending on the context. This representation comes from the Lean movement and is particularly suitable for optimizing a flow of tasks mobilizing a succession of contributors or teams. The great advantage of a Kanban type representation is to allow the visual identification of contentions at a given stage of a process or an innovation project, materialized by the saturation of a column or the accumulation on this column of tasks with a delay greater than a threshold expressed in days for example. A flash diagnosis can then be triggered in time and lead to a decision proposal (reinforcement of the team in charge of the overdue stage, pivoting, stopping, financing).

Choosing a tool

In order not to accumulate the changes, an existing tool within the organization will be preferred, even if it means revisiting the license plan or revising its purchase or usage options. A list of the most popular potential solutions is given below. It is not exhaustive, other solutions being also well suited to the need.

• Microsoft Teams.
• Microsoft Sharepoint.
• The Atlassian Confluence suite.
• The Google suite.
• Dropbox Business.
• Slack.
• Huddle.
• Basecamp.
• Wimi.

They have the following features in common:

• Electronic document management: storage and sharing of documents, qualification of documents using comments and suggestions.
• Security: single sign-on to access multiple applications (also called SSO-type authentication), authentication requiring more than a simple password to access collaboration functions (also called multi-factor authentication), data encryption at storage and exchanges, management of a scale of read and write access levels, compliance with the GDPR standard (protection of personal data in the European Union).
• Task management and assignment: creating, assigning and tracking tasks.

They stand out by offering additional functions:

• Management of version changes and access to the history of a document: Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Sharepoint, Atlassian Confluence suite, Google suite, Dropbox Business, Basecamp, Wimi.
• Simultaneous work of several contributors on the same document: Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Sharepoint, Atlassian Confluence suite, Google suite, Slack, Huddle, Wimi.
• Assignment of a document to a task: Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Sharepoint, Atlassian Confluence suite, Google suite, Basecamp, Wimi.
• Document tagging: Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Sharepoint, Atlassian Confluence suite, Google suite, Dropbox Business, Basecamp, Wimi.
• HIPAA compliance (health data, in the United States): Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Sharepoint, Atlassian Confluence suite, Google suite.
• Kanban representation, presentation of tasks in columns, configuration of columns (steps): Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Sharepoint, Atlassian Confluence suite, Google suite, Basecamp, Wimi.

These solutions are not specifically designed for IPM. On the other hand, the following names correspond to specialized software which will be described later in this training (part 2, month 4 of this program: selecting software and part 3, month 7: IPM software).

• Qmarkets
• Craft.io
• Planview
• ideascale

This software offer additional features, such as:

• The management of a collaborative process of transforming an idea into an innovation project, going through the stages of enriching the idea, prioritizing, voting, launching and implementing, the contributors being able to be either internal or external to the organization.

• Management of an innovation project in agile mode, integrating the notions of stories, releases and roadmap (see course manual 1 – IPM vision).

Eventually, they could be interfaced with the existing collaborative environment chosen, with the aim of ensuring continuity between the different deployment phases, or be subject to data migration in due course. Of course, if such specialized solutions are already available within the organization, they can be chosen from the start to support the IPM process.

---

Case study – uniting a consortium of 4 allied companies in an innovation project

The case study illustrating course manual 4 – Cellular organization mentions the use of the Wimi tool to federate the different actors involved despite their geographical distance, their varied professional cultures and a variable intensity of their contribution depending on the phase of the project. The functions implemented are as follows:

• Maintenance of a blueprint corresponding to the structure of the next deliverable, visible to all.
• Dedicated chat for each blueprint.
• A directory of files by state of progress: production in progress, production finished, integrated production, validated production.
• A videoconference meeting space equipped with means of online interaction (example: real-time voting) for each blueprint.
• A shared calendar, an activity log and a “statistics” space for each blueprint.

Collaborative environments (Photo by Kenny Eliason on Unsplash)

---

Typical uses

The situations in which such a tool proves to be useful, even essential, correspond in particular to needs for information sharing, co-creation, reporting and decision-making. Anticipating the large-scale deployment of the approach (see part 3 of this program), these needs are present for the 6 components of an IPM process: maintain innovation strategy, realize assets potential, facilitate participatory communication, evaluate innovation projects, involve sales and drive growth.

• Maintain innovation strategy: the innovation strategy will feed on operational information from the process owners in charge of exploiting current or future innovations, market environment data, reporting elements from progress of innovation projects and statements of strategic decisions. To best manage these flows of information, while respecting the requirements specific to an innovative initiative (see course manual 1 – IPM vision: difference between an innovation project and another type of project), fluidity is key. It depends on the proper organization of the data, each innovative initiative having a focused scope of investigation, each decision to pivot being taken on the basis of a coordinated consultation of the same sources by the managers involved, and the strategic indicators being reassessed at a rapid pace thanks to the automation of their consolidation (example: the average success rate of innovation projects registered in the portfolio, or the observed average rate of production of visible stages per project).

• Realize assets potential: when it comes to maintaining a collection of tangible and intangible assets with innovation potential, the chosen solution must be able to notarize these assets not from an accounting point of view, but in terms of the probability of winning. Over time, if the potential is confirmed by experience, the financial managers of the organization may wish to take this potential into account when establishing their forecast balance sheet. If this is the case, interfaces with accounting systems could possibly be considered.

• Facilitate participatory communication: collectively producing content, texts, voices, images, films, animations, with the aim of co-creating or disseminating the IPM culture within the organization, is facilitated by the availability of collaborative functions. Most of the solutions mentioned above offer mobile versions that can be useful for facilitating workshops. Real-time voting or collaborative whiteboarding functions, for example, allow quick polls to be taken during a face-to-face or virtual session. Collaborative whiteboarding consists of co-constructing a model, the outline of a concept, a diagnosis, or the qualification of an innovative idea in a graphical way, each participant entering their contribution on their own mobile on which they will have downloaded the solution beforehand. It can be a simple contribution, such as the suggestion of a keyword entering the composition of a word cloud in real time in order to define an online SEO strategy; or a more complex exercise such as building an economic model by filling in a suitable graphic canvas.

• Evaluate innovation projects: evaluation methods are shared in a methodological repository fed both by the training provided during the deployment of the process and by field observations. It is vital that the valuation of an innovation takes into account the perception that its beneficiaries have of its impact, whether it solves a problem, mitigates a level of risk, lowers an obstacle, saves time, opens up prospects or all of this at the same time.

• Involve sales: the commercial function becoming more and more strategic in the innovation process, the chosen tool must give its representatives the possibility of integrating into co-creation initiatives, helping to identify promising trends from verbatim statements of their customers, prospects, intermediaries and market influencers with whom they may be in contact, or to prepare the commercialization of innovations under development. Interfaces with CRM (customer relationship management) software, everyday tools for salespeople, can be considered if it becomes useful to link strategic opportunities to the arrival of new offerings.

• Drive growth: the members of the innovation cells benefit from advanced functions, in particular as trainers of their colleagues in the IPM process. They themselves receive training from trainers, have access to raw information which they interpret before relaying it to all contributors to innovative initiatives according to their need to know. Indeed, all the information is not visible to all stakeholders, let alone all employees of the organization. It is useful to distinguish the access rights of a first circle in the process of framing the IPM initiative and those of a wider audience to whom only the results consolidated over time can be communicated (see course manual 1 – initial communication plan).

Presentation formats and modes of interaction

Each content has a presentation format adapted to the objectives pursued and the uses specific to it. The interactive dimension is very important and makes it possible to optimize collaborative development times during face-to-face or virtual sessions. It is useful to imagine that each document or resource accessible on the chosen platform can be displayed on the screen of a meeting room, and therefore be readable from a few meters away, which implies providing suitable visuals.

Similarly, data that can be assimilated to future indicators, such as the desired annual rate of introduction of innovations, the average rate of production of visible stages by an innovation project or a target success rate, benefit from being presented under form of elements that can be integrated into dashboards or configuration plans, using the possibilities offered by the chosen platform. For example, qmarkets has a reporting functionality that natively integrates the concept of the success rate of a portfolio of innovation projects, measured in relation to the number of ideas generated. Beyond the definition of the indicators and their target values, set out in an explanatory document, they can therefore be configured in order to constitute references for future comparisons.

The names of the sponsors and relays, with their attributions, benefit from being presented in the sections provided for this purpose. User profiles being more or less precise and more or less shared according to the platforms, it is advisable to adapt to them by possibly supplementing them with links redirecting visitors to additional resources, describing a particular mission or an availability calendar.

The success factors can be presented in a qualified list, for example on a list-type whiteboard element authorizing requests for collaborative additions and modifications.

The breakdown of the scope and the mapping of maturities benefit from being both graphically illustrated and reflected in the organization of the documentary repository. On the one hand they are described in explanatory documents, on the other they structure the tree organization of directories, views, task lists, tables and agendas. For example, on an environment like Wimi, there is a notion of workspace which can correspond to an organizational subset. Each workspace contains its own chat channel, its own document repository, its tagging and collaborative development workflow functions, its task kanban, its shared agenda, its virtual meeting room and its statistics and activity reporting function.

Compliance with the culture of the organization

The ideal at this stage is to retain existing software within the organization, as mentioned above, in order to minimize the adaptation effort of the stakeholders and not to commit to an often long – and potentially expensive – technical master plan. Indeed, it is preferable to personalize the IPM approach before equipping it with specific software, generalist collaborative tools being sufficient initially to operate in pilot mode and test various avenues for improvement. Like any software platform, the chosen solution must be administered and animated by a moderator. The choice of this person is important because he or she conveys the image of the initiative to all stakeholders and quickly becomes known as a privileged contact on the subject of IPM, even if she or he is not necessarily an expert.

There may be a great temptation to interface the solution with the rest of the information system to start transferring project data for example, or inheriting pre-existing reporting formats. Experience shows that doing this too soon leads to corrective and evolutionary maintenance efforts that are often useless until sufficient scale is achieved. However, the creativity of contributors wishing to embark on this kind of initiative should not be curbed: why not testing the conformity of the initiative with the IPM vision, potentially considering it as an innovation project candidate for entry into wallet?

In all cases, it is useful to describe a doctrine of use applicable to the context of IPM. Indeed, the chosen tool may already be used in other contexts, be the subject of specific configuration plans and require adaptation work. Examples of typical use, reusable models or projects already using the tool in question can be shared and serve as support for future training. For example, the collaboration functions via mobile are not systematically useful whatever the nature of the meeting, but are rather reserved for co-creation sessions; the advanced management functions for a portfolio of ideas that can be transformed into projects, monitored cross-functionally using consolidated dashboards, are reserved for very specific types of users; similarly, agile initiative management frameworks use vocabulary and concepts that must be aligned with those to which the teams are accustomed, or will have to become accustomed.

---

Exercise 5: Collaborative tool

As a team, take stock of the collaborative tools known within your organization. Choose the one that you think is best suited to the needs of IPM.

1. Evaluate the chosen tool against the functional map described above. You can log onto the web to read user reviews on dedicated forums or just log into the tool if you have the option.
2. Does the tool in question have functions common to most tools?
3. Does it have additional differentiating functions?
4. Does it have advanced functions specific to IPM?
5. Are there any particular issues in terms of doctrine of use or configuration? If so, which ones and why?

Share your findings with the other groups.

---

Course manual 6: Network of pioneers

The mobilized contributors form the beginnings of a network of promoters of the IPM approach within the organization. They are federated by their ongoing training effort and will soon be by sharing the objectives and results of their information collection, as part of the establishment of an IPM vision, a breakdown of the scope of application and mapping of IPM process maturities. This network of pioneers is also required to apply the operating principles of cellular organizations very early in the deployment cycle of the approach, and will therefore be able to give their followers the benefit of their experience.

Outstanding questions

The results obtained at this stage are based on the information available to the participants in the training. It benefits from being supplemented by requests from other stakeholders in the field, particularly with regard to the culture of innovation of each subset and the maturity of the IPM process, through informal or structured questioning.

Outstanding questions relating to existing innovation processes are as follows.

• Are there informal or documented innovation processes not yet identified by the participants?
• What is their level of distribution?
• Are they commonly applied?
• What is their perceived performance?
• By whom is this performance appreciated?
• Can we identify different profiles of informal evaluators of the performance of these existing processes?
• By what criteria is this performance assessed?
• Should something be changed?
• If yes, why ?

The outstanding questions relating to the encouragement of a creative dynamic by the management in place are the following:

• Are there specific newsletters about innovation?
• Are these communication media distributed internally or externally?
• Are co-creativity workshops regularly offered?
• If so, are the results of these workshops used downstream?
• Is there a repository of ideas generated by co-creativity workshops?
• If so, is it used to generate innovation projects?
• If so, do these innovation projects lead to the creation of tangible assets (offerings, new capabilities, processes)?

The outstanding issues relating to the decision and arbitration process are as follows:

• Is the notion of pivoting an innovation project known and shared?
• To what degree, to what extent?
• Are there cultural disparities from this point of view?
• Are there examples of innovation projects that should pivot and have not yet?

Outstanding questions related to the maturity of the IPM process are:

• Is there a process for detecting innovation ideas with potential?
• Are we missing innovation opportunities with potential?
• Does this happen often?
• Could we organize ourselves better from this point of view?
• Can the effort devoted to the detection of ideas with potential be reasonable in relation to the expected gain?
• Is the notion of unicorn known and shared?
• Do potential unicorns exist within the organization?
• If yes, why ?
• Are there examples of successful spin-offs formed by collaborators, either inside or outside the organization?
• Are representatives of the target markets regularly met or debriefed on their expectations and needs?
• What form do these debriefs take?
• Does the organization use external skills to achieve key milestones in its innovation projects?
• If so, is it connected to ecosystems specializing in innovation, for example via platforms where contributors respond to calls for tenders on research and development topics?
• Are business development functions involved in innovation projects?
• If so, at what stage? During the generation of ideas, during the transformation of these ideas into innovation projects via an appropriate selection and decision-making process? When collecting expectations from market representatives? When interpreting these expressed expectations? When designing an innovative offering, capability or process? When preparing the sale of an offering resulting from the conduct of an innovation project?
• Finally, what is the degree of involvement of the different lines of management in innovation? Do they play a role of promotion, a role of example to be followed, a role of facilitation, other roles?

Prospective interlocutors

The people who can answer these questions hold a variety of positions in each subset. The profiles suitable for questions relating to existing innovation processes are typically project managers and directors of innovation projects, currently or in the past, as well as representatives of the beneficiaries of these projects. The subject of encouraging a dynamic of innovation is the business of both managers and managed people, therefore everyone, even if the creative profiles are more inclined to express themselves on this subject, either because that their suggestions are taken into account, either because they are not taken into account or not enough. If a decision-making and arbitration process specific to innovation is in place, it is probably visible to high-level decision-makers, from the management committee and the executive committee to the staffs of business units or large transversal functions; in fact, the targeting and management of investments are typically part of their duties. The theme of the maturity of the IPM process is appreciated first and foremost by middle and local managers.

It is possible that studies have been conducted and can feed this reflection. For example, the talent management department was able to produce internal survey results, the innovation department, if it exists, can also have analysis results of the existing situation, the finance department was able to put in place management dashboards specific to innovation topics or relating to investments earmarked for innovation, a research and development department was able to test avant-garde co-creation methods and document feedback on them, or a sales department was able to implement a recurring market survey system.

By anticipating the target profiles involved in an IPM process, future assignment scenarios can begin to emerge. These target profiles are as follows (they will be described further in particular in part 3 of this program):

• Asset pilots: key players in the Realize assets potential component of the IPM process, they manage the portfolio of assets with innovation potential. They help to feed selection and arbitration decisions by supplementing the dynamics of generating spontaneous ideas, emerging for example during a co-creation session, through analysis and reconciliation work between tangible and intangible assets on the one hand, and the opportunities to apply methods of exploiting and enhancing their potential on the other. The assets in question can be, for example, internal software that can be transposed for external use, an underutilized manufacturing line, a dormant skill, a forgotten prototype or lines of unused patents.

• Project facilitators: they relay the process to any employee involved. They benefit from more in-depth training than average in the IPM process, train themselves around them, set an example and participate in the life of innovation projects by introducing the right performance levers. Their role is central in setting up the Evaluate innovation projects component of the IPM process.

• Ecosystem animators: they connect the organization to its environment, both on the customer and prospect side and on the supplier, partner and regulatory and control authorities side. Shareholders and investors can also be part of the panels of witnesses mobilized, depending on the culture of the organization and the strategic issues related to their possible involvement. For example, if it is decided to transform a business or an activity with potential into a spinoff, with the objective of creating a unicorn in the long term, representatives of investors can naturally be close to the initiative to participate in strategic decision-making in concern for agility.

In the rest of this training, we refer to key contributors, potentially future asset pilots, project facilitators or ecosystem animators, as IPM relays.

