The Concept of Innovation
Innovation is an important factor in any business environment. It serves to determine the sustainability of business operations and the profit-making initiatives for the involved organization. The 21st century business environment is characterized by aggressive competition, and that shows the relevance of innovation. There is an increase in the ratio of the number of businesses per every given industry. Businesses that fail to adopt innovation as a strategy are most likely to succumb to the competition within the involved industries. The advent of technology has led to the enhancement of innovative ideas and activities. This has made organization growth be rendered increasingly challenging. In order to remain relevant in the market, they need to engage innovation as an internal growth strategy. [Click Essay Writer to order your essay]
Innovation refers to the ability to modify, improve, or create a product with an aim to serve or sustain the operations of the subject company. It refers to constant improvement of the products and services offered by any given organization. Successful organizations are the ones that reinforce growth and change within the operational dynamics (Innovation Tools, 2013). Innovation entails the improvement of a prevailing product or the creation of a completely new product. There are several factors which necessitate the need for innovation in the present-day corporate world.
Firstly, the 21st century business environment has marked an increasingly competitive environment. People are becoming desperate, as there are limits to innovation. Some people are opting to copy the structures of any patented products with the aim to get financial gains in the process. This means that people need to become innovative as they curtail the losses associated with the replication of such products. In addition to this, the consumer expectations have increased substantially (Dey, 2012). There is no defined period for which products can remain popular in markets in the 21st Century. For instance, people could find a product popular for a week might easily change in the week the follows. People no longer fancy products that have stayed in the market for too long. This is why innovation becomes a necessity for businesses to stay relevant in the modern markets. People have chosen to keep their innovation circles smaller choose innovative strategies that will address prevailing problems by the creation of new products.
How Organizations can Boost Innovation to enhance Competition
Even though many organizations strive to find ways of enhancing innovation, they are still faced with a range of challenges. The business environment is dynamic and that means the levels of innovation will have to be manipulated depending on the prevailing conditions. The innovations also have phases in which they are to be implemented. For instance, it could be successful in the initial phases then fail in the final steps. This uncertainty poses a major challenge to organizations in the business sector (Burrus, 2013). The innovation strategies address the need for convergence of employee priorities towards creativity and improvement. They also serve to identify the resources and processes to be engaged in innovative activities.
In order to remain competitive through innovation, there is a need for the establishment of a clear sense of direction. A clear sense of direction prevails on the goals of an organization and ways through such goals can be attained. A clear set of goals enhances the speed with which organization goals can be attained. Companies ought to identify and implement innovation as an important segment of the organization dynamics. To remain competitive, it is necessary for the indoctrination of the innovation culture in the organization operations. Once this culture is implemented through the clear innovative goals, the involved organizations efforts will be aligned towards the attainment of these goals (Canadian Dairy Commission, 2010). Also, there needs to be clarity on the ideas to be pursued with the aim of sustaining innovation in the organization.
Secondly, reinforcement of open communication greatly complements the initiatives that are aligned towards innovation. Open communication in an organization guarantees the identification of innovative niches. Every organization ought to establish a communication framework that allows the interaction between the management and the ordinary employees (Innovation Tools, 2013). In this case, the employees serve as scouts for the organization. They are conversant of the prevailing consumer demands and are privy to the opinions which are extended by the general public. Consequently, they are empowered to identify ways through which the company can align the creative talent available towards innovation.
The leaders of the subject organizations ought to encourage the forwarding of innovative ideas, and this can be done through idea sharing. The organization ought to provide forums and constant meetings that will provide opportunities for people to discuss and share ideas on innovation. This strategy will require the top management to make the first move and demonstrate they are willing to engage in open communication. It could achieve this by constantly engaging the employees to boost their confidence for the future encounters. In addition, the management should also be willing to accept information from the employees whether they are positive or negative (Agbor, 2008). In turn, the employees will be free to extend their opinions to the management which allows for the identification of innovative ideas which reinforce competitiveness.
Reduction of bureaucracies can greatly enhance the innovative initiatives of an organization. The internal systems of an organization determine the levels of innovation which are engaged. Bureaucracies have been known to impede innovative ideas and processes (Hornstein & Guerre, 2006). It slows down the implementation of innovative ideas given the need for different permissions from different segments in the organization. Furthermore, bureaucracies further discourage innovative thinking. In such cases, the employees are discouraged from pursuing innovative goals since their efforts often go unrecognized given the demands of organization bureaucracies. In an extreme bureaucratic setting, acknowledgements for the innovative are extended to the heads of departments and administrative bodies. This results in an environment in which the employees would have limited motivation to share their innovative ideas.
The speed of the implementation of a creative idea greatly influences future innovative ventures and thinking. When the implementation processes are longer, results of the idea will take longer to be manifested (Jamali, Khoury, & Sahyoun, 2006). This is communicated to the general employee as a lackluster of the management in approaching innovative ideas. Consequently, these individuals will not be challenged to review the market niches available in order to align the creative processes. For instance, if an innovation implementation process takes a duration of six months, the results will take longer to be experienced. This will discourage future innovative thinking among the employees.
