Seven Dimensions Of Strategic Innovation Framework And Case Example Of Dyson Ltd Essay.

Discuss about  seven dimensions of strategic innovation framework.

In order to remain competitive within an industry and targeted markets, it is essential for the organizations to innovate in its products and processes. Due to this, the firms also able to improve their marketing position in the industry. Strategic innovation is an approach that helps the firms to bring together their creative assets, capabilities and disciplines in order to develop the product and service portfolios and to drive the organizational growth in the industry (Keathley, Merrill and Owens, 2013). This paper critically discusses the seven dimensions of strategic innovation framework with the help of case example of Dyson Ltd. It is one of the innovation organizations of UK, which designs and manufactures vacuum cleaners, hand dryers, bladeless fans, and heater. The company is effectively known for its innovations in the cleaning and heaters products in the world, which enables it to achieve competitive growth in the technology industry (Dyson, 2016).

According to Daft and Albers (2013), the first dimension of strategic innovation framework is related to the managed innovation process, which includes the sequence of activities from the beginning of initiative through implementation. At Dyson, the adoption of this dimension helps it to make a simple brainstorming session in order to identify the pros and cons of a concept or idea of innovation. In this support, it is also analysed that at Dyson, the innovation process combines both unconventional and traditional elements, which include customers, market trends and competitive analysis. It helps the firm to make strategic thinking about the new innovation idea (Dyson, 2016). Through this, the firms enable to explore the other areas of innovation such as new ways to work with the external partners, communication with customers and enable faster time-to-market.

On the other hand, it is analysed that the managed innovation process dimension plays a critical role in developing the core of strategic innovation within the firms. Similarly, it is found that at Dyson, the managed innovation process helps the firm to develop the core of strategic innovation. It provides the directions to the firm about the creation of innovation in the products and achieves competitive growth in the market (Skarzynski and Gibson, 2013). But, at the same time, this dimension forces the firm to think about all possible perspectives that consume more time and costs of the firm, which negatively affect its profitability. But, due team-based dimension, it helps the firm’s employees to enhance their knowledge and skills related to the specific field by attending workshop sessions (Burdon and Dovey, 2015). It helps the firm to generate a new and innovative idea for product innovation.

Strategic Alignment

In the strategic innovation framework, the strategic alignment dimension helps the firms to build support for the new innovation idea. It is analysed that the strategic alignment dimension enables Dyson to engage senior management team, make a broad cross-section of the organisation and engage key external stakeholders in the development of shared vision for the new innovation idea. Through this, the firm also enables to create ownership, commitment and takes investment decisions to build a strong foundation for the successful implementation of newly created innovation idea (George, McGahan and Prabhu, 2012).

But, in contrast to this, it is analysed that for this dimension, the firm needs to select a cross-functional team of visionary, energetic change agents, future leaders and inspired individual in the management team in order to successfully implement the change idea. In this, sometimes, firm faces issues in selecting the right candidates for the leadership team (Frankenberger, et al., 2013). In concern to Dyson, in order to drive the growth, the firm effectively uses the strategic alignment dimension by improving the resources allotment practices and assigning the roles and responsibilities in new ways in order to influence different departments to work together on the single innovation idea (Dyson, 2016).

But, in order to build support for the new innovative idea, it is essential for the firm to engage all the stakeholders in appropriate ways with suitable frequency. In this, the brainstorming session does not help the firm to access the creativity of stakeholders towards the new innovative idea.

According to Andersen and Andersen (2014), industry foresight dimension of strategic innovation framework mainly concerns over the changes and improves the detailed understanding to the people within the firm about the trends that are new to the business. It is found that through industry foresight, Dyson effectively analyses the grounds of its innovation and the success rate of innovation in the market, which enables the firm to improve its innovation process and achieve success in the market. In support of this, Keller, Markmann and Heiko (2015) depict that the industry foresight dimension believes that different industries have different drivers, trends, enablers and dislocations, which help the firms to operate their business activities significantly. From this, it is analysed that industries have their own boundaries and limitations and the consideration of these limitations help them to introduce new perspectives, challenge established thinking, potential growth opportunities, new businesses, and innovative business models in order to drive growth.

Industry Foresight

On the other hand, Van der Duin, Heger and Schlesinger (2014) exhibit that through industry foresight, a firm is also enabled to develop its proprietary view of the future that support it to develop its leadership and visionary participation strategies in the market. In a similar way, it is analysed that this dimension helps Dyson to consider the industry trends and develop the effective innovation that is beneficial in achieving customer recognition and competitive advantages in the market.