---

Case study – the prospective interlocutors within a pharmaceutical laboratory

The mapping carried out in the case study illustrating the course manual 3 – Mapping of maturities is based on the knowledge of the participants. It is useful to complete it by questioning other interlocutors. The questions and clarifications considered to be the most important are the following:

• What is the maturity of the subsets of the organization not yet qualified? This question concerns in particular the HR correspondents of the subgroups concerned.
• Check the situation of the hyper-growing Spin-off vis-à-vis detection – the voices of the ecosystem for example? This subject concerns in particular the directors of the Spin-Off.
• Are there open innovation initiatives driven by production, as there are in HR? This question particularly concerns project managers implementing industrialization processes.
• Are there structures dedicated to innovation outside of Germany? This question concerns in particular the heads of strategic projects followed at the level of the management of the sub-units.
• Specify the maturity of R&D. This subject particularly concerns middle managers.
• Are innovation budget arbitrations possible between R&D and the other subsets, without losing the investment already made? This question particularly concerns middle managers.

The outstanding questions are not only related to the respective maturities by subset, they can also anticipate potential quick wins:

• What is the right balance between in-house development of new molecules and acquisition of biotechs? This question concerns in particular the strategists.
• Can the success recorded in Germany spread to other sub-groups? Under what conditions? Have there already been attempts? This question particularly concerns middle managers.
• Can the involvement of sales be a catalyst to organize ecosystem voices and thus gather market expectations? This question particularly concerns voice ecosystem project managers within marketing.
• What are the barriers to deploying IPM software in production? Why did this project fail? These questions concern in particular the IPM software project manager.

---

Form of questioning and results

Outstanding questions can be asked via online questionnaires, one-to-one face-to-face or in group sessions. The three channels have their respective merits and can also be combined and their results compared in order to refine the conclusions. The challenge consists in organizing, sorting and ordering the answers and testimonies by carrying out relevant correlations and interpretations, by generating a fair volume of information, neither too important nor too modest. At this stage, quality takes precedence over quality. If the questioning is very homogeneous from one subset to another, this operation is facilitated but we run the risk of curbing the creativity of the contributors by restricting them too much. Since the IPM process is itself a field of innovation, it is important to stimulate the imagination and release the energies of those involved. Also, the proportion of elements provided by individual face-to-face interviews may be higher than that of elements provided by collective sessions, itself higher than that of elements provided by questionnaires. A typical distribution of these elements is as follows:

• Elements provided by individual face-to-face interviews: 50% of responses and testimonials retained. It can be verbatim, concrete cases of commented innovation projects, storytelling (narrative of an experience), scenario or description of a process. These elements are essentially qualitative.
• Elements provided by co-creativity sessions: 30% of responses and testimonials retained. Elements of the same nature as before are produced, to which are added real-time voting results, clouds of keywords and other results of group work.
• Elements provided by surveys based on questionnaires: 20% of responses and testimonials retained. These results are more quantitative, formatted by an ordered list of questions, even if free text areas are provided to comment on a raw answer.

Each element has a title and a content. It is characterized by the question(s) to which it clarifies.

Network of pioneers (Photo by Jason Goodman on Unsplash)

Mobilization of key interlocutors

The questioning process allows witnesses and experts to express themselves on a subject that is close to their hearts. Natural contributors to innovation are generally motivated by the concrete translation of their ideas and suggestions, either because others than themselves support them, or because they are commissioned to do this work. Two main cases arise: the hope of creating an offering, or of developing a process. An innovative offering brings an unprecedented gain to its beneficiaries or solves a thorny problem. A successful process allows the organization to improve its ability to invest time and resources. In both cases, the recognition given to the contributors to the innovation must be in line with the impact obtained or at least reasonably expected.

The answers to the questions highlight past or current achievements, as well as potential yet to be realized. It is crucial to recognize these contributions at their fair value by giving them a follow-up, ie by showing the protagonists that they are heard and that their contributions are carefully analysed. If they don’t lead to a quick investment decision, it’s a good idea to explain why and take the opportunity to direct stakeholders towards initiatives in line with the IPM vision being developed. In this regard, the culture of pivoting is key. The exchanges occasioned by the questioning are an opportunity to underline or recall the differences between an innovation project and another type of project, in particular the notions of visible step production rhythm and pivoting rhythm.

The dominant culture of innovation

As mentioned in the course manual 2 – Scope of application, the culture of innovation is not always homogeneous within the organization. A balanced representation of the different cultures in question is desirable at the level of the interlocutors approached, so as not to give a false image of reality. We will therefore endeavor to vary the profiles solicited during the questioning process, ideally in due proportion to their importance.

However, there is often a main, dominant, strategic culture of innovation. Thus the following profiles may be particularly sought after:

• Organizations with a high-risk appetite: this type of structure can only succeed thanks to the implementation of effective risk analysis processes, which lead it to invest knowingly, in particular by optimizing its portfolio of innovation. The contacts sought here are the people in charge of this evaluation. In some organizations, there are departments dedicated to the management of strategic holdings. They notably employ specialists in the screening of entrepreneurial projects and financial analysts. Their contribution is essential to fully understand the criteria for assessing the probability of winning linked to an ambitious innovative initiative.

• Organizations with a low-risk appetite: in the context of these structures, innovation is generally underdeveloped and under-promoted. There are innovative experiences, but the main thing is elsewhere, in the sustainability of processes, relationships and catalogs of value-added products and services in relatively stable environments. It can be a niche business with high barriers to entry. Even if they are increasingly threatened by inventive competition, they manage to maintain their position thanks to a large installed base and the trust of captive customers. For example, a private bank specializing in a very specific client segment, such as top athletes or artists, or a rare financial product, can focus its attention on its specialty and consider that everything it does is innovative. Insofar as it is the only one to propose a certain type of offering to a certain type of beneficiaries, it is probably right because the main characteristic of an innovative organization is its ability to offer what no one else offers. On the other hand, the key to performance lies in the ability to maintain or even increase one’s competitive edge. The interlocutors sought in this type of organization are people capable of comparing the positioning of their structure with respect to the competition, offering by offering, segment by segment, in short, benchmark experts.

• Open organizations: these structures regularly use external contributions to innovate. They do not hesitate to transparently publish calls for tenders which for others might seem sensitive or even subject to a high level of confidentiality. They practice open innovation from the very early stages of research and development projects, and even basic research. They are connected to contribution platforms of inventors, scientists, design offices or panels of market witnesses. The interlocutors sought here are facilitators of open co-creation sessions, platform moderators, contribution portfolio managers, decision-makers and arbitrators in charge of solving the “make or buy” equation. If these profiles seem closer to the logic of products than to the logic of services, in practice this is not the case. Large service providers as well as public services, even international organizations such as the World Bank have long practiced open innovation. For example, as a consequence of its open innovation policy, Namibia became a pioneer in electronic elections.

• Closed organizations: In closed organizations, innovation is focused on internal processes. It aims to improve their performance and is one of the levers used by process optimization specialists, Lean practitioners, Kaizen leaders or facilitators of operational excellence dynamics. There is then a contradiction between the need to connect with the end customers of the processes to assess their performance, advocated by the promoters of operational excellence methods in question, and the closed culture of the organization. It is therefore common for these procedures to be deployed in contact with representatives of the end customers, but not the end customers themselves. This contradiction is typical of the famous innovation triggers dear to the promoters of the TRIZ method (see course manual 2 – Scope of application). The interlocutors sought are the decision-makers endowed with the power to resolve this dilemma.

• Frugal organizations: in these structures, innovation is born of constraint, pressure on costs, on deadlines, on quality or on the achievement of sustainable development objectives so ambitious that they make application of traditional processes impossible. The economic model is a key to success in such a context. The interlocutors sought are people capable of drawing a business model of a current and future offering, by varying the centers of gravity of the design from the customer segments to the partners, passing through the value proposition, the sales channels or the resources mobilized. Note: the BM canva is a graphic description canvas of an economic model developed by A. Osterwalder and Y. Pigneur and is particularly suited to this exercise. It will be described later in the course manual 7 – Pilot portfolio.

---

Exercise 6 – Network of pioneers

As a group, identify open questions to which participants do not immediately have the answers.

1. Make a list ordered by level of priority, that is to say according to the impact that the response may have on the breakdown of the scope of application and on the assessment of the maturity of the various subsets.
2. For each question or need for clarification, identify one or more potential interlocutors.
3. Can these interlocutors in turn turn to other people to help them answer the question or provide clarification?

By sharing your results with the other groups, check that you cover all the profiles corresponding to the cultures of innovation present within the organization. Is the distribution of these profiles aligned with the relative importance of the cultures in question?

Note: these considerations will be reviewed in the light of the planned interactions with these interlocutors, depending on the additional information obtained. In particular, no assumptions are made at this stage about future roles such as asset pilots, project facilitators or ecosystem animators because this is primarily the responsibility of the interested parties.

---

Course manual 7: Pilot portfolio

Now is the time to talk about ideation and actual innovation projects. Three cases arise:

• Critical mass has been reached: The organization has already invested in a sufficient number of innovation projects to reach a critical mass, which corresponds approximately to a minimum of 20 visible projects in progress. A visible innovation project is defined as an initiative that has already produced at least one visible stage, i.e. a coherent intermediate result that can be evaluated (diagnosis of continuity, pivoting, stop, stimulation, investment). As mentioned in course manual 1 – IPM Vision, this intermediate result can be new knowledge, a prototype or the justified elimination of a problem-solving axis.

• Critical mass is a potential goal: The organization has invested in less than 20 active visible innovation projects. It is possible that the first analysis makes such a statement, but that a deepening of the subject sheds new light. Indeed, once the 3, 5 or 10 visible innovation projects in progress have been identified, it remains to be checked that they are sufficiently focused, that is to say that they do not seek to innovate on too many axes at the same time (again, see course manual 1 – IPM Vision, Difference between an innovation project and another type of project). If this is the case, the first evaluation task consists of considering reductions in scope, and therefore a possible multiplication of the number of projects. If at the end of this exercise more than 20 projects are identified, the first case applies. If, on the other hand, there are fewer than 20 projects identified, the question of setting an objective of reaching critical mass arises.

• The portfolio is empty: The organization does not identify any visible innovation projects in progress. The first task to be carried out is the identification of a first batch of innovation opportunities with potential, subsequently called generating ideas. There are three ways to achieve this: rely on the natural creativity of stakeholders by stimulating them through appropriate communication, assess the potential concealed by the tangible and intangible assets of the organization, or lead physical or virtual co-creation workshops. Of course, these three dynamics can advantageously combine to maximize the impact. They will be addressed later in this program (see notably part 1, Month 6 – Asset potential).

In the first and second cases, the existing projects can already be referenced in a first pilot portfolio, according to a format described below in the paragraph entitled The canvas of ideas and innovation projects. In the third case, the opportunities once detected can also be described in the portfolio as ideas, some of which can later be transformed into innovation projects if it is decided to devote an investment to them.

The interest of reaching a critical mass of innovation projects

There are several interests in increasing the number of projects when it is below the critical mass.

The first is to manage the risk at the level of a portfolio and not only at the unit level, therefore to statistically compensate for the failure of one project by the success of one or more others. Just as a wealthy individual does not invest all of his wealth in a single type of asset (all in real estate, all in precious metals, all in European equities, or all in commodities), but diversifies his or her portfolio in order to withstand economic shocks and unforeseen events, the innovation portfolio manager distributes his projects according to a desired profile (see figure below).

The second interest consists in creating a true culture of innovation and therefore benefiting from a ripple effect and stimulation of the natural creativity of the stakeholders. Otherwise, innovation is considered as the exception or as an experience without follow-up, if not to exploit some successes by highlighting them in appropriate communication. When an innovation portfolio is built and reaches critical mass, innovation calls for innovation. Then impact innovation calls for impact innovation, disruptive innovation calls for disruptive innovation, finally competitive advance calls for competitive advance. The exemplarity of model projects and the ensuing emulation is one of the main drivers of this change.

The third interest is to pool resources and tools for innovation projects, and to create synergies in operation, method and know-how. The greater the number of innovation projects, the greater the IPM performance numerator itself. The adoption of a cellular organization is an important asset in order to create these effects of pooling and these synergies, because it is designed to streamline the transmission and sharing of information by the stakeholders.

Initiate an innovation portfolio

At this stage, the idea is to put together an initial portfolio by sorting eligible projects or ideas according to the criteria making it possible to distinguish an innovative initiative from a classic initiative. Indeed, as we have already seen, managing an innovation project using the methods of a classic project is the best way to create the conditions for its failure. Also the eligibility of an idea or a project to be registered in a first innovation portfolio is linked to the following aspects (see also course manual 1 – IPM Vision):

• A generative idea: any innovation project starts from an idea, either spontaneous or suggested by an exchange or an exposure to contexts capable of generating a reaction. Is this idea describable in the form of a problem / solution track couple, it being understood that this track could potentially be replaced by another during the life of the possible project which will result from it?

• Focus: does the candidate project or the idea under consideration examine one solution to the initial problem at a time? Is the product, service or process expected as the result of the initiative really an elementary innovation (as opposed to an aggregate of innovations)?

• Moving objectives and degree of uncertainty: the anticipation of the outline of the product, service or process expected as a result of the initiative is it or has it been uncertain, and subject to potential or proven pivots, past or future? On the other hand, is the problem to be solved well identified, qualified and confirmed by the collection of the opinion of the potential beneficiaries of the initiative?

• Absence of previous achievement (case of a candidate project only, having therefore passed the stage of the idea): if the outline of the expected product, service or process is already known, for example because the innovation project is sufficiently advanced for this information to be available, is it confirmed that this achievement has not already been carried out by the competition or by the organization itself? This verification can of course only be done within the limits of the information accessible by the stakeholders.

• Rate of production of visible stages (case of a candidate project): Does the candidate project regularly produce prototypes, new knowledge or justified abandonment of avenues for resolution, typically every 2 to 3 months? Or even more frequently?

• Performance criteria and success rate (case of a candidate project): Does a set of indicators of the possible success of the innovation project exist, as a translation of the hypothetical resolution of the problem?

When one of the initiatives proven by the yardstick of these criteria turns out to be ineligible, it can enter another portfolio, either a portfolio of so-called classic projects or even a product portfolio. The respective management principles for these portfolios differ, as we have seen previously, and confusion must be avoided, otherwise the innovative dynamic will be curbed.

---

The problem and its solution

Each idea or eligible project is first qualified by its problematic (and not by a specific definition of objective as for a traditional initiative). The problem is an obstacle to performance, a lack, an imbalance or an injustice. For example, the TRIZ co-creation workshop facilitation method calls this initial observation a contradiction; still in a TRIZ context, the initiative will endeavor to resolve this contradiction by digging into a first path to resolution calling on the one hand for standard questions stimulating creativity, on the other hand for transpositions of innovation schemes having already worked in other contexts. The raison d’être of an innovation project is therefore to dig out an unprecedented path to resolution in the context considered, and to change it as many times as necessary until the effective resolution or the abandonment of the project.

The innovation project framework

By using the selected collaborative environment, all that remains is to initialize a canvas of ideas and innovation projects that it will be possible, later, to federate in a portfolio by sharing common resources and by establishing management dashboards and appropriate management processes. The canvas of ideas and innovation projects is structured as follows:

• Problem (mandatory): definition (in the form of free text) of the obstacle, the problem, the lack, the imbalance or the injustice that the innovation project is tackling. This could be seen as too negative, an innovation project being in essence an optimistic initiative, whereas in reality it is important to word the initial observation in this way in order not to fall into the trap of defining an overly constrained goal. Indeed, a positive objective is characteristic of a classic project and makes assumptions that artificially constrain the contours of a particular solution, favoring it to the detriment of other possibilities.

• Resolution track (mandatory): at a given time, an idea or an innovation project considers a resolution track. This track is described, again in the form of free text. For example, if a method of the “business model navigator” type (promoted by researchers at the University of Saint-Gall and the BMI Lab in Switzerland) is adopted, the solution track chosen between two visible steps is the change of business model, using the typology provided by the method in the form of 55 generic models to be tested in the given context.

• Visible step (required): free text description of the last visible step reached, and the next to be reached. There is no need to trace the entire history of the idea or project. The objective pursued is to initiate the work from the current situation, not to enter into an archaeological approach. NB: a remarkable visible step is the transition between the idea state and the project state, which can only take place once the corresponding decision-making process has been implemented. Thus, both idea and project share the same canvas, more or less complete depending on the state of the initiative.

• Blueprint (optional): if known, description in free text illustrated by a graphic model of the architecture of the solution considered at a time T. This graphic model can for example be a BM Canva (see next section below: The BM Canva).

• Benchmark (optional): description in free text of the process undertaken to seek anteriority to the innovation project described, and of the result of this process. The known non-existence of a prior realization is justified there. On the other hand, a possible comment relating to a related prior art, that is to say potentially transposable from a different context, industry or market, may be provided. The identification of the competitors best placed to possibly enter this race can also be provided, and constitutes a plus.

• Indicators (optional): definition of the indicators envisaged to measure the success of the initiative, with their target values.

Each attribute described above may be specific to a phase of the project. If the problem is often stable, the path to resolution may evolve from one visible step to another. Also the notion of visible step is attached to each attribute, thus creating an ordered collection of attributes.