The consideration and adoption of customer insight dimension provide the detailed understanding about the needs of customers within the industry. It enables the firms to produce new and innovative products according to the needs of customers. It also helps the firms to enhance the popularity of new innovative product and services among the customers that significantly drive their growth in the market (Yen, et al., 2012). In the views of Greer and Lei (2012), customer insight is one of the effective dimensions of strategic innovation framework because it provides the understanding about the behaviour, attitude, perception and needs of customers. Through this, a firm can make better product development process that ensures their product success in the market.

In support of this, Brunswicker and Vanhaverbeke (2015) define that customer responses, in new product development, help the firms to improve the product concept as well as strengthen the packaging and adverting strategies. Through this, firms enable to communicate the new product categories that drive their growth in the market. It is also evaluated that the adoption of customer insight approach, Dyson enables to effectively involve customers as a true partner in the innovation process, which supports it to enhance the effectiveness of innovation process and get an innovative product that satisfies the needs of customers significantly (Dyson, 2016). But, at the same time, Bucolo, Wrigley and Matthews (2012) state that in the strategic innovation process, the insights of customers is not only the ways to improve the product or service innovation, but also the consideration of other stakeholders such as suppliers, employees, investors, partners and early adopter non-users also play important role in product development and innovation within the firm.

The next dimension of strategic innovation framework is related to the core technology and competencies, which is effectively used by Dyson to leverage its assets. It is analysed that the understanding of core technology and capabilities help the management team to implement the innovation process effectively. It is because, through this, management team enable to identify the capabilities, competencies, and resources, which support the management and leadership to effectively implement the innovation process to produce new and innovative products for the customers (Bergek, etal., 2013). In support of this, Kindstrom and Kowalkowski (2014) exhibit that the understanding of the company’s core technology and competencies provide the detailed knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses, which significantly support the firm to increase its ability to leverage and achieve competitive differentiation in the market.

Customer Insights

In support of this, Eisenman (2013) states that Dyson significantly uses the new and innovative technology in order to develop the better relationship with the suppliers, partners, brand equity, and innovation practices. Through this, the firm effectively enhances its innovation process and provide the growth to the innovation management practices to achieve competitive advantages. In this concern, it can be said that the knowledge and understanding of core competencies and technology are essential for Dyson in terms of identifying the internal weaknesses as well as strengths to effectively leverage the corporate assets. Through this, the firm also enables to develop the long-term relationship with the different stakeholders to provide growth to the innovation (Mobley, Li and Wang, 2012).

At Dyson, organisational readiness is one of the dimensions that drive the firm’s growth in the market. It is found that at Dyson, the clear understanding of the organisational readiness help the firm to improve its ability to act upon the implemented innovative ideas and strategies. Through this, the firm also enables to enhance its abilities to fulfil the political, cultural, operational and financial demand during the strategies innovation process (Roos and O'Connor, 2015). But, on the other hand, Chaudoir, Dugan and Barr (2013) depict that sometimes, the organisations may unable to implement the innovation process even with the most inspired vision, innovative products and funding. It is because most of the firm heavily invested their time and money in the newly identified growth opportunities that reduce the effectiveness of their innovative products and financial funding in the industry.

In oppose to this, Choudrie and Middleton (2013) state that at Dyson, the company mainly focuses on the three dimensions along with the organisational readiness such as culture, structural and operational readiness, which enable the firm to make innovation on the basis of culture and operational capabilities. Through this, Dyson effectively produces the innovative products that satisfy the needs and wants of customers in their daily life. For example, for innovating Air Multiplier, the structural readiness supported Dyson to adopt latest technology as well as flexibility. Through this, the firm was also enabled to allocate available resources to qualified staff that enhanced the firm’s innovation capabilities (Dyson, 2016).   

In the views of Cresswell and Sheikh (2013), in the strategic innovation, the term implementation involves the wide range of activities that support the organisation to involve all the stakeholders in the innovation process, technical product development, design and prototyping, both qualitative and quantitative testing, and establish feedback for continuous improvements in innovation process. In support of this, Bucherer, Eisert and Gassmann (2012) define that in the strategic innovation framework, the disciplined implementation model has high-level elements such as implementation skill sets and mindsets, momentum, a formal project management approach, and an understanding of organisational priority. These elements support the firms to implement strategic innovation initiatives in a better way.