---

Case study – the situation that led to the creation of Uber

Before the arrival of Uber, and the reaction of taxi companies which all reacted to the phenomenon, at least three issues affected taxi customers:

• Before pick-up: uncertainty about the arrival time of the taxi. The customer wonders where the taxi is, and how to deduce its time of arrival at the pick-up location. Of course, the start of the ride determines the time of reaching the destination, but also the waiting time spent scanning the road ahead instead of occupying yourself in a more pleasant or possibly more productive way.

• During the ride: variable comfort depending on the case. The customer is sometimes forced to listen to a radio program that he or she does not necessarily like or a private telephone conversation that does not concern her or him. The customer may be thirsty, especially during a long drive, and be willing to pay more for a bottle of water. He or she may have doubts about the chosen route and suffer induced stress.

• After the ride: difficulties in accepting a credit card. The payment terminal is not always functional, the driver prefers cash, the receipt does not always print legibly.

For each of the 3 issues, at least one possible solution has been explored:

• Before pick-up: taxi tracking in real time on a map that can be displayed on a smartphone. If the real-time display of a mobile on a displayable map on a smartphone is not an innovation in itself, the application of this process to the case of the taxi or its substitute is one. Digging this track means, for example, evaluating the cost of developing such an application, the constraints of response time and resources in IT infrastructure and networks, the conditions for maintaining the volumes of use at peak times (when the number of concurrent users is maximum), large-scale deployment constraints, or the legal and regulatory environment.

• During the ride: variation in the level of service depending on the price of the option chosen. Digging this track means, for example, designing option levels providing for bottled water, advanced training for drivers at reception, choice of premium vehicles. It is interesting to note that this track was dug only in a second time, once the service was tested in a single version which turned out to be inconsistent in terms of economic model.

• After the ride: payment is automated and corresponds to the price announced at the start. Examining this lead means, for example, designing and testing a payment automation solution, verifying that the business model is viable by taking into account potential discrepancies between the estimated cost on the basis of which a price was announced and the final cost of the trip.

These three problematic/solution path pairs correspond to three generating ideas for three potential innovation projects.

---

The BM canva

The representation tool called Business Model Canva was designed by two researchers, A. Osterwalder and Y. Pigneur. It is very widely used by both multinationals and start-ups to visualize, adjust, modify or even completely overhaul the architecture of an economic model, until it becomes coherent. It consists of boxes in which components will be described. The relationships between these boxes reflect the articulation between the different components.

Knowing the most probable business model at a given time during the course of an innovation project, or even from the idea generation stage if the context allows it, makes it possible to avoid a pitfall too often encountered in the management of innovation portfolios: forgetting the economic equation and the conditions that underlie it. Indeed, the average success rate of a portfolio is closely linked to the maturity of the IPM process, therefore, in particular, to its score in the areas of measurement, openness and prioritization (see course manual 3 – mapping of maturities), which all three are based on a modeling of the expected performance of the innovation in progress.

To determine a first economic equation, even a macroscopic one, it is still necessary to know the logic of circulation of flows of expected value and the mechanisms specific to maintaining it. There are two main ways to start a BM Canva here:

• By the most central component of the solution considered at a time T: If the originality of the innovation is of a technological nature, such as a revolutionary sensor for example, start with the “resources” box, which groups together the assets on which the solution relies. If it is organizational (example: deployment of a cellular model), start with the activities box, which describes the organization of the stakeholders’ time by emphasizing their most strategic tasks. If it is contractual (example: setting up a new type of service agreement relating to a critical process) start with the partners box, highlighting the types of partners essential for success. If it is of a commercial nature (example: Tupperware circles, transforming particular customers into sellers), start with the customer relationship box. If it relates to a marketing or market access topic (example: giant QR codes on airport displays), start with the channels box. If it relates to customer segments (example: making available to SMEs offerings historically reserved for large companies), start with the box of the same name. If it relates to the definition of an offering (example of Inditex, owner of the Zara brand among others, selling clothes designed on the basis of an expectation expressed by the customers themselves less than three weeks earlier), start with the value proposition box. If it relates to the cost or investment structure, which may be the case for example in a context of frugal innovation, start with the box in question at the bottom left. Finally, if it is related to the revenue structure, for example by charging both hosts and travelers on an airbnb type accommodation rental platform, start with the box at the bottom right.

• By the customer segmentation box: if the originality of the innovation is not yet clear, navigation on the model will remedy it. Then start with the customer segmentation box by identifying the strata of targeted beneficiaries, and justifying why.

In both cases, the customers of the solution can be either internal or external to the organization.

Once the first box has been filled in, it is time to ask the question of the relationship of this notion with the other boxes of the model. When the first box filled is the customer segmentation box, deduce the problem of the representatives of the targeted segments, then a solution track whose description will be distributed among the appropriate boxes. An analogous reasoning presides over the design of a BM Canva from other initial boxes.

Typology of ideas and innovation projects selected

Eventually, the ideas and innovation projects registered in the portfolio will be divided between different typologies which the dashboards will report on (see above: initial dashboard – target distribution, and course manual 8 – Initial dashboard). In the meantime, if this is already possible, it is desirable to obtain an initial balance between 3 types of ideas or innovation projects: those which can be considered as a current or future model for others, those which are or will be in trouble, those who are about to pivot. NB: there may be non-zero intersections between the three typologies.

---

Exercise 7 – Pilot portfolio

As a single team or in pairs, imagine that you are in the shoes of the creators of Uber. You have described 3 generating ideas (see above – Case study: the situation that presided over the creation of Uber) in the form of 3 problem / solution pairs. For the first generating idea (before pick-up), complete a BM Canva starting from the box corresponding to the key originality of the innovation considered.

A possible solution of the exercise is proposed below. It’s not the only one. This BM Canva describes the model applicable to the innovation project that could be called before pick-up. Deliberately, the 3 projects identified (before pick-up, during the ride, after the ride) were not described together on the same diagram at first. This allows you to stay focused on a controllable perimeter and to remain aware either of an economic balance (to be preserved during the life of the project) or of an imbalance (to be compensated through a combination with the two other projects for example).

It is possible to build the BM Canva from at least two different boxes: value proposition and resource. The value proposition here is indeed a key originality of the innovation under consideration; indeed, the paradigm shift is linked to an evolution of mores, to a change of mentality in the way of serving the customer, a resolutely innovative attitude leading to an unprecedented customer experience. And the key resource, a mobile geolocation application that can be deployed on a large scale, applied to this particular need, has never been built before ; even if it is not strictly speaking a first, as evidenced by the very high rate of use of the functions (or “API” for application programming interfaces) offered by publishers of geographic information systems on smartphones for road travel use (examples: Google and Apple APIs).

---

Course manual 8: Initial dashboard

Reporting and decision process

If an innovation project is different from a so-called classic project, the reporting process for an innovation project is also specific. As in the context of any project, it is primarily used to make decisions, but the nature of these decisions is specific to an innovation context: pivot, stimulate, finance, stop, evaluate, or trigger another project of innovation.

Pivoting means changing the resolution track while maintaining the same problem, or clarifying it thanks to the contribution of market witnesses. The preferred resolution track at a time T is in phase with a blueprint, which can be described synthetically by a BM canva centered on the most original and decisive component to provide a solution in fine. There is a pivot if this “center of gravity” of BM Canva changes, or if a component deemed important and above all structuring in terms of mobilizing resources changes. These two notions, center of gravity of the BM Canva and structuring component, must therefore be known and described with sufficient precision to judge the advisability of pivoting, or not. For example, if the economic equation is the greatest originality of the blueprint, and its structuring component is the choice of specialized partners, the change of one or the other hypothesis constitutes a pivot. If the blueprint (optional at the pilot portfolio stage – see course manual 7 – pilot portfolio) is not available, the free text description of the resolution track is the reference for making the decision. It is then a question of determining in this description two key hypotheses: what is the most original and most decisive hypothesis for providing a solution? What is the most structuring hypothesis in terms of resource mobilization? In this regard, we can draw a parallel with a scientific approach, a parallel drawn by a number of researchers specializing in innovation management. As with a scientific approach, innovation approaches make a set of hypotheses, then verify their consistency and viability, before changing hypotheses and embarking again on verifying their consistency and viability. The change in assumption is here called pivoting. Beyond the two key assumptions, or the two key components of the BM Canva that correspond to them, other assumptions and components may evolve during the life of an innovation project. This does not lead to pivoting per se, but can cause adjustments in terms of funding, stimulation, evaluation or even triggering a new innovation project.

Stimulate means giving concrete signs of an encouragement to dig a path of resolution, in the form of a communication centered on the initiative, the mobilization of a network of witnesses of the ecosystem complementary to that of the contributors already identified, or the provision of access to resources available on a global scale but not yet in the context of the project in question (example: open innovation platform). In summary, stimulating here means two things: focusing attention on the initiative and creating positive synergies with other innovative initiatives. The decision to stimulate an initiative may simply consist in getting it through the stage of transforming a generative idea into an innovation project, by benefiting from the methods and support provided by the IPM relays. It can also concern a more advanced phase when the need arises to re-motivate the stakeholders concerned, either because they are too busy elsewhere, or because they come up against difficulties that they are unable to overcome without assistance. A dashboard allowing you to decide whether or not to stimulate an initiative must therefore provide at least the following information: time elapsed since the creation of a generative idea not yet transformed into a project, number of attempts to transform this idea into a project, reasons for not having taken the plunge, reasons for taking the plunge, stakeholder occupancy rate (part-time) on the initiative, alert relating to a need to call on skills or resources complementary to reach the next visible step.

Measuring the performance of your innovation portfolio (Photo by Luke Chesser on Unsplash)

Financing speaks for itself. By definition, an innovation project has no predictable budget, so adjustments are made within a so-called contingency envelope corresponding to the investment reserve validated by the organization’s management. This contingency is distributed according to need between the initiatives for which additional funding is deemed relevant and justified, making the process as smooth as possible – within the limits of the envelope of course (note: a parallel can be drawn with what the investment funds call their “dry powder”, or investable cash). In order to guarantee this fluidity, levels of delegation are most often provided. Thus intermediate or local managers can take the decision to invest at their level, while justifying it clearly (and not in a complex and time-consuming way) and responding to it through the reporting and decision-making process. There are therefore at least two levels of reporting: the first is at the level of the project itself and argues in favor of additional funding, the second is at the level of management (for example the Chief Innovation Officer) and justifies the decision taken by a delegate to have granted or refused the financing in question. The argument must specify whether the additional financing contributes to the creation of an asset with potential (examples of assets with potential: packaging of reusable software under license, process optimizing the use of a 3D printer that can be declined in contexts varied), to cover the call for new skills, to pay unforeseen operating costs (travel, events for example) or a combination of the three. In the case of the creation of an asset with potential, it is useful to mention the opportunity to share it with other projects. The justification for granting or refusing the funding requested is essentially based on the collection of opinions from stakeholders with varied points of view, and the summary of these opinions in the sense of the delegate. A question often asked is then the arbitration between the financing of an internal work and the recourse to components of the blueprint possibly available on the shelf on the market, or between internal and external competences. In this respect, the reporting benefits from presenting the possible alternatives and explaining what the process of comparison or scrutiny of the market was. This dynamic of benchmarking will be addressed in depth later in the course of this program, in part 2, month 6 – benchmarking innovation and part 3, month 9 – self assessment.

Stopping an innovation project becomes a possibility if one of the following conditions is met:

• First case: on the occasion of a visible stage review, no exploitable result is available (neither new knowledge, nor convincing prototype, nor recommendation of a promising new solution, nor opportunity to pivot garnering the votes of the parties stakeholders).
• Second case: during a visible stage review, the available asset resulting from the initiative is deemed sufficiently mature to proceed with its deployment and scaling up. If this asset is an offering, the next step is to put it on the market or to extend its catchment area if it has already been marketed. If it is an internal process, the next step is its operational application over a more or less wide scope. The project to follow for deployment and scaling up will itself be innovative or not, depending on its nature.

To decide that an innovative initiative has no future (first case), at least in the short and medium term, it is necessary to have the right elements of decision, namely the description of the result obtained during the reviewed visible step. In the second case, it is necessary to have the arguments allowing to confirm the maturity of the initiative, i.e. that there is no new pivot on the horizon and that the last version of the blueprint is coherent, efficient and functional. Consistency is verified through simulations, prototyping, collection of opinions from representatives of potential beneficiaries. Efficiency is verified through an operational and economic model showing the projected balance between the curves of value creation, investment amortization and operating costs. Functionality is verified by evaluating the opportunities for improvement of the asset represented by the set of results achieved by the initiative, and concluding that it is ready for deployment and scaling. These topics will be detailed later in the course of this program (see part 1, month 6 – asset potential, part 1, month9 – reporting results, part 2, month 5 – valuing innovation, part 3, month 9 – self-assessment, part 4, month 1 – performance analysis).

Evaluating an initiative makes it possible to know its store of value at a given time and to help assess the store of value of the innovation portfolio of which it is part. Indeed, the store of value of a portfolio is not the simple sum of the stores of value of its initiatives taken in isolation, but also depends on the positive and negative synergies between them. Thus decisions to arbitrate the composition of the portfolio can be taken due to an inconsistency in the distribution of project typologies within the portfolio, or a gap between this distribution and the target distribution (see course manual 7 – pilot portfolio, initial portfolio – target distribution). The valuation policies of a portfolio depend on the organization’s innovation strategy (will be worked on later in this program, part 1, month 2 – strategic positioning), and range from a very cautious logic consisting of valuing an initiative only from the moment the decision to deploy it on the scale is taken (that is to say at the end of the project) until a logic of systematic valuation of all the visible stages.

Triggering another initiative becomes an eventuality when a result obtained during a visible stage can be used to solve a problem other than that which presided over the launch of the project. It should be noted in this regard that two innovation projects can share the same path to resolution, and that this typically constitutes one of the positive synergies already mentioned. On the other hand, two innovation projects more rarely share the same problem: this situation arises when the resolution of the problem is vital or very highly strategic and when it becomes acceptable to parallelize the examination of several competing avenues of resolution in order to maximize the chances of succeeding. This happens, for example, when a new entrant creates a disruption in a market, and forces the competition to create a counter-disruption. Think of Google seeking a solution to the connection of Microsoft’s Bing search engine to Open AI’s Chat GPT artificial intelligence, for example.

Make an inventory

At this stage, it is a good idea to try to understand how innovation is managed within the organization, i.e. how reporting and decision-making are organized at the level of each sub-group, and transversely. When determining the scope of application (course manual 2), a retrospective analysis of a few decisions similar to pivoting decisions was carried out. It is a question of extending this approach to the different types of decision now known, namely pivoting, stimulating, financing, stopping, evaluating, or triggering another innovation project. The description of the reporting elements supporting these decisions is a plus, and makes it possible to measure the deviation from the IPM target. On the other hand, it is too early to set up a new decision-making process or to adapt the existing one, because that supposes having stabilized an innovation strategy (cf part 1, month 2 – strategic positioning of this program).

---

The primary objective of reporting on a cross-functional innovation portfolio is to facilitate decision-making and to measure its value. This financial establishment, present throughout the world, has three purposes: interest rate transformation (long-term lending by short-term borrowing), intermediation (bringing investors and entrepreneurs into contact) and a range of services, including in particular payment services. IPM’s strategy consists of moving from the “detection” level to the “measurement” level (see course manual 3 – mapping of maturities) by establishing a summary dashboard fed by the most fluid process possible. In particular, as one of its service activities is the subject of a carve-out and an IPO in order to transform it into a unicorn, a specific area of the global reporting is dedicated to it (entity n in the diagram above). Entity designates here a coherent subset from the point of view of the culture of innovation. The assets of entity 1 and entity 2, for example, are considered very promising and are the subject of under-exploitation of their potential. This observation enables high-level decision-makers to allocate an investment budget to this scope with full knowledge of the facts, in preference to others.

---

Preconfigured dashboards from specialized software packages

Here are some reporting elements integrated into software packages specialized in IPM, some names of which have already been mentioned (qmarkets, craft.io, planview, ideascale, cf course manual 5 – collaborative tool):

• Representation of a “funnel” gradually transforming a large number of generating ideas into a smaller number of innovation projects resulting in measurable success (see diagram below).

• Graphical representation of a portfolio of innovation projects on an overall schedule (Gantt chart type). The successive visible stages are shown there in the form of milestones distributed on each line corresponding to a different initiative.

• Graphical representation of the cumulative effort devoted to innovation, distributed over time against the corresponding innovation project schedules.

• Representation in the form of Kanban of the progress of an initiative, task by task.

• Identification of sub-portfolios constituting together a global portfolio of innovation projects.

• Interactive representation of a tree of dependencies between an innovation project, the resources assigned or needed to it, and the sub-portfolios to which it belongs. Note: this means for example that the same initiative can contribute to creating value in several different subsets, each subset corresponding to a sub-portfolio.

• Simulation of the profitability of an initiative over time.

• Graphic representation of a sub-portfolio highlighting the respective progress of the different initiatives using color codes.

• Summary dashboard of a given initiative: problem, current solution track, current issues, next steps, financial aspects, occupation of resources, reserve of value.

• Graphic representation in the form of a “radar view” of the progress of initiatives contributing to the creation of a strategic offering or a transverse capability (in the center of the radar).