Core Technology and Competencies

In concern to Dyson, the firm’s improved capacity helps the management to effectively implement the strategic innovation ideas that provide the competitive advantages to the firm. It also enables the firm to ensure its growth in the competitive business environment (Dyson, 2016). But, in contrast to this, Kindstrom and Kowalkowski (2014) state that sometimes, the lack of effective skills and knowledge among the employees and management team members create issues in implementing strategic innovation process within the firm. It negatively affects the resources as well as strategic thinking of firm that relatively reduce the firm’s competitive advantage in the market.

So, it can be said that the consideration of strategic innovation framework supports Dyson to generate the strategic innovation ideas and implement these ideas to produce innovative products for the customers. It also helps the firm to ensure its growth in the technology and competitive business environment.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the seven dimensions of strategic innovation framework help Dyson to innovate new products and services to the customers and achieve competitive advantages by implementing these ideas. Different dimension provides the guidance to the firm from generating the innovation ideas to implement these ideas to achieve success. It can also be concluded that the adoption of strategic innovation framework supports the firm to involve structured approach to innovation that significantly helps the firm to create an effective organisational platform for ongoing and sustainable innovation.

References

Andersen, A. D. and Andersen, P. D. (2014) Innovation system foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, pp. 276-286.

Bergek, A., Berggren, C., Magnusson, T. and Hobday, M. (2013) Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?. Research Policy, 42(6), pp. 1210-1224.

Brunswicker, S. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015) Open Innovation in Small and Mediumâ€ÂSized Enterprises (SMEs): External Knowledge Sourcing Strategies and Internal Organizational Facilitators. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), pp. 1241-1263.

Bucherer, E., Eisert, U. and Gassmann, O. (2012) Towards systematic business model innovation: lessons from product innovation management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), pp. 183-198.

Bucolo, S., Wrigley, C. and Matthews, J. (2012) Gaps in Organizational Leadership: Linking Strategic and Operational Activities through Designâ€ÂLed Propositions. Design Management Journal, 7(1), pp. 18-28.

Burdon, S. and Dovey, K. A. (2015) Exploring the cultural basis of innovation. Journal of Innovation Management, 3(3), pp. 20-34.

Chaudoir, S. R., Dugan, A. G. and Barr, C. H. (2013) Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci, 8(1), pp. 22.

Choudrie, J. and Middleton, C. (2013) Management of Broadband Technology and Innovation: Policy, Deployment, and Use. UK: Routledge.

Cresswell, K. and Sheikh, A. (2013) Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: an interpretative review. International journal of medical informatics, 82(5), pp. e73-e86.

Daft, J. and Albers, S. (2013) A conceptual framework for measuring airline business model convergence. Journal of Air Transport Management, 28, pp. 47-54.

Dyson (2016) About Us. [Online]. Available at https://www.dyson.co.uk/community/aboutdyson.aspx [Accessed: 12 March 2016].

Eisenman, M. (2013) Understanding aesthetic innovation in the context of technological evolution. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), pp. 332-351.

Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., Csik, M. and Gassmann, O. (2013) The 4I-framework of business model innovation: A structured view on process phases and challenges. International Journal of Product Development, 18(3-4), pp. 249-273.

George, G., McGahan, A. M. and Prabhu, J. (2012) Innovation for inclusive growth: Towards a theoretical framework and a research agenda. Journal of management studies, 49(4), pp. 661-683.

Greer, C. R. and Lei, D. (2012) Collaborative innovation with customers: a review of the literature and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), pp. 63-84.

Keathley, J., MerrilL, P. and Owens, T. (2013) The Executive Guide to Innovation: Turning Good Ideas Into Great Results. USA: ASQ Quality Press.

Keller, J., Markmann, C. and Heiko, A. (2015) Foresight support systems to facilitate regional innovations: A conceptualization case for a German logistics cluster. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 97, pp. 15-28.

Kindström, D. and Kowalkowski, C. (2014) Service innovation in product-centric firms: A multidimensional business model perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 29(2), pp. 96-111.

Mobley, W. H., Li, M. and Wang, Y. (2012) Advances in Global Leadership. UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Roos, G. and O'Connor, A. (2015) Integrating Innovation: South Australian Entrepreneurship Systems and Strategies. Australia: University of Adelaide Press.

Skarzynski, P. and Gibson, R. (2013) Innovation to the core: A blueprint for transforming the way your company innovates. UK: Harvard Business Press.

Van der Duin, P., Heger, T. and Schlesinger, M. D. (2014) Toward networked foresight? Exploring the use of futures research in innovation networks. Futures, 59, pp. 62-78.

Yen, H. R., Wang, W., Wei, C. P., Hsu, S. H. Y. and Chiu, H. C. (2012) Service innovation readiness: Dimensions and performance outcome. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), pp. 813-824.