• Representation in the form of disk sectors of the respective proportions of initiatives grouped by range of probability of success: allows to appreciate at a glance the distribution of success rates and to deduce factors of success and failures by examining each sector more closely.

• Representation in the form of disk sectors of the respective proportions of initiatives at the generating idea stage, at the stage of innovation project in progress, at the stage of initiative in the process of being deployed at scale.

• Representation of the links between innovative initiatives and so-called classic projects.

• Representation of a series of initiatives ordered by quantified impact (store of value), with mention of the level of investment opposite.

• Ordered list of initiatives characterized by their quantified impact, their level of alignment with the innovation strategy, their state of progress.

• Cross-functional risk management dashboard.

• Breakdown of a portfolio of innovative initiatives by innovation scheme or by type of economic model.

• Breakdown of the value created by the portfolio by subset (according to market segments, geographical area, function or process).

• Matrix representation of the initiatives of an innovation portfolio, the columns corresponding to ranges of levels of investment, the rows to ranges of levels of creation of value, the color of the initiatives to the degree of advancement and the size of the initiatives to their speed of value creation.

• Representation in the form of a radar screen (or sonar) of the trends in which the organization believes (grouped by macro-trend in the form of radar sectors), their potential (increasing from the periphery towards the center), their level of integration in the current portfolio (size of discs carrying each trend) and their criticality (color codes).

• Same representation as before, simplified and in the form of an avalanche of rectangles. See diagram above.

• Statistics relating to the dynamics of idea generation, online comments, online voting, level of engagement of contributors.

• Graphical vision of a roadmap highlighting the next visible steps of the portfolio.

• Matrix vision of the distribution of the results of visible stages according to their correlation with the innovation strategy.

• Measurement of the maturity of the IPM process by subset.

• Graphical representation of the maturity map of the IPM process by geography (see diagram below).

The same software solution may be used to manage a portfolio of innovative projects and a portfolio of so-called classic projects. This has the disadvantage of being potentially limiting in terms of functionality, but has the advantage of being able to measure the respective proportions of innovative projects and others and to identify the dependencies between innovative projects and scaling up projects (PERT type views). If this choice is made in the long term, care must be taken to properly separate the portfolios by using, for example, the notions of sub-portfolios.

---

Exercise 8 – Initial dashboard

In groups, identify known innovation projects that may become candidates for entry into the innovation portfolio.

1. Rank them in order of level of advancement.
2. Reorder them in order of level of alignment with the IPM vision.
3. Reclassify them in order of perceived health of the project, from the project moving quickly and without obstacles to the project delayed by encountering significant difficulties.
4. Reclassify them in order of perceived value creation potential.
5. Reclassify them according to the likely timeframe for creating tangible value.
6. Reorder them based on how close they are to the next pivot.

Choose your favorite media and represent these rankings on several matrices. Examples: a level of progress / value creation potential matrix, a value creation potential / project health matrix.

Compare your results with those of the other groups. Deduce together desirable representations of the state of the portfolio at the cross-functional level, and discuss the impact that this information can have on a decision-making and arbitration process at the level of a CIO (Chief innovation officer).

---

Course manual 9: IPM strategy

Once a first portfolio of initiatives, at the stage of ideas or innovation projects, has been identified and qualified with the elements of a first simple dashboard, it is time to define an IPM strategy, it is i.e. a shared common objective to improve the performance of the portfolio and the transition path towards this objective. In this regard, it is important to note that an IPM strategy is not the same thing as an innovation strategy (which will be defined part 1, month 2 of this program – strategic positioning).

Differences between IPM strategy & innovation strategy

In practice, an IPM strategy is dictated by the maturity level of the IPM process and is about aiming for the next level. An innovation strategy is dictated by the expectations of market or ecosystem witnesses and by the analysis of the positioning of the organization’s offerings, products and services.

An IPM strategy improves portfolio performance by acting on the following levers:

• Creation of positive and negative synergies between initiatives.
• Contribution and sharing of know-how.
• Assessment of the innovative potential of assets.
• Protection of the intellectual property of assets with potential.
• Exploiting the potential of assets.
• Implementation of productivity tools.
• Training.
• Integration of sales functions in the innovation process.
• Organization of scaling up projects.

An innovation strategy makes choices, promotes them and orchestrates them:

• Choice of promising trends in which the organization believes.
• Choice of functional or technical specialties on which the organization positions its innovation effort.
• Choice of types of innovative customer experiences, recognizable hallmarks of the organization’s way of innovating.
• Choice of a recognizable style of communication contributing to the reinforcement of the brand on its innovative dimension.
• Choice of ecosystem evolution scenarios constituting working hypotheses, in particular for evaluating initiatives. Anticipation in particular of the evolution of the competition and the probability of emergence of a new entrant.

But to choose is to renounce. Adopting an innovation strategy essentially consists of focusing on the issues most aligned with the organization’s raison d’être, avoiding wasting time and energy trying to solve problems that competitors are themselves better able to solve.

IPM strategy and innovation strategy are both projected into the future, retaining all the necessary flexibility to readjust the objectives along the way depending on the occurrence of events suffered or provoked. But the questions they answer differ.

Here are the questions that an IPM strategy answers:

• Over a 5 to 7 year horizon, what average competitive lead, expressed in months, do we want to obtain across our entire portfolio of innovations?
• With a horizon of 5 to 7 years, what is our target success rate for our innovation projects, and why? Based on what assumptions?
• Within 4 years, what level of maturity will the IPM processes (maintain innovation strategy, realize assets potential, facilitate participatory communication, evaluate innovation projects, involve sales and drive growth) have reached?
• Over a 4-year horizon, which skills will have to evolve the most from an IPM point of view?
• Over a 5 to 7 year horizon, what will be the typical distribution of the organization’s offerings between three situations: standard offerings (candidates for automation, outsourcing or optimization)? Differentiated offerings (mobilizing cutting-edge expertise and positioning the organization within a small club of competitors)? Innovative offerings (propelling the organization ahead of its followers)?

Here are the questions that an innovation strategy answers:

• Over a 5 to 7 year horizon, in which areas will our innovations enable us to generate the most significant competitive advantage?
• With a horizon of 5 to 7 years, in which areas should our success rate be the highest and why? Under what assumptions?
• Within 4 years, what type of event, suffered or provoked, do we want to be able to counter or sublimate thanks to our innovations?
• Over a 4-year horizon, which skills will have to evolve the most from a functional or technical point of view?
• Over a 5 to 7 year horizon, what features or techniques will underpin our standard offerings? Our differentiated offerings? Our innovative offerings?

An IPM strategy can be summed up, for example, by “Moving from an informal maturity level to a detection maturity level”. An innovation strategy can be summed up, for example, by “Strengthening our scientific skills in biotechnologies, while developing new economic models in niche markets”.

The state change logic on the 4-level ladder

The initial maturity of the IPM process is assessed on the basis of the number of levels reached and the concentration of levels reached by zone. It is recommended to follow the order of the zones as they have been defined in the course manual 3 – mapping of maturities, because each is based on the capabilities of the previous one. Thereby:

• if the initial zone is informal, aim for the detection zone.
• If the initial zone is detection, target the measure zone.
• If the initial zone is measure, aim for the openness zone.
• If the initial zone is openness, aim for the prioritization zone.
• If the initial area is prioritization, aim for continuous improvement of the IPM process.

These 5 changes are achievable in 4 years, for organizations employing 100 to 100,000 people. Reaching all the levels of a zone is necessary to formally move on to the next one, which avoids backtracking to acquire a missing capability. On the other hand, nothing prevents you from benefiting from practices inspired by higher levels in advance. This is most often the case in reality.

The IPM strategy and the innovation strategy contribute to creating and maintaining a competitive lead transformed into value. They are interdependent and the quality of the result depends on both their relevance and the quality of their execution. For memory :

• Good strategies well executed are of course better than any other combination.
• The worst combination is “bad strategies well executed”. The energy expended contributes to moving the organization backwards.
• Bad strategies poorly executed can paradoxically lead to positive results, because in this case the protagonists lose confidence quite quickly and end up relying on their common sense to set up tactical initiatives on the ground, escaping the strategic plan.
• Good strategies poorly executed create a damaging precedent for the motivation of stakeholders, particularly in terms of retaining key profiles whose skills are distinctive. The more the protagonists have been convinced of the merits of the strategies in question, the greater the disillusionment when the failure is confirmed.

---

5 typical transitions

When the IPM process is at the informal stage, this means that at least one of the levels of the detection zone is not reached: either voice of the ecosystem, or dedicated transverse structure, or training program, or a combination of the 3. The IPM strategy is expressed according to the levels remaining to be achieved:

• Succeeding in establishing voice of the ecosystem is above all a matter of culture. The Michelin company, for example, among the world leaders and a pioneer in the tire industry, has historically had a very rigorous culture of secrecy, with each concept being broken down into separate components in order to avoid being the victim of industrial espionage. Since the 2000s, the company has decided to open up, to share know-how while protecting it by patents and to use external skills to fully understand the expectations of their ecosystems and adapt to them flexibly. This allowed it to withstand new, more aggressive competition and to diversify. It is therefore essential to think carefully about this change in terms of communication, demonstration by example and intellectual property protection policy. Clear rules must be enacted so that everyone knows what information can be shared and with whom, what information is protected and how to help protect it.

• The dedicated transverse structure must have access to information concerning the initiatives in progress and the assets to be assessed. As such, it must be considered to be at a high level of clearance in terms of confidentiality, which naturally limits the size of the team at the start. Little by little, as tools and confidentiality policies are put in place, intermediate levels of authorization are granted. There is a well-known paradox here for innovation managers: you have to be able to share information in the most fluid possible way while protecting what needs to be protected. Let’s think of Apple for example (see case study), which is constantly scrutinized by its competitors while leading focus groups around the world, mobilizing large numbers of stakeholders inside and outside the company. It’s no exaggeration to say that a well-thought-out privacy policy that is both protective and liberating is a key asset of an innovative organization.

• A coherent training program is proposed within the framework of this course, and can be transmitted by the relays of the IPM mobilized. It promotes the ultimate goal of the detection zone, that is to say the emergence of more and more numerous and more and more qualitative generating ideas. Training and awareness of the importance of publishing, ordering and following up on ideas potentially put forward by everyone is at the heart of the formal validation of the transition to the detection stage. For example, the initiative of the humanitarian organization Cordaid, aimed at creating a learning organization by structuring its project reports, has enabled it to build up a wealth of data with strong innovative potential; it has focused its knowledge capitalization effort on an objective of enhancing its data.

---

Targeting the measure stage from the detection stage implies reaching the three levels list of assets with potential, dedicated dashboard and hyper-growing spin-offs:

• The list of assets with potential is built using a canvas guiding the research. It is indeed not easy to identify what is called an asset for anyone who is not an expert in accounting or management. And even these experts generally know how to integrate them into models, but struggle to identify them within an organization. Reaching this level therefore implies training enough investigators responsible for unearthing the nuggets in question. The typical case is software that sits on a shelf and can be turned into an API (application program interface) sold or licensed.

• The dedicated dashboard must be designed, among other things, to achieve the ultimate goal of the measure stage, i.e. the framing of an exceptional innovation project, whose ambition is comparable to that of a unicorn (see hyper-growing spin-offs below). Beyond the aspects covered in course manual 8 – Initial dashboard, it must in particular include investment choice files dealing with candidates for hyper-growth. These files are based on the combination of a very widely shared problem, often on a global scale, whether it is a BtoC or BtoB subject. They must also integrate an asset with potential deemed to be significantly ahead of the competition, which directs the resolution path and constitutes the center of gravity of the BM canvas considered. Given the importance of this initiative, which will become a locomotive for the rest of the organization in terms of innovation, it is most often split into several innovation ideas and projects, which can be housed in a dedicated sub-portfolio. This does not exclude synergies with other initiatives housed elsewhere, but the perimeter is managed with particular care because it is possible that a new legal entity can emerge. The dashboard reports on the state of progress of the creation and updating of the list of assets with potential, qualified by an updated estimate of their expectation of value creation, making it possible to arbitrate between several candidate files.

• The hyper-growing spin-off level corresponds to the effective creation of an entity experiencing extraordinary growth. This growth is defined either in terms of income, or in terms of market share (if this market is measurable) or in terms of impact. Nothing prevents the development of several innovation projects or sub-portfolios of this type, provided that sufficient human, financial, organizational, functional and technical resources are mobilized. The three levels of the measure stage thus contribute to the creation of an increasingly exhaustive vision of assets with innovative potential, of a selection made among them with a view to the development of hyper-growth companies and concrete cases of development of such structures, closely steered by the decision-makers involved.

---

Aiming for the openness stage supposes reaching the three levels IPM software, open innovation and self-assessment. It is possible to combine this objective with a target time to market increase compared to the previous stage (example: gain of x% on the entire portfolio).

• Installing, configuring and deploying IPM software implies having obtained a consensus from the Information Systems Department and the groups of prospective users. This involves change management work dealing with the validation of use cases, the prioritization of the corresponding investment in line with the roadmap, any interfacing issues, the maintenance, compliance with the organization’s IT strategy, and the need to deploy the solution across the entire organization. The IPM software is understood as a dedicated and specialized solution, and not as a temporary solution grafted onto a generalist collaborative software package. It speeds up the collection and selection of good generating ideas, has advanced dashboards covering all the needs of the decision-making and arbitration process relating to the IPM approach, offers the possibility of streamlining exchange processes, call for tenders and co-creation with the outside world and is potentially interfaced with one or more CRM(s) or ERP(s). The roadmap of this program provides that such a solution is selected at the latest during the second year (cf part 2, month 4 – selecting software) and deployed at the latest during the third (part 3, month 7 – IPM software).

• Open innovation relies on the software in question. One of the major conditions for its success is the maturity of a “make or buy” type evaluation and decision-making process. Whatever the avenue of resolution being explored by an innovation project, the monitoring function must be sufficiently efficient and accessible to replace an internal component of the solution with an element available off the shelf if it exists and that it fulfills the anticipated scalability and usability requirements. Open innovation is therefore only effective when coupled with self-assessment and supported by the IPM software, thus confirming the homogeneity of the opening stage.

• Self-assessment completes the system. For it to be effective, it is often necessary to confront models with reality for several months or even for 2 or 3 years. It is then possible to identify reusable patterns. They are all the more so when the innovation strategy is precise and allows them to specialize in a narrow spectrum. The risk to be avoided is the application of a model that is too generic to cases that are too different from each other, requiring an excess of source data as input to the models.

---

Finally, aiming for the prioritization stage implies reaching the three levels of communicated strategy, sales involvement and generalized IPM. It is possible to match this objective with a target success rate, increasing compared to the previous stage (example: + x points on the entire portfolio).

• The strategy is widely communicated, especially outside the organization, when the rate of success is sufficient to make announcements with confidence. Thus the risk of having to invalidate an announcement is limited. The organization reaching this level has succeeded in professionalizing its approach to innovation while stimulating creativity at all levels.

• The sales function is systematically involved in any innovation project, from the moment its launch is decided. A now stable percentage (after growing) of innovative ideas are generated by salespeople, representative of the proportion of their workforce within the organization.

• Generalized IPM can only be put in place if the organization beats to the rhythm of innovation and is aware of its importance in terms of sustainability and performance. At this stage, as for the previous point (stability in the number of innovative ideas generated by salespeople), a balance has been reached between the level of investment devoted to innovation and that devoted to modernization. To modernize is to imitate wisely, and this is just as necessary as to innovate. The Grail is in fact to be lucid about the respective investment needs in innovation and modernization, and to have the processes, the culture, the strategic positioning, a rhythmic dynamic and the systems adapted to this balance. Note: scaling up innovation projects can be part of a modernization effort, or be an innovation project in itself.

---

Case study – Apple abandons its connected glasses project

Apple is among the organizations that have reached the highest stage of maturity in terms of IPM. This explains, among other things, its level of capitalization, its competitive lead, its resistance to new entrants and its spontaneous notoriety. The prioritization process integrates both innovative projects and modernization projects, with the aim of maximum adaptability. Thus, for example, the reconfiguration of industrial value chains from China to India is carried out in record time without jeopardizing production. But despite colossal resources and know-how that no longer needs to be demonstrated, the company is unable to develop certain offerings. So it decides at the right time to abandon the project in question. In practice, the official term is “put on hold”, which means that the day the conditions are met to “wake up” this initiative, an alert will sound somewhere, on one of the strategic dashboards, activated by a human, an AI or a combination of both. This is the case of virtual reality glasses, a product that Google failed to introduce to the market and that Apple is temporarily abandoning. Indeed the technical difficulties encountered to miniaturize what there is to miniaturize are considered too great to hope to converge, without the emergence of a breakthrough innovation which is yet to come and which is not currently part of the company’s innovation portfolio. No external actor is more likely to solve the problem, at least among those who would agree to collaborate with Apple. Its competitors, at the same time, are perhaps closer! In the meantime, Apple decides to sell a virtual reality headset that is bulkier than glasses but has a competitive advantage deemed sufficient to anticipate success. The timing of the placing on the market is important and is part of the arbitration decision: beyond a time threshold, the fallback solution constituted by the virtual reality headset is to be preferred, otherwise there is a risk of losing too much ground against the competition.

Apple abandons its connected glasses project (Photo by Michael C on Unsplash)

---

Exercise 9 – IPM strategy

As a single group or in pairs, bring back to your mind the maturity diagnosis made during Exercise 3 – Mapping of maturities.

1. Deduce a simple IPM strategy in the form “aim for the stage… from the stage…”.
2. In your opinion, what are the conditions for the success of this IPM strategy? You can of course on this occasion reread the part of the course manual 9 corresponding to the situation of your organization.
3. When do you think it is possible to reach the next stage?
4. Why ?
5. What are the circumstances that facilitate or accelerate the execution of such a strategy?
6. On the contrary, what are the foreseeable obstacles?
7. What strategy do you adopt to circumvent them or lower them?

---

Course manual 10: Storytelling

If there hadn’t been a science fiction writer in the history of literature, man would never have set foot on the moon. In short, without Jules Vernes and his novel From the Earth to the Moon, published in 1865, without all the other creative people imagining what interplanetary travel might look like, no Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins or Apollo program. Because projection through fiction creates envy, inspires innovators and allows scenarios to be visualized, so to begin to design what is possible and what is not, what is coherent and what is not, what is desirable and what is not. Walt Disney used to say that it takes three actors for a successful innovation: the dreamer, who forgets all the constraints, the realist, who quantifies the constraints without limiting the ambition of the idea or the project, finally the spoiler, who cuts out the reachable perimeter. Storytelling can take place at each level. Pure fiction can be detached from material contingencies, taking on the posture of the dreamer (Jules Vernes), of the realist (the very precise authors, summoning for example elaborate physical concepts to make their stories more believable, like an Arthur C. Clarke, by elsewhere a scientist recognized by his peers, or a Kim Stanley Robinson) or the killjoy (the authors of dystopias, for example of stories of corseted societies, deprived of freedom, recalling the harsh reality of the world).

The benefits of strategic and collaborative storytelling

The initiatives for building and disseminating stories have the virtuous objective of fostering the emergence and consolidation of a culture of innovation based on the reality of the organization, thanks to the mobilization of its stakeholders. An important condition for success is the adoption of a participatory approach, structured by activities such as a writing or audiovisual workshop. The expected benefits of such an initiative include:

• The generation of ideas.
• The involvement of stakeholders in an initiative freed from the constraints of everyday life, stimulating their creativity.
• The production of content that can be used either in internal communication or in external communication, or both.
• The sharing of functional and technical knowledge underlying the stories.
• Joint identification of promising trends in which the organization believes.
• The revelation of unsaid representing potential obstacles to innovation. On this subject, storytelling can use the form of corporate theater (see The case of corporate theater below), which is particularly suited to change management applied to innovation.
• The construction of an innovative corporate identity to which the stakeholders adhere naturally, given that they participate in its dissemination.
• The creation of transversalities, crossing organizational boundaries given the independence of the approach vis-à-vis functional, technical, geographical or ecosystem considerations. It is even possible, depending on the orientation that the organization wants to give to the initiative, that external participants are invited to contribute to the constitution of this fictional corpus.
• Testing the selected collaborative tool during a concrete co-creation workshop.

---

The writing workshop

All communication starts with a text. There is no good film without a good screenplay (the reverse, on the other hand, that is to say a bad film based on a good screenplay, is unfortunately possible). The fictional corpus of the company is potentially available on all media, oral, written, audiovisual, virtual and physical, but always starts from a text. This text can be free, structured, or semi-structured, and conveys a framework and a message. From Aristotle to the Actor’s studio to the corridors of Netflix, scriptwriting methods have actually varied little. They are as applicable to a corporate context as to an association, public service or artistic and cultural project. They assume that every story begins with a situation, experiences a reversal, comes up against an obstacle that it ends up overcoming, before capitalizing on this relative success to move towards the outcome. The first time one is confronted with this reading of a fiction, for example when trying to apply it to one’s novel or one’s favorite film, the surprise can be considerable. Some even feel manipulated a posteriori. For Jaws as well as a John Grisham-style legal thriller, a novel by Hemingway or a play by Reginald Rose, or the corporate fiction of a service provider (see case study – Logistikos ), we find these stages of the story, even if sometimes we have to reconstruct them by unraveling the games of flashbacks and mirrors between different eras. The rare exceptions concern literary experiments such as Dadaism for example. The different schools of screenwriting therefore all integrate a fictional canvas which allows on the one hand to reconstitute the frame of a story, on the other hand to create new ones knowingly. The one we propose below is an adaptation by referenceinnovation.com and scenent.com of the best-known reference systems in the case of innovative business fiction.

• Situation. The starting point of the story is a relatively stable context, described with or without a hero or heroine, characterized by a place and a temporality. The combined choice of a place and a temporality is called a diegesis. Some prefer to call it the space-time of fiction.

• Reversal. An event suffered or provoked occurs. It disturbs the conditions of stability of the situation. Sometimes, the reversal is positioned at the start of the fiction, the previous starting situation being deduced later thanks to a flashback mechanism for example. Moreover, it is generally easier for participants in a workshop to remember or imagine events than to spontaneously describe a diegesis. Also the facilitator will most often begin by highlighting an event, before deducing the place and time in which it occurs. It should be noted that it can be suffered or provoked. An event suffered is typically the manifestation of a tendency exogenous to the organization. A induced event is typically the introduction of an innovation by the same organization.

• No comeback. Once the event has occurred, one or more characters react. Jostled in their daily lives, they make choices that restrict the field of possibilities. The options they choose will force them to walk on a narrower path than before, until they encounter one or more obstacles. The dramatic tension rises, the emotions, positive or negative, intense or moderate, are more and more palpable.

• Apex. One or more obstacles are overcome, either thanks to the intelligence or the sensitivity of the characters, or thanks to luck, or by following a destiny traced by others, or under the action of a combination of these levers. This crossing causes an emotional lift well known to writers, scriptwriters, advertisers and communicators, who seek to position it at the best time, while respecting the general purpose, plot and message. The difficulty of the story here consists in conveying the message underlying the fiction. Thus, in Logistikos (cf case study), the strong message is that an innovative solution is in front of the eyes of the protagonists, but they do not see it.

• Action. The experience that has just been lived, namely the overcoming of one or more obstacles, is an opportunity to step back and apply its lessons in the future, in potentially varied situations. In a professional context, it can typically be a successful pilot project, the success of which is materialized by a prototype, which represents the starting point of a scaling up project with an action plan, mobilization additional resources, and application to a wide range of issues.

• End of action. The dramatic potential opened up by the Apex is drying up, the protagonists have gone around the subject, it’s time to conclude. There an important choice is made by the screenwriters or the communicators, professionals or amateurs, embarked on a co-writing: to end on a positive or negative note.

• Outcome. What is the moral of this story? If the end of the action is negative, it may for example be a pitfall to be avoided, the organization having learned through experience that certain paths are doomed to failure. This may be the case, for example, of an innovative project in which the sales representatives were not involved early enough to make it a success, the sales process having failed while the potential of the capability produced was strong (such as the success of competitors was able to demonstrate this). These negative stories circulate anyway, with or without recourse to co-creation workshops, and have the power to crystallize practices or the avoidance of practices within the organization. Some of these stories can also be found in a good place in a training course, whatever its medium (including virtual reality if this is adapted to the context, for example to show the gestures not to be made during the use of a 3D printer in the organization’s fablab). If, on the other hand, the end of the action is positive, what are the success factors that can be deduced from the story that is ending? What lessons should be learned for the future, duly recorded in a repository provided by the collaborative tool chosen?

A constant must be present in the text produced so that the audience finds itself permanently in the frame or the message: an adversity, a recurrence, a feeling, a quest, a tension or a strangeness, all concluded by the same fall that participants have in mind while writing.

---

The case of corporate theater

The theatrical form makes it possible to promote interaction between a stage and an audience, and to fix performances on video and audio support with the aim of wide dissemination. The stakeholders can be more or less active, that is to say participate in the scripting, be actors or simply interact with the scriptwriters and actors at the edge of the stage at the end of the performance. There may also be a multiplication of these exchanges thanks to interactive video montages specific to collecting the behavior of viewers. So there are three main approaches to corporate theatre:

• The mobilization of a creative core team. The play is written and performed by a selection of innovation relays, trained in IPM and feeling motivated and legitimate for such a creative experience. The public is invited to participate during interactive interludes during the performance, or in a more daring way by projecting it on stage. A final “edge of the stage” prolongs the exchange with the actors and the authors of the “tailor-made” written play.

• The “off-the-shelf” play. The principle is the same but the play is pre-written, is part of a body of works selected by innovation relays in bookstores or in their libraries for their relevance in the context of the organization. Characters can be renamed, certain facts emphasized, messages emphasized more than others.

• The co-writing. The principle is the same, but the play is written in workshops involving several groups of business stakeholders. The level of customization is maximum, several plays can be produced, a contest for the best plays can even be proposed.

The corporate theater essentially pursues two objectives:

• Reveal the unsaid. The codes of an organization aim to oil the cogs, create acquired reflexes and promote implicit collaboration. However, they “age”. Thus, after having undergone several transformations of its catalog of products and services, its processes and its work tools, an organization no longer recognizes itself in its codes and needs to create new ones. Corporate theater makes it possible to stage various situations in which an audience of employees will react, stimulated by the angle of humour, sentiment, intrigue or advocacy. The applause, the smiles, and above all the phenomenon of “over-creation” (understanding everyone’s ability to imagine a continuation or a new development of the scene that he or she has in front of them, in their head first, then when of a subsequent exchange) release creativity and exchange at the end of the performance.

• Play down, the paradox of corporate theater. Dramatic art plays down! On condition that they “hit the spot”, that is to say represent slices of life that evoke both the era and the context in which the public evolves, the spectators realize that their perceptions of daily life that until then they believed intimate and not shared are in fact a standard. “Hitting the spot” can only be achieved through the combination of at least two skills: writing and knowledge of the business – for example through a multitude of experiences acquired during various assignments within the said organization.

Collect legends, positive and negative

Anchored in the present, a corporate fiction projects itself into the future by describing a desired future or, on the contrary, tells a legend of the organization by revisiting and scripting it. Ultimately, these texts can, for example, become internal video documents or stories broadcast on social networks or other external channels. The process of collecting legends naturally takes place during interactive co-creation workshops, either of the writing workshop type, or of the theater workshop type, or of the audiovisual workshop type. The success of these initiatives depends essentially on the motivation and ability of the stakeholders who volunteer to lead these sessions. The call for volunteers must clearly explain the ins and outs. It is also based on the presence of witnesses of past innovations, successful or not, capable of nourishing creation with lived stories. The challenge then consists of introducing moments of emotion into these stories using the framework described above. There are basically 8 types of emotions: joy, fear, disgust, anger, sadness, surprise, confidence and anticipation (according to Robert Plutchik, American academic specialist in emotion). They go all the better in a fiction that the angle chosen for the story is original and confronts the public with a change of point of view in relation to their daily life.

The choral narrative is a simple technique that allows beginners in writing to produce a relevant text. It’s about telling the same story by putting yourself in the place of an employee, in the place of his or her boss, in the place of a colleague, in the place of a partner, in the place of a client, in the place of a wholesaler (commercial intermediary), in the place of a financier, in the place of a talent manager, … The juxtaposition of points of view easily creates an impression of surprise and well-balanced humor makes it possible to create unexpected contrasts between these different visions of the same story.

The Ikigai identity

Legends and desired futures contribute to forging an innovative identity. Their synthesis can be expressed as the convergence of four distinct axes:

• What the organization knows how to do well.
• What the ecosystems targeted by the organization expect.
• What stakeholders mostly want to do.
• What can be valued over the long term, thus contributing to the sustainability, growth or overall performance of the organization.

Each of these four axes benefits from being the subject of at least one past story and one desired scenario, and preferably several. The corpus of stories thus structured reinforces the stakeholders in their feeling of belonging to an organization whose culture is clear, specific and differentiated. The four axes in question are at the heart of an approach called Ikigaï, inspired by a Japanese philosophical current and adapted to an application in the company, the association or the public service.

---

Case study – Logistikos

SPML management, a Dutch services company specializing in the logistics sector wanted to take a step back from more than 3 decades of experience in leading large innovative projects, having served clients as prestigious as Apple, DHL or Xerox, in order to take new turns driven by current trends while remaining faithful to its culture. It pushed the exercise of story telling far enough to produce a book entitled Logistikos in two languages, English and French, integrating a 30-page short story concluded by an afterword presenting 10 trends affecting the logistics profession for the 10 years coming:

• The introduction of new techniques to reduce the “whiplash” (the further up the supply chain from the request to the order, the more the variation is amplified in duration and volume).
• The appearance of new professions (data scientists, data analysts, flow pilots, demand planners).
• The fluidification of data exchanges between actors in the supply chain.
• The possibility of using a blockchain to manage traceability.
• The profitability of so-called long-tail models (with many references, some with low to very low volumes).
• Servitization of supply chains (moving from a product logic to a service logic).
• The growing importance of ecosystem voice and performance benchmarks.
• Using AI to simulate optimized scenarios.
• Circular design (think about its end of life when creating a product or service).
• Vertical integration and the platform model.

The short story features Carla, an international consultant and interim manager, taking up the challenge of heading a construction site for an autonomous and ecological motorway in the south of the Netherlands. This fiction illustrates through the difficulties encountered and the tricks used the 10 trends considered to be particularly structuring for the company, its partners and its customers in the years to come.

---

Exercise 10 – Storytelling

First, all the participants throw ideas on a common medium (examples: wall chart, post-its on a wall, screen on which one of them enters the suggestions heard in real time). These ideas relate to past legends or desired future scenarios. They are expressed in the form of a word or a simple sentence (maximum 10 words), which their promoter wishes to develop later according to the 7-step framework, from the situation to the outcome, described in the course manual 10 – Storytelling.

1. The participants concerned describe in front of their peers the reasons which push them to propose such or such story. Is such a legend emblematic of the organization’s culture of innovation? Is such a scenario particularly desirable ? Why ?
2. Participants speak out about the ideas of their peers. Are the reasons given clearly understood? Are they legitimate ? Why ? Do these stories fill a gap in the organization’s internal communication?
3. Some ideas can be grouped by affinities, either because they are very similar, or because their association makes sense.
4. After the debate, the participants vote (they each have 3 votes, which they can distribute as they wish between the different ideas).
5. The idea that receives the most votes is then selected to carry out a synopsis writing exercise.
6. Participants are asked to come up with a sentence describing the starting situation (first of the 7 steps). A first participant speaks. The others help him or her to finalize his or her sentence.
7. Iterate like this until the seventh step (outcome).
8. Position this story together in relation to the Ikigai axes: what the organization knows how to do well, what the ecosystems targeted by the organization expect, what the stakeholders mainly want to do, what can be valued in the long term. The story may cover one or more of these axes.
9. Identify the possible angles of the story: which character is telling? Which other character tells in turn? Try to iterate up to at least 3 different characters.

The result may be the subject of a script to be submitted to the Communication Department.

---

Course manual 11: Collaborative Ecosystem

Among the stories of innovation, past or future, which would benefit from integrating more external contributions? How to assess the advisability of replacing the development of an internal capacity with the rental or purchase of an asset available elsewhere? By asset we mean a component of a service, product or process, designed or prototyped by others. These others can be regular partners, new partners or anonymous solicited on an auction platform. And there are a number of promising avenues of innovation lying dormant in files, in patent descriptions, in public APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) or in people’s minds. Simply, it may turn out to be more appropriate to reveal them, to insert them and to operate them than to reinvent them. Or the opposite.

Picking up assets in the ecosystem (Photo by Jeff Sheldon on Unsplash)

Arbitration: invent or have invented

Let us list the elements on which to base a choice between an internal component and an external component of an innovation.

• Degree of knowledge of the ecosystem. If the ecosystem is regularly and effectively screened, the available characteristics are known and qualified. The selection can be made all the better if these candidates for integration into an innovation are defined, classified in an up-to-date repository and in which it is easy to navigate.
• Cost of maintaining knowledge of the ecosystem. Maintaining a knowledge base by mobilizing experts from one or more ecosystems, and by buying or renting software resources specialized in information capitalization, has a cost that must be quantified.
• Fluidity of the relationship with the parties concerned. If the owners of the component or the intermediaries in charge of its support are accustomed to collaborating with the requesting organization, the integration will be that much easier.
• Speed requirement. Recourse to an external component is sometimes dictated by the urgency of reacting to the emergence of a new entrant or to a risk of losing one’s competitive edge, excluding internal solutions.
• Ripening speed. The state of progress of the asset, the prototype or even a simple patented concept must be characterized. Maturation conditions must be assigned, even though in an innovation initiative uncertainty reigns. Maturation times must be deduced a priori, and regularly updated thereafter.
• Frequency of use of the component. If the competition frequently uses this component, its reliability is high but on the other hand its adaptability may not be.
• Component price. It can be a sale or use price of the asset. It may vary over time and depending on the destination of the innovation, its conditions of use or operation.
• Internal innovation performance. A high success rate of internal innovation initiatives, as well as the availability of comparative statistics showing that their performance is superior to that of external initiatives, constitute important elements of decisions.
• The depth of the innovation portfolio. The statistics comparing inside and outside are only valid from a certain size of portfolio.

Intuitively, an arbitration taking into account so many parameters can only be complex. Many articles by academics specializing in the field discuss the importance of AI in this field, and define that one of its preferred fields of application is the management of large open innovation portfolios, in industry. electronics, in the public sector and in any sector where information circulates sufficiently freely. By contrast, the nuclear industry, for example, is not an obvious field of application given the density of sensitive information that characterizes it.

However, provided that a precise scope of application is set and the decision-making process is simplified, efficiency can be achieved (see The statistical option below, an advanced approach suitable only for organizations that naturally have statistical skills available among innovation contributors, and having a culture of statistical management sufficiently matured on other perimeters – for example operational risk management – to be able to transpose and disseminate it with a minimum of effort).

But in most cases, arbitration is conducted by a team made up of experts and legitimate decision-makers on the basis of the knowledge available at their level. They also use monitoring and auction platforms, especially when open innovation has become a common practice, with a number of major initiatives.

---

The statistical option

When the organization has statistical skills and a management culture that is naturally inclined to exploit them, it is possible to identify functional, organizational and technical areas that present a homogeneity of performance from the point of view of innovation. Methodical arbitrations are then possible. For a given problematic, two concurrent resolution paths are considered, one internal, the other external (at least partially). Their respective evaluations are expressed according to the following sets of simplified parameters:

Internal resolution track

• Probable success rates in the functional, organizational and technical area concerned. Note: once this first parameter is taken into account, it is clear that open innovation is suitable for portfolios that are large enough for the related statistics to be applicable and exploitable. A functional, organizational and technical domain is for example “the biosynthesis of proteins by fermentation in such a laboratory”, or “the development by such a department of smart electronic cards in the format 85 x 55 x 1 mm secured by biometric sensor” (cf case study), or “the estimation of wild animal populations using voluntary observers also called citizen scientists”, or even “the tokenization of trading and post-market operations, product family by product family, in the framework of the European pilot scheme”. As much as open innovation is suitable for all functions, from marketing to banking services via industry and IT, the statistical option that is the subject of this paragraph is the most frequently encountered in the technological and scientists. But technology and science are everywhere…

• Consistency of the speed requirement, the average number of visible steps in the functional, organizational and technical area concerned and the pace at which visible steps are produced. The number of visible stages multiplied by the production period of visible stages makes it possible to statistically estimate the duration of such an innovation project. This confirms that the functional, organizational and technical fields are dimensions of the statistical analysis applied to the portfolio. Typical patterns of convergence between these three fields are to be drawn up, corresponding to sub-portfolios bringing together initiatives with a consistent number of visible stages (low standard deviation, or narrow confidence intervals).

• Average burn rate for the functional, organizational and technical area considered. How much do projects in the typical sub-portfolio spend per month, or per visible inter-stage period?

• Weighting reflecting the deviation from the norm of the functional, organizational and technical domain considered. This weighting takes into account the differences between the conditions for launching the project (linked to the nature of the problem and the appropriate solution path) and the standard conditions governing the constitution of the reference sub-portfolio on which the statistics are built. It has the effect of widening or, on the contrary, of limiting the confidence intervals of the estimates.

External resolution track

• Average ecosystem investigation time. Subsequently, we will assimilate the functional, organizational and technical domain considered to the innovation sub-portfolio that materializes it. Within this sub-portfolio, the average time taken to scan the field of possibilities, i.e. external assets with the potential to be integrated into a carrier resolution track, can be measured as well as its interval of confidence. It corresponds to the chosen method, most often a combination of human interactions of experts navigating in their networks, computerized or semi-computerized searches in databases and on open platforms, and call for projects process.

• Asset price. This price is assessed according to the phase and duration of use. If the asset is acquired, its price is related to the number of months or weeks of use, whether or not it includes the industrialization phase, in order to be able to compare it with assets operated under licence.

• Frequency of use of the asset. The more the market exploits this asset, the more reliable it is. A typical example is given by the ARM chips which constitute the heart of any smartphone. They have been successfully integrated millions of times and are ready to be combined for new uses, such as innovative capture, authentication or display devices.

• Consistency of the speed imperative, the ecosystem investigation time and the maturity of the asset. The more mature the asset, the more expensive it is and the more painful the eventual failure of the innovation project will be, unless contractual terms such as leasing, operating under license or rental can be found. The less mature the asset, the cheaper it is, but the longer it will take to develop. An optimization based on three criteria, maturity (and induced cost), ecosystem investigation speed, and development speed requirement must be carried out.

The comparison between internal track and external track is done in three stages:

• Alignment of hypotheses for achieving the speed requirement: development deadlines are aligned, which has the effect of varying either the number of visible stages (internal side) or the maturity of the asset sought (external side), taking into account the ecosystem investigation times (external side).

• Comparison of burn rate multiplied by development time (internal side) and asset price (external side).

• Comparison of the weighted success rate, taking into account the deviation from the standard (internal side) and the frequency of use of the asset (external side).

A matter of meaning

Assuming that an overpowered and highly connected artificial intelligence is capable of justifying the choice to “invent or have invent” to solve any problem, a three-dimensional model would result quite quickly: popular problems, assets or components with available potential, and promising innovation architectures. The knowledge of humanity would thus be translated into avenues for resolutions themselves sorted in order of importance.

Therein lies the key to open innovation: what is important? A machine cannot take the place of humans to decide. A Chief Innovation Officer is a decision-maker who has to make frequent and difficult choices given the uncertainty inherent in any innovation initiative. He or she must therefore both have reliable information and trust his or her intuition, which is based on a multiplication of exchanges with very diverse contributors and experts. This is how they are sometimes criticized for fluttering about too much, when it is absolutely necessary even if there is a time for everything: knowing how to balance the times of impregnation, analysis and decision-making is a key to success. What applies to a director of innovation also applies to all the other professionals called upon to carry out a trade-off between an internal component and an external component of an innovation. Beyond using IPM dashboards, they benefit from keeping the following principles in mind:

• The prioritization of recourse to external characteristics depends first of all on the IPM vision. The rhythms of production of visible and pivoting stages, the relevance of trade-offs and stimulation, all the elements of the IPM vision are applicable to the external components as well as to the internal components of innovation.

• The conditions for experimenting with an external asset must be all the more reversible the greater the uncertainty, linked either to a low maturity of the asset or to the novelty of the overall concept, or to any other factor influencing this level of uncertainty. Thus, preference will be given to leasing, rental or user license operating solutions rather than a firm purchase, at least before the last visible stage of a project is reached.

• The concept of burn rate is essential because it makes it possible to simply measure the costs compared over a period of development between two successive visible stages. In practice, each new visible step makes it possible to diagnose an improvement or a deterioration in the suitability of an external asset for the initiative.

• Knowing that it is always possible to stop the experimentation of an external component at each visible stage presents a certain comfort, provided that it remains possible to substitute an internal solution. The time and cost considerations that led to the choice of an external component must be revisited in order to decide to change the approach knowingly.

• Functional and technical experts can be intimidating, especially if they have a prestigious CV, it can be tricky to challenge their choices by distinguishing between what falls within their expertise and what falls within a virtuous IPM approach. For example, having a debate with scientists on the advisability of buying a biotech company requires the objectification of what comes under biology, and what comes under IPM. The so-called reasoned negotiation techniques (or Harvard School of Negotiation – see course manual 12 – initial communication plan) can be used in this context, by identifying the cross-interests of the different protagonists. There is indeed an internal negotiation to be carried out in addition to the potential external negotiation.

---

Ecosystem watch and knowledge capitalization

The most strategic functions within the framework of an open innovation approach are ecosystem watch and knowledge capitalization.

On a small scale, ie for innovation portfolios made up of 20 to 50 initiatives, ecosystem monitoring relies essentially on experts and their networks of relationships. The use of call for projects and auction platforms is rather reserved for larger portfolios. But this should not deter small players from using external components to innovate. Simply, the means mobilized must be in line with the ambition.

Whatever this ambition, the capitalization of knowledge in the selected collaborative environment (cf course manual 5 – collaborative tool) is however an imperative. If it is not honoured, the results of the investigations performed by the experts are lost, are insufficiently shared and give rise to a number of reworks. And there is information whose analysis results are permanently valid. For example, innovating in terms of investment financing may consist in making unprecedented allocations of European post-Covid recovery funds (planned to be used up to 70%, whereas for lack of information sharing their actual consumption does not exceed 20%); the allocation criteria benefit from being explained, made available to non-experts to increase the effort to detect assets with fundable potential. Similarly, the documentation of Opensource Strategies modules benefits from being shared outside the IT sphere alone, in order to facilitate the co-creation of new uses involving other actors and other skills. In this regard, the Opensource movement is both a massive and pioneering variation of the open innovation dynamic. For the record, it is a question of making available to the greatest number shared sources of computer programs, in order to encourage the creativity of communities of developers who become both users and programmers of their evolutions.

Referencing assets (Photo by Shane Aldendorff on Unsplash)

Once scrutinized and selected through a monitoring process, strategic knowledge is therefore capitalized in a shared repository. They are explained and their formalization makes them understandable by non-experts, in order to multiply the detection of assets with potential inside and potentially outside the organization. They also make it possible to complete the prior art search carried out by the lawyers responsible for verifying that no patent filing threatens to hinder the innovative initiatives in progress. The dosage of knowledge documentation work is a permanent compromise between the extent of the monitoring spectrum and respect for the innovation strategy: the panorama scrutinized must be wide enough not to miss crucial information, and narrow enough not to stray too far from the target performance levers. Intuition and flair clearly have their part in such a process, a dynamic comparable to that of the trendsetters found in marketing departments or communication agencies, but deployed on innovation themes, including even especially on technically and functionally very advanced subjects. These profiles are therefore both business experts, or technologists or even scientists, and communicators who absorb information, immersed in stimulating networks. They confirm the usefulness of making left brain and right brain work together, as mentioned in course manual 1 – IPM Vision, Creative talent and structuring talent.

---

Case study – the Valmido project

11 cybersecurity professionals have joined forces to design a smart card (in the format similar to that of a credit card, slightly thicker), equipped with means of biometric authentication and communication with a smartphone. The potential applications are very varied and can only be produced, qualified and implemented thanks to a colossal multiplication of effort. Two options are then open to the founders: either raise significant funds to test the most promising applications and develop the corresponding software internally, or make a planetary call for projects to mobilize intermediaries and developers. The founders chose the second solution in order to go faster and motivate key experts who understand their business well by sharing capital. Payment for assets delivered by intermediaries and developers can be either in cash or in shares, hence the already significant number of partners.

The approach taken is of the business convention type, with alliances and associations forming even before the product is physically available, even at the state of a simple prototype. T. Verstraete and E. Jouison-Laffitte, researchers in organization management, have described this open innovation process popular with technologists, which avoids creating a break between the design and deployment of innovation.

The structure is itself led to become a contributor to other open innovation projects, or even to be bought out for its assets by one of the players involved. It features in the knowledge capitalization repository dedicated to the innovation of several multinationals.

---

Exercise 11 – Collaborative ecosystem

Participants review the history of innovation, either past or future, documented in the previous exercise. They will challenge it by considering one or more external contributions. They progress together thanks to the following framework:

1. What are the useful sources of information for identifying assets with external potential?
2. Classify these sources of information according to the following categories: professional networks of participants, open innovation platforms, mandates given to consulting firms in industrial and intellectual property, others.

The participants again form teams, confronting different points of view within each team. As a team, qualify the professional network of the participants as follows:

1. First circle: the sources known directly by the members of the team.
2. Second circle: the sources known by the sources of the first circle.
3. Third circle: sources known or unknown to the participants, directly or indirectly, having already collaborated with the organization.
4. Fourth circle: potential sources identified via the press, professional documentation or various media.

The participants regroup again and each team describes their 4 circles to the others in a synthetic way, emphasizing the skills and potential assets accessible through their professional networks. In the process, they point out the issues for which these assets represent possible avenues of resolution.

---

Course manual 12: Initial communication plan

By addressing the last course manual of this workshop, participants have information that not everyone yet shares within the organization. Conversely, they need to find other information by navigating within their organizational subset, refining their IPM vision, their maturity assessment or their IPM strategy. Informing and getting informed is a daily challenge for contributors to innovation, while protecting necessary periods of time devoted to leading initiatives, designing or conducting daily operations.

Like journalists and other communication professionals, everyone can adopt a simple framework for transmitting and receiving: why, whom, who, when, where, what and how? 6 Ws and an H.

Why communicate on the subject of innovation?

Innovation does not arise from the brain or the hands of a single individual. As mentioned above (course manual 10 – Storytelling), the dreamer is at least confronted with the realist and the killjoy, to which must be added a number of stakeholders, beneficiaries, partners, regulators, shareholders. As soon as several actors are involved, they must communicate. Their communication needs are:

• Pedagogy: a certain amount of knowledge benefits from being shared, at least in a popularized and simplified form, so that non-experts bounce back on the subject and identify opportunities for innovation around them. This knowledge is strategic, functional, technical or organizational. The IPM curriculum itself contains knowledge that can be broken down into these four axes, starting with the IPM strategy and the innovation strategy, continuing with processes, tools and organizational approaches.

• The focus: innovating forces you to choose your battles. We cannot innovate all over the place, for lack of means and infinite space-time. It is necessary to share reflexes specific to an innovative behavior, ie to know when to open the field of possibilities, and when to close it. Stakeholders need benchmarks to decide what is their responsibility, at their level, for example in terms of the scope of application of the IPM. For the record, the two key differentiators of a hypergrowth company are on the one hand the focus, on the other hand “the focus of the communication on this focus” (cf course manual 3 – mapping of maturities, the measure zone) : see illustration below.

• The handover between an innovative initiative and a scaling up project: the articulation between the validation of the concept (preceded by ideation, design and prototyping) and its deployment is an opportunity to transfer information from one team to another, sometimes from one culture to another, or from one subset to another. With the exception of the “business convention” models (see course manual 11 – collaborative ecosystem), this break between the two phases is a key step which, if it is not the subject of sustained attention in terms of communication, is one of the frequent causes of failure.

• Doctrines for using IPM tools: from generic collaborative tools to specialized solutions (see course manual 5 – collaborative tool), users need to know how to use them, what their access rights are and best practices recommended.

• Sharing a culture of innovation: a corporate culture is not defined by a few words or a few diagrams; at most it can be summarized but never grasped as a whole. It is most often diffuse, materialized by the legends evoked in the course manual 10 – storytelling or by a succession of events undergone or caused to form a coherent whole in the minds of the stakeholders. It is the sum of a large number of informal and formal communications contributing to create a feeling of belonging to a group sharing common objectives and means.

• The results: when stakeholders are asked to contribute to an initiative, communicating the results is essential to maintain the momentum and allow everyone to understand what role he or she played in achieving them.
• Decision-making: Decision-makers at all levels must be fed information to help them choose the options available to them. They must be able to project themselves, evaluate scenarios based on analyzes and reliable observations.

Who is this communication addressed to?

The personae (or typical profiles of communication recipients) targeted have varying levels of exposure to IPM. It is useful to classify them according to this criterion, in order to determine an objective of increasing or stabilizing this level of exposure in phase with the IPM strategy. Here is a list of typical personae, presented in order of exposure:

1. The chief innovation officer, or a leader with an equivalent title and the role of driving innovation within the organization.
2. The other leaders.
3. Innovation project teams.
4. The IPM relays who are or will be trained to train.
5. The other IPM relays.
6. Scale-up project teams.
7. The regular generators of ideas and critics.
8. The partners involved operationally.
9. Witnesses of the ecosystem.
10. Shareholders and investment partners.
11. Occasional idea generators and critics.
12. Uninvolved ecosystem actors.
13. The general public.

A simple way to formalize a communication strategy is to fill in a table whose rows are the reasons for communicating and the columns the targets of the communication (see table above). Each box in the table bears an objective of increasing or stabilizing the exposure of the target, according to a given axis of communication. Depending on the changes recorded, the order of exposure of the personae may vary.

---

Who communicates?

The communication source and target personae are the same. It is most often observed that the order of exposure is close to the order of intensity of the communication emitted, which translates a characteristic of cellular, learning and agile organizations: they favor the circulation of information independently of the hierarchical position (see also course manual 1: IPM vision, Case study – Pixar: Key Lessons). Admittedly, the notions of upward communication from the field to top management, and downward communication in the other direction, exist and correspond to strategic decision-making processes fed by “feedback” information. But they do not constitute the bulk of the volume of communication: on the one hand, decisions are also and above all taken as close as possible to the field, thanks to the safeguards represented by the meta-rules of cellular organizations (see course manual 4 – cellular organism); on the other hand, decision-making is only one reason among others to communicate.

Gradually legitimacies by theme settle. Each communicator acquires over time a reputation and a recognizable style. The Ikigaï reading grid, already mentioned in the course manual 10 – story telling, is applicable here to each individual or each communicating group:

• What is the recognized area of expertise of the individual or group?
• What are the expectations of the representatives of the ecosystem to which the individual or group is exposed?
• What does the individual or group want to do and show?
• How does the individual or group contribute directly to the sustainability, growth or overall performance of the organization?

Positioning oneself using this grid makes it possible to forge and reinforce a coherent image, which does not exclude the evolution of this image towards new positionings, in particular on the occasion of a change of role, function or responsibility. IPM relays who become asset pilots, project facilitators or ecosystem animators provide a typical example. Some of them may be in charge of producing and maintaining an initial communication plan. At this stage, this plan consists of a cross-tabulation between personae and lines of communication, setting objectives for stabilizing or increasing the level of exposure. The communication department is of course involved in the constitution and management of this plan, the IPM relays mobilized on the subject can for example be part of it (just as the IPM relays in charge of the support of the collaborative tool can be part of information systems department). However, it is important that each organizational subset defined in course manual 2 – scope of application has its own IPM relays, in order to remain consistent with the logic of cellular and agile organization operating in proximity to the subjects covered.

---

When to communicate?

In a context of innovation management, all times are good for communication. The very principle of serendipity wants the idea to arise from the conversation, the words of some constituting the basis for the rebound of others. An informal exchange around the coffee machine can bring as much value to the organization and its ecosystem as a structured meeting. However, as we have seen, ideation is only one of the phases of the innovation process. In a simplified model inspired by the process in force at Pixar, a master of the genre (see course manual 1: IPM vision, Case study – Pixar: Key Lessons), three communication times are privileged:

• Ideation and prototyping. The key communicators are the regular idea generators and critics, the occasional idea generators and critics and the innovation project teams.
• Structuring. The key communicators are the IPM relays who are or will be trained to train and the other IPM relays, the partners involved operationally and the scaling up project teams.
• Decision making. The key communicators are the chief innovation officer, or managers with an equivalent title and a role of driving innovation within the organization, the other managers, and the shareholders and investor partners.

This allocation of key communicators by major phase is neither fixed nor exclusive. Organizing their mobilization according to this minimal scheme (and encouraging their mobilization on other initiatives elsewhere) makes it possible to avoid downtime, these long periods without communication conducive to the stagnation of innovative initiatives.

Throughout the innovation cycle, the expectations of the ecosystem are constantly updated by the witnesses of the ecosystem in order not to move away from the conditions of acceptability of the new capability under development. These witnesses are therefore key communicators in all phases of the innovation process.

Over time, uninvolved ecosystem players and the general public may themselves evolve and find themselves in other personae. This may also be desirable, in particular to recruit witnesses from the ecosystem. Witness communities are fragile, especially when the maturity of the IPM process is still young, so a constant effort to recruit and enrich their experience is necessary. The communication plan benefits from integrating this objective by defining a target recruitment rate and attrition.

---

Where to communicate?

The communication channels of innovation are multiple. Among other initiatives, some organizations have set up internal social networks, others favor public media by specifying their doctrine of use, invest in social networks within the limits imposed by law (in most countries, an individual’s personal profile belongs to him or her) or cause more or less publicized events. The idea is not to recommend one or the other of these channels, but to complete the 5 meta-rules of a cellular organization with a sixth, providing a doctrine for the use of the different channels. In most cases, the doctrines of use of the different channels already applicable within the organization are also valid for the communications dealing with innovation. The IPM relays integrate these guidelines into their daily practice and naturally relay them around them.

The collaborative tool selected is however a preferred communication medium. The advantage of sharing relatively structured information helps to contribute to the generation of ideas, alignment with the IPM strategy and focus on trends considered promising for the organization and its ecosystem.

What to communicate?

The nature of the communications essentially depends on the level of maturity of the IPM process. An organization diagnosed in the informal zone does not communicate in the same way as if it is in the detection zone. Each zone has its communication priorities, neither fixed nor exclusive, but useful to keep in mind to avoid backtracking. Organizations that are not very mature favor a construction agenda, while organizations operating in the openness or prioritization zones are committed to maintaining momentum while aiming to reach the next level.

The objectives defined by the IPM strategy (see course manual 9 – IPM strategy, 5 typical transitions) constitute a guideline for communicating on the evolution of the maturity of the IPM process, either under construction or being improved.

To maintain the momentum, the guideline is dictated by work to identify the risks of deterioration in the performance of the components of the process already in place. They can be recorded on a simple management plan, on which the risks appear in rows, and in the columns the mitigation measures envisaged, as well as an assessment of the probability of occurrence and the level of anticipated impact.

---

Case study – confusion between “Innovation” and “product innovation”

In this banking group, confusion is becoming more and more frequent between innovation and product innovation. This results in an artificial increase in the success rate of innovation projects, making their management less effective. An innovation cell working within the capital markets sub-directorate, an organizational subset particularly concerned by the phenomenon, publishes a monthly newsletter in which the “interview” section is the most widely read. The Chief Innovation Officer himself chooses to answer the questions of an IPM relay, in order to correct the situation. Extract:

An innovation propels the owning organization into a unique leadership position, offering a product or service, or owning an asset that no other organization offers or owns; the result is a logic of steering by competitive advantage, measured by the time necessary for the competition to eventually catch up with and overtake the organization. A product innovation endows the organization with a product that it has not marketed until then, at least not recently (it may be that a historical product has been brought up to date), but that other organizations may possibly come up with non-fundamental variations. A product innovation can therefore be an innovation (if the competition has not seized it), or not. Conversely, an innovation may be a product innovation (again, if the competition has not taken hold of it), or not. The two sets have a non-zero intersection but are not equal, except in the extreme cases of organizations for which innovation is the only raison d’être.

The tone is deliberately technical, even mathematical, because the readership is made up of financial engineers and specialists in the modeling of complex products.

---

A communication similar to that of this banking group (see case study above) can constitute one of the mitigating measures recommended in a risk management plan specific to the IPM approach, in order to avoid a possible regression or to respond to a recurring question.

These considerations apply above all to the IPM relays and the Chief Innovation Officer who are particularly involved in the implementation of the IPM process. The other personae choose their subjects according to their respective positions, their terrain, their skills, their desires and the situations they witness. Their contents are a valuable indication of the quality of the deployment dynamics of the process, and can be usefully scrutinized by the IPM relays to adjust their own contents. For example, if the spontaneous communications of other personae omit important points of the process, the IPM relays will remedy this.

---

How to communicate?

The storytelling approaches described in the course manual 10 – storytelling are applicable to the construction of scripts that can either be directly integrated in the form of text on various media (newsletters, website articles, posts on social networks), or serve as a basis for the production of videos, podcasts, virtual reality training or other derivative documents, including interactive ones.

More ambitious communication projects can be undertaken, such as white papers or books. They can express a strategic, functional, technical or organizational point of view, relate the history of the organization or anticipate a desired future. In particular, the innovation sub-portfolios corresponding to large-scale open innovation domains (see course manual 11 – Collaborative ecosystem, the statistical option) are almost inexhaustible subjects of communication. A white paper is particularly suitable for describing an ecosystem, asserting a differentiated point of view and positioning as an influencer. Over time, the white paper building process is optimized, becoming an IPM asset in its own right.

---

Case study – white papers published by a major software publisher

Genesys publishes contact center software in the cloud. The solution is suitable for organizations employing thousands of telephone and multimedia operators as well as SMEs with a few dozen workstations. Customers are spread across the planet and innovation is nurtured by numerous partnerships with local integrators, both contributors and witnesses to the expectations of the ecosystem. A collection of white papers allows them to harmonize the levels of information both inside and outside the company. Their titles are for example “Best practices for a seamless omnichannel customer experience”, “Top 10 strategies for modernizing WFO processes”, “Call center: the essential elements for consolidation”, “Genesys and Google Cloud: exploiting artificial intelligence in contact centres”, “the 5 phases of digital engagement” or “Practical guide to mastering chatbots”. Note: the acronym WFO stands for Workforce Optimization.

---

The interest of external actors for white papers, often offered against deposit of coordinates, makes it possible to enlarge the representative communities of the targeted ecosystem. If the investment in this type of communication is significant, so are the returns on investment.

Advertising is also a potential vehicle for communicating stories and messages, in conjunction with marketing management. Here too, the organization gains by identifying IPM relays falling within this competence and deployed in the sub-assemblies concerned. From product placements in works of art and culture to a simple television spot, the description of a novelty often hits the mark.

Finally, still in a logic of growing ambition, innovation can be felt even in the architecture of the organization’s emblematic buildings. Just think of Boeing’s linear factories over a mile long, or the headquarters of tech giants showcasing either their most striking innovations or the steps that led those innovations to success.

---

Exercise 12 – Initial communication plan

Here is the last step of this workshop. It is a question of preparing the post-workshop communication well with the identified potential contributors, which we call for the moment the IPM relays. In teams, design your short-term communication plan:

1. What are the reasons for communicating at this stage? Feel free to use the first part of course manual 12 for help.
2. Who are the communication targets within a month? Why ?
3. Represent a simplified table with the reasons for communicating in rows, and the targets in columns. It is not necessary to consider all possible reasons and all possible targets at this stage. Only those that you consider relevant in the short term should be included.
4. At the crossroads of the reasons for communicating and the targets, indicate the one-month objective: improve or stabilize the level of exposure to IPM. Please explain.
5. Order a list of targets by current exposure level.
6. Order the same list by level of exposure desired over a one-month horizon.
7. Order the same list by level of exposure desired in the long term (4 years).

---

Project Studies

Each month a series of 12 assignments must be formalized according to the framework described below. They materialize the implementation of the components of the 6 key processes of the IPM approach, objects of the workshop. You will write your production in one or more documents of the Microsoft-Word, Google Docs or equivalent type, illustrating them if necessary with charts or diagrams. Your entire production for the month must represent a minimum of 3000 words (therefore 250 words per section on average, ie approximately half a page of text). This is a minimum, some participants preferring to detail their results further: there is no maximum limit. Some of the elements to be formalized were produced as part of the exercises done during the workshop: the work to be done is reduced by the reuse of these results.

You have the choice between considering that the following 12 sections each form an independent document, or that they form the chapters of a single document entitled, for example, High-Performance Innovation – Scope definition. If you produce 12 different documents, they can be updated independently of each other (this is a compromise between simplicity in the short term and efficiency in the medium term).

Each of the 12 headings includes, among other things, the formalization of an action plan and the report on this action plan. It is useful to pool actions relating to different headings in order to optimize your intervention in the field, for example by organizing meetings tackling subjects relating to different headings. It’s best to read all 12 topics, at least in fast read mode, before you start producing. So you will have an overview and the pooling of efforts will be more natural. It is also preferable to write what can be written as soon as you leave the workshop, on the one hand because the material is fresh in your mind, on the other hand because you thus effectively prepare the solicitation of other potential contributors, focusing on the difficulties encountered.

If you decide to produce these elements in a group, taking advantage of the dynamic created between the participants during the workshop, you can divide the tasks of producing the text as well as the interventions in the field. Each participant must support the production of at least one section and guarantee its quality. You can for example plan a common reading of the 12 headings during which you will divide the work.

Below is a typical “W-shaped” pooling approach, alternating three analysis times (the three peaks of the W) and two intervention times in the field (the two bases of the W).

• First stage of analysis: exploitation of the results of the exercises and the lessons learned from the course manuals to initialize the 12 sections, without recourse to colleagues or other potential contributors. Identification of a list of outstanding questions and actions to be launched. Identification of the conditions for updating the achievements of previous workshops (only from the second workshop), and determination of the related action plan.

• First stage of intervention in the field: identification of privileged interlocutors to answer outstanding questions, to be made aware of the challenges of IPM in the current phase and, from the second workshop, to maintain the achievements of previous workshops. Contact with a few key people (from 1 to 10), exchange and collection of information. Development of the action plan within a month to collectively complete the analysis, initiate the implementation of the bricks of the IPM process concerned by the current phase and, from the second workshop, maintain the achievements of the previous workshops.

• Second stage of analysis: updating of the 12 headings by integrating the information collected, the schedule for additional analysis and implementation and, from the second workshop, the schedule for maintaining the achievements of the previous workshops.

• Second stage of intervention in the field: meetings for additional analysis, implementation and, from the second workshop, maintenance of the achievements of the previous workshops.

• Third stage of analysis: report of the actions carried out in the field and taking a step back.

---

Project study (Part 1) – IPM vision

The IPM vision component of the evaluate innovation projects process is materialized by a document entitled “IPM vision” structured as follows (consult course manual 1 – IPM vision as many times as necessary and the related exercise in order to integrate and apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts explained there).

Introduction: Visualize a future situation, with a horizon between 1 and 4 years, assuming that your organization has adopted IPM processes. Deduce the most visible changes according to you. Which are the most desirable? Why ? Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

The strengths of your organization: How does IPM stimulate your ability to innovate? Splice your description of cultural, organizational or technical traits that are characteristic of your organization, and explain how you plan to realize their potential, as key assets. As a reminder, a key asset can be a particular skill, an industrial or intellectual property not or little exploited, an electronic showcase, a machine, a building, an organizational principle, a history of innovations capable of establishing credibility, an identity, a relational network, an ecosystem of partners, suppliers and influencers, a customer base, a geographical footprint, a laboratory, a place of co-creation, a pool of ideas, carriers of ideas and desires, innovative business models, a competitive edge, a competitive processes, a watch function, a method, an analysis tool, a software, an API (application programming interface), a tester panel, an online community, shareable performance dashboards, visual management practices, benchmarks for measuring the environmental, societal and economic impact of the organization’s activity, infrastructures, and many other things. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action Plan – Fundamentals of IPM: How do you plan to apply the fundamental concepts and tools of IPM? As a reminder, the notions and tools proposed in course manual 1, and via the corresponding exercise, are in particular:

• the analysis of the differences between an innovative initiative and another type of initiative: serves to identify examples of past or current innovative projects;
• the identification of the profiles of potential contributors to the innovation: serves to identify the people who may be contacted in the context of the collection of information;
• evaluation of the average success rate of an innovation portfolio: used to visualize a target;
• the definition of the success factors of an innovative initiative: used to assess the success of past or current projects;
• the definition of a visible step: is used to prepare the implementation of the visible step review process;
• the choice of a rhythm of review of visible steps: serves to give benchmarks to the first project managers solicited;
• the principle of focus: used to specify the scope of the projects considered.

For each of these 7 themes, describe your action plan over a period of one month, ie in the period separating the first workshop from the second. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Visible stage reviews: What pace do you choose? Why ? As a reminder, this visible step review rhythm is particularly crucial for stimulating the performance of an innovative initiative. As uncertainty about the final deliverable is a key feature of such an initiative, a virtuous strategy is to generate interim results at a consistent frequency across the entire portfolio, making value-enhancing decisions without delay. In this regard, it is important to prefer the quality of reviews to the number of lines in the portfolio. We will therefore favor a tight selection of initiatives and a regular review process, flexible and stimulating creativity but firm on the fundamentals. At the end of a review, one or more of the following decisions are made: continue on the same resolution track by setting objectives for the next step, pivot (change the resolution track), revise funding upwards or decrease it, transform an idea into a project, strengthen or lighten the team, stop the initiative, trigger another innovative initiative. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Estimation of the success rate of innovative initiatives: What is the average success rate of innovative initiatives within the organization? On what time basis and on what scope? For this figure to be representative, special care must be taken to distinguish an innovative initiative from another type of initiative based on the criteria described in the course (course manual 1 – IPM Vision: difference between an innovation project and another type of project). It is also necessary to have specified the success criteria of an innovation project (course manual 1 – IPM Vision: establishing the IPM vision). What objective for improving this success rate is possible? Why in the first analysis? With what foreseeable impact? Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, but will probably need to be completed after collecting additional information in the field. The data may not be available to perform this work accurately; in this case, make simplifying assumptions, which will be verified and refined over time.

Review of the action plan – fundamentals of the IPM: What results do you report on the 7 themes of your action plan (see above)? For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 1 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 1 – IPM vision.
• Results of exercise 1 – IPM vision: profiles of potential contributors, definition of the success factors of an innovation project, criteria for focusing an innovation project, typical issues, target rate of introduction of innovations, visible step review target rhythm.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outputs:

• Most visible changes over 1-4 years, most desirable changes, rational.
• Identification of examples of assets with potential, realizable thanks to an IPM approach.
• Identification of examples of past or current innovative projects.
• Confirmation and adjustment of profiles of potential contributors to innovation.
• First estimate of the average success rate of an innovation project (will be refined over time).
• Confirmation or adjustment of the target average success rate of an innovation project (can be expressed as a difference; example: + 5 points).
• Confirmation or adjustment of the success factors of an innovative initiative.
• Examples of innovation projects and their success factors.
• Definition of a visible step and the outputs of a visible step review (example: confirm, stimulate, pivot, fund, staff, stop, trigger).
• Confirmation or setting of visible step review target rhythm. Example: each innovation initiative must produce a visible step every two months, enabling one of the decisions covered by its review to be taken without delay.
• First confrontation of examples of innovation projects with the principle of focus. Potential impact on the definition of their scope.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 2) – Scope of application

The scope of application component of the drive growth process is materialized by a document entitled “Scope of application” structured as follows (consult course manual 2 – scope of application and the related exercise as often as necessary in order to integrate and apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts that are explained there):

Introduction: Introduce the notion of culture of innovation in the context of your organization. Take examples of cultural traits of the innovation dynamic drawn from your experience or that of your colleagues. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Comparison with cardinal innovation cultures: In order to prepare the breakdown of the scope of application of the IPM into coherent subsets, compare the innovation cultures at work (or in the making) within your organization with the following cardinal cultures: strong risk appetite, open innovation, frugal innovation or Jugaad, rebound, scientific and technological, artistic and design. Identify examples illustrating those of the cardinal cultures actually represented or adapted to your context. Justify. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – breakdown into subsets: Apply the concepts and tools proposed in course manual 2 in order to complete the result of exercise 2 – scope of application: during the workshop, 6 lists were produced (formalized innovation processes, informal innovation processes, communication and initiatives stimulating creativity, swivel flexibility, opening, focus). Vis-à-vis these lists, what outstanding questions remain at the end of the workshop? Deduce a questionnaire to be submitted internally.

Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan report – breakdown into subsets: Determine and describe the organizational subsets: deduce from the 6 updated lists the outline of the coherent subsets from the point of view of the culture of innovation. For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 2 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 2 – scope of application.
• Results of exercise 2 – scope of application: informal existing IPM processes, formalized existing IPM processes, communication media and initiatives encouraging innovation, history of pivoting decisions, internal and external partnerships contributing to innovation, examples of focused and dispersed projects, coherent subsets from the point of view of the culture of innovation.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outputs:

• Characterization of the cultures of innovation present within the organization.
• Comparison of the organization’s own innovation cultures with 7 cardinal innovation cultures. Perspectives of evolution.
• Confirmation or adjustment of the 6 lists formalized innovation processes, informal innovation processes, communication and initiatives stimulating creativity, swivel flexibility, opening, focus.
• Confirmation or adjustment of the breakdown into coherent subsets from the point of view of the culture of innovation.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 3) – Mapping of maturities

The mapping of maturities component of the maintain innovation strategy process is materialized by a document entitled “Mapping of maturities” structured as follows (consult course manual 3 – mapping of maturities and the related exercise as often as necessary in order to to integrate and apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts explained there):

Introduction: Which subset is the most mature IPM process? The least mature? Explain using the 12-level scale. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Assessment of each subset: For each subset, assess its level of maturity objectively, based on the 12-level reference system described in the course manual and on the related criteria. Deduce the maturity of each subset expressed as a percentage (number of levels reached divided by 12). Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – making the sub-assembly maturity assessment more reliable: What outstanding questions remain at the end of the workshop to make the sub-assembly assessment more reliable? Deduce a questionnaire to be submitted internally. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Assessment of the action plan – reliability of the assessment of the maturity of the sub-assemblies: Readjust the assessment of the maturity of the various sub-assemblies according to new information gleaned in the field. For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 3 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 3 – mapping of maturities.
• Results of exercise 3 – mapping of maturities: level of maturity and maturity score of the IPM process by organizational subset.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outputs:

• Qualification of sub-assemblies from the point of view of the maturity of their IPM process. Identification of extremes (most mature, least mature).
• Confirmation or adjustment of maturity levels and scores after obtaining answers to follow-up questions.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 4) – Cellular organization

The cellular organization component of the drive growth process is materialized by a document entitled “Cellular organization” structured as follows (consult course manual 4 – cellular organization and the related exercise as often as necessary in order to integrate and to apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts explained there):

Introduction: Identify the agile approaches already at work within the organization and describe them broadly, specifying which subsets are concerned. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

The 5 meta-rules: Are there examples of application of the 5 meta-rules described in course manual 4 – cellular organization within the organization? Are they applied in the context of an innovative initiative? Describe known deviations from these meta-rules in the context of an innovative initiative. Position these gaps by subset. What would be the beneficial effects of reducing these gaps? Explain. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Illustrate the application of the meta-rules on an example: By reusing the results of exercise 4 – cellular organization, describe an example of application of the meta-rules and the expected benefits. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – testing meta-rules: Identify innovative initiatives on which some meta-rules should be tested in the short term. Anticipate the outcome. Identify the subset(s) considered and the stakeholders to be involved. Plan and organize a meeting with the protagonists of the chosen initiative. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Assessment of the action plan – testing the meta-rules: Describe the context of the experience of applying the meta-rules. Can organizationally following the outline of the blueprint have an impact on the composition of the team? Can refreshing the blueprint cause a pivot, small or large? Can the breakdown of regulatory requirements have an impact on design? Is it already possible to measure the value potentially created by the initiative? Can the adoption of a privileged place of co-creation have an impact on the performance of the initiative? For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 4 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 4 – cellular organization.
• Results of exercise 4 – cellular organization: example of an innovation project; retroactive analysis of pivots, blueprint evolutions, regulatory constraints and their breakdown by component of the blueprint, the value created, the existing evaluation methods, the places of co-creation exploited by the project studied; impact analysis of the application of the 5 meta-rules specific to a cellular organization.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outcomes:

• Identification of agile approaches and their variations within the organization.
• Confirmation or adjustment of retroactive analysis of an example of an innovation project. Possible choice of another example.
• Identification of initiatives that can benefit from the adoption of a cellular organization. Rationale.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 5) – Collaborative tool

The collaborative tool component of the facilitate participatory communication process is materialized by a document entitled “Collaborative tool” structured as follows (consult as many times as necessary the course manual 5 – collaborative tool and the related exercise in order to integrate and apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts explained there):

Introduction: Identify and describe the known collaborative environment(s) within your organization. Are these tools generalist? Are they specific to IPM? Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Selecting a generalist tool: Choose one of the existing tools and assess the differences between its functionalities and those required within the framework of the IPM approach. Does the prospective tool offer differentiated functions that are useful for deploying IPM? Which ones and why? Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – first use case: Plan the implementation of the chosen tool for the following minimum need: host your IPM project studies (these productions) and share them with stakeholders on a need-to-know basis. Identify the right interlocutors and obtain any authorizations for this implementation. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Report on the action plan – first use case: Report on the initialization of the IPM workspace on the selected collaborative tool. For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 5 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 5 – collaborative tool.
• Results of exercise 5 – collaborative tool: list of existing collaborative tools, selection of a preferred tool, standard functionalities, differentiated functionalities, advanced functionalities, usage constraints.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outgoing:

• Confirmation or adjustment of the choice of the collaborative tool. Rationale.
• Implementation of the tool to share project studies according to the need to know.
• Feedback.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 6) – Network of pioneers

The network of pioneers component of the drive growth process is materialized by a document entitled “Network of pioneers” structured as follows (consult course manual 6 – network of pioneers and the related exercise as often as necessary in order to integrate and apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts that are explained there):

Introduction: Summarize the questions not yet asked in the context of writing the first 5 sections. The questionnaire included in the course manual 6 – network of pioneers, outstanding questions can help you in this regard. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Expected contributors: With regard to the outstanding questions whose assessment has just been made, who are the profiles best able to answer them? Draw up a list and for each, identify the names and the names of any intermediaries with whom to request a quick discussion on the subject. This exchange will typically take the form of a one-hour bipartite meeting, or a half-day workshop involving several potential contributors. Both formats provide an opportunity to collect missing information while conveying messages relating to the process in progress. At the end of an exchange, potential contributors will eventually be asked if they want to be part of the IPM Pioneer Network. Another possibility is to send out a questionnaire, but this presents less potential for interaction, both for specifying answers and for transmitting messages. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – plan workshops and bipartite meetings Organize these exchanges between now and the next workshop. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Review of the action plan – plan workshops and bipartite meetings: Formalize and classify the answers to the outstanding questions, draw up the list of potential contributors who have accepted to be part of the network of pioneers, prepare a communication thanking them and giving them an appointment soon for new exchanges (see initial communication plan section below). For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 6 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 6 – network of pioneers.
• Results of exercise 6 – network of pioneers: list of outstanding questions, list of potential interlocutors (first circle), list of experts known by the first circle (indirect access), representativeness of these networks vis-à-vis identified cultures of innovation.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outputs:

• Confirmation or adjustment of the open questions lists and the corresponding interlocutors.
• Review of the bodies organized by major subject: bipartite meetings, workshops, sending out questionnaires.
• List of prospective pioneers.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 7) – Pilot portfolio

The pilot portfolio component of the realize assets potential process is materialized by a document entitled “Pilot portfolio” structured as follows (consult course manual 7 – pilot portfolio and the related exercise as often as necessary in order to integrate and apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts explained there):

Introduction: Make your critical mass diagnosis according to the instructions given at the beginning of the course manual 7. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Establish innovative initiative sheets: In accordance with the instructions given in course manual 7 – pilot portfolio, the innovation project framework, document the innovative initiatives selected at this stage. The selection is made according to the instructions specified in the course manual 7 – pilot portfolio, initiate an innovation portfolio. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Establish a first BM canva: Choose one of the innovative initiatives in the portfolio and establish a BM canva in accordance with the instructions given in the course manual 7 – pilot portfolio, The BM canva. You can repeat the operation for other lines of the portfolio if you have the time and consider it useful now, for example for educational purposes. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – complete the innovative initiatives sheets and the BM canva: Submit the sheets and the BM Canva to potential contributors, either during direct exchanges, or in the form of a questionnaire, in order for them to complete them and validate. If project managers or project directors are in charge of some of these lines, a period of introduction to the IPM approach and its objectives must be planned at the start of the exchange, or even before the exchange relating to the sheets and the BM canva in order to synchronize. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Review of the action plan – complete the innovative initiative sheets and the BM Canva: Finalize the documentation of the sheets and the BM Canva by exploiting the results of the exchanges. Pre-existing documents produced by project teams may be useful, in which case they will be referenced in your production. For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 7 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 7 – pilot portfolio.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outgoing:

• Critical mass diagnosis of innovative initiatives.
• Sheets describing innovative initiatives eligible for inclusion in the portfolio.
• BM canva of an example of an innovation project.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 8) – Initial dashboard

The initial dashboard component of the evaluate innovation projects process is materialized by a document entitled “Initial dashboard” structured as follows (consult course manual 8 – initial dashboard and the related exercise as often as necessary in order to integrate and apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts explained there):

Introduction: Take stock of existing reports relating to innovative initiatives. At what levels of the organization are they produced? Are there cross-functional standards applicable to the various identified sub-assemblies? Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Preferred types of reporting: Using course manual 8 – initial dashboard, preconfigured dashboards from specialized software packages, identify the types of reporting applicable to your context, taking into account the initiatives already in the portfolio. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – test of a type of reporting: Choose a form of reporting particularly suited to your context and consider its implementation in contact with the people concerned within your organization. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Assessment of the action plan – test of a type of reporting: Document the first design elements of the type of reporting chosen, as well as the reactions of potential stakeholders. What are the possible obstacles to its implementation? What are the possible improvements that it is desirable to bring to it? For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 8 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 8 – initial dashboard.
• Results of exercise 8 – initial dashboard: lists of innovative initiatives ordered by level of progress, by level of alignment with the IPM vision, by perceived health, by probable timeframe for creating tangible value, by level of proximity to the next pivot; cross matrices between these lists.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outputs:

• Situation of existing reports relating to innovative initiatives.
• Status of existing standards relating to these reports.
• Types of reporting envisaged as targets.
• Obstacles identified vis-à-vis the implementation of these types of reporting.
• Possible improvements to be made to these types of reporting.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 9) – IPM strategy

The IPM strategy component of the maintain innovation strategy process is materialized by a document entitled “IPM strategy” structured as follows (consult course manual 9 – IPM strategy as often as necessary and the related exercise in order to integrate and apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts explained there):

Introduction: Frame the subject of the IPM strategy by answering the questions posed in the course manual 9 – IPM strategy, questions specific to the IPM strategy. At this stage it is a macroscopic vision which will be clarified later by a more in-depth analysis. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Maturity transitions: For each subset identified, propose a transition between the current maturity of the IPM process and a maturity targeted in the short or medium term. What assets do you have to achieve this? What are the obstacles and risks? How do you plan to remove these obstacles and mitigate these risks? Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – testing your IPM strategy: Identify potential stakeholders in achieving the planned transitions for each subset. Choose a subset and plan a contact with a selection of its key interlocutors, either in a workshop, or during a bi-partite meeting, or in the form of a questionnaire. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Action plan review – testing your IPM strategy: Formalize and summarize stakeholder reactions. For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 9 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 9 – IPM strategy.
• Results of exercise 9 – IP strategy: transitions targeted by subset, conditions for the success of these transitions, realistic (not definitive) time horizon, rationale, acceleration factors, obstacles and risks, strategies for overcoming obstacles or mitigating risk.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outputs:

• Average competitive lead expressed in months, over a 5 to 7 year horizon.
• Target success rate, over a 5 to 7 year horizon. Associated assumptions.
• Skills to evolve the most in the next 4 years.
• Desired distribution between standard, differentiated and innovative offerings.
• Confirmation or adjustment of transitions targeted by subset.
• Confirmation or adjustment of conditions for success, time horizon, rationale, accelerating factors, obstacles, risks, strategies for circumventing obstacles or mitigating risks.
• Identification of stakeholders by subset.
• Focus on a particular sub-assembly: assessment of feedback from the field.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 10) – Storytelling

The storytelling component of the facilitated participatory communication process is materialized by a document entitled “Storytelling” structured as follows (consult course manual 10 – Storytelling and the related exercise as many times as necessary in order to integrate and apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts explained there):

Introduction: Tell an emblematic innovation story within your organization, reusing the result of exercise 10 – storytelling. If there is little or no history of past innovation, imagine and visualize a story of potential innovation in the future that illustrates your goals. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – telling an innovation story: Prepare and plan a co-creation workshop with the help of course manual 10 – storytelling, the writing workshop. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Action plan report – telling a story of innovation: Formalize the story co-constructed with the stakeholders of the writing workshop. For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 10 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 10 – storytelling.
• Results of exercise 10 – storytelling: story titles and rationales; desired scenarios; admissibility of stories; affinity groups; prioritized story; story development prioritized in 7 stages; positioning of the story according to the Ikigai reference system; versions of the story from several angles.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Leavers: One or more past or future innovation stories illustrating your goals.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 11) – Collaborative ecosystem

The collaborative ecosystem component of the involve sales process is materialized by a document entitled “Collaborative ecosystem” structured as follows (consult course manual 11 – collaborative ecosystem and the related exercise as often as necessary in order to integrate and to apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts explained there):

Introduction: Describe what you know about your organisation’s innovative ecosystem: partners, professional circles, focus groups of customers and prospects, level of involvement of the sales function, tools and any platforms. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – challenge an innovative initiative: Choose an innovative initiative and ask yourself the question of arbitrating between internal and external capacities, on all or part of the scope of the initiative. Identify the relevant stakeholders and plan an exchange with them on the subject. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Review of the action plan – challenging an innovative initiative: Describe the trade-offs made and their foreseeable consequences on the development of the initiative. Is pivoting planned? For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 11 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 11 – collaborative ecosystem.
• Results of exercise 11 – collaborative ecosystem: sources of information relating to potential assets, ranked from the first to the fourth circle; typical issues that can be addressed using these high-potential assets.
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outcomes:

• Description of the ecosystem. Confirmation or adjustment of the composition of the 4 circles.
• Innovative initiative selected to assess the potential contribution of an open innovation approach.
• Identification of the stakeholders for the evaluation of the selected innovative initiative.
• Evaluation findings.

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

---

Project study (Part 12) – Initial communication plan

The initial communication plan component of the facilitate participatory communication process is materialized by a document entitled “Initial communication plan” structured as follows (consult course manual 12 – initial communication plan and the related exercise as often as necessary in order to to integrate and apply to your production, by customizing them, the key concepts explained there):

Introduction: Formalize the result of exercise 12 – Initial communication plan. This constitutes a first version of the IPM communication plan. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop, and completed if necessary after collecting additional information in the field.

Action plan – bi-monthly communication plan: Roll out the communication plan over a 2-month horizon. Organize the production and distribution of the communications in question. Note: this work can be done directly at the end of the workshop.

Action plan review – bi-monthly communication plan: Formalize feedback from the first month of the plan. For the record, and in order to help you carry out your summary, the inputs and outputs of project study 12 are listed below.

Inputs:

• Course manual 12 – initial communication plan.
• Results of exercise 12 – initial communication plan: reasons for communicating, communication targets at 1 month, table of reasons-targets, list of targets by level of exposure (current, desired at 1 month, desired at 4 years).
• Information gathering and mobilization of stakeholders in the field.

Outcomes:

• Confirmation or adjustment of the reasons for communicating, the communication targets at 1 month, the reason-target table, and the list of targets by level of exposure (current, desired at 1 month, desired at 4 years).
• Execution of the communication plan at 1 month.
• Execution report.
• Provisional communication plan for the second month (will be amended after the second workshop).

Note: this work is to be carried out after your intervention in the field, therefore at the end of the cycle, before the next workshop.

At this stage, you have completed the formalization of your 12 headings. For the record, here is a summary view of your work, process by process.

---

Program Benefits