The next step in enhancing competitiveness with innovation entails the instilling of a sense of ownership. Sense of ownership encourages loyalty and commitment to the betterment of the organization. When employees feel that they are part of the organization, they are likely to make a major contribution towards improving the efficiencies in the organization. A sense of ownership encourages the participation of the employees in the development projects of the organization. The phenomenon encourages the employee to align their efforts towards the attainment of organizational goals since they will also benefit from the same. Consequently, the employees will be more willing to engage creativity which serves to ease the operations of the business and encourage competitiveness (Burrus, 2013). Employee innovation ideas are boosted when they have an idea of how their efforts affect the organization.
To enhance a sense of ownership, the management has the role of showing the employees the importance of their efforts to the organization. This should include a demonstration that shows the indispensability of the contribution made by the employees. One of the best ways through which this can be accomplished is by demonstrating the benefits of their efforts to the company. With such an understanding, the employees are likely to develop an active attitude, which is beneficial for the company (Innovation Tools, 2013). This limits innovative thinking in the employees.
The use of recognition and rewards greatly influence the innovative activities in an organizational setting. Innovative ideas are a culmination of research, dexterity, and intrepidity. Given that the subject individual took their time to think about an idea and share it with the organization, they ought to be recognized and rewarded for their efforts (Dey, 2012). The reward initiatives should be aligned towards compensating the subject individual based on the degree of success that their idea brings. It should further reflect the investments that went into determining the innovative idea. Rewarding the responsible team through direct financial compensation or public acknowledgement fosters a competitive environment in the organization.
Competitiveness encourages innovative thinking, which results in more innovative ideas. This enables the subject corporation to sustain the innovation that is required to reinforce their competitiveness in the market. However, in rewarding innovative ideas, there is need for the determination of each individual and team efforts that were extended towards the development of the innovative ideas. Individual rewarding in a team framework discourages future co-operation which is essential in the development of innovative ideas. In unit performances, the entire team should be rewarded (Canadian Dairy Commission, 2010). In individual performances, the innovative party should be rewarded but so should all the other employees, albeit on a different degree.
Difference of Innovation between Multinationals and Small-to-midsize enterprises
Many organizations in the modern world acknowledge the need for innovation in enhancing operational efficiencies. However, innovation processes differ for large multinationals and small-to-midsize enterprises. Several factors enhance the innovative efficiencies of the multinationals above those of the small-to-midsize enterprises. Furthermore, the two levels of businesses project differences on the motivations for innovations and the bureaucratic processes engaged in the innovation processes. The large multinationals are aligned towards the supply-push theoretical approach in innovation. Alternatively, the small-to-midsize enterprises are aligned towards the demand-pull approach of innovation (Pisano, 2015). [Need an essay writing service? Find help here.]
In addition, innovations in large multinationals are a culmination of extensive research, which is supported by the large research funds available to the corporations. This enhances the efficiencies of the innovations that are developed by the large multinationals. Large market research demands significant financial research. The researches serve the purpose of identifying the current consumer preferences and the prevailing data on market trends. This is not always affordable to the small and middle size enterprises. Furthermore, large multinational innovations employ the use of several experts, which further enhances the efficiencies of the innovation ideas brought up (Oracle, 2012). The engagement of diverse stakeholders allows for the determination of efficient innovation tools that can be employed to enhance competitiveness in the market.
Innovation in the large multinationals are aligned towards the integration of advanced technology. The need for technological innovation in the large multinational is often intended to enhance internal processes. For instance, large IT multinational companies are aligned towards the need to develop innovations that will serve the purposes of protecting their data rather than competing with other companies (Chen & Ching-Fang, 2005). Unlike, multinationals, the SMEs are aligned towards the engagement of technologies that reinforce their competitiveness in the market. The employ of technological components is often intended to respond to the needs of an increased clientele. Essentially, the innovations engaged by SMEs are not intended for internal growth but rather as a response to external pressures.
Also, the innovation processes engaged by large multinationals are aligned towards the creation of new tools to be used to ease various consumer processes. However, the innovations engaged by small and middle size companies are aligned towards the improvement of existing innovations in order to enhance the competitiveness of the subject corporation. Large multinationals have a market share that is larger than the average enterprise (Chen & Ching-Fang, 2005). They boast a loyal client base and do not struggle to make an impact in the market. Instead, they are committed towards the improvement of the services extended to the clients. Therefore, this leads to the introduction of new innovative tools.
Alternatively, the SME innovation strategies are intended to secure an increased clientele in the market. Consequently, and courtesy of the fact that they boast limited research and innovation funds, these companies are forced to engage in the modification of prevailing technologies. Improvement of the prevailing innovations is however subject to several challenges given the patent and copyright legal policies. Innovations in the large multinationals are constantly reviewed in order to enhance their efficiencies. This phenomenon is a reflection of the priorities of the large multinationals which are aligned towards the constant updating of the prevailing innovations. SMEs are more inclined towards the identification of other innovative resources rather than the improvement of the prevailing innovations within the company (Oracle, 2012). Essentially, rather than maintaining and customizing the prevailing innovations in employ, SME’s are more inclined towards the engagement of new innovations which do not require extensive research. This strategy is efficient in the mitigation of the costs that are committed to the innovative strategies in the corporation. [“Write my essay for me?” Get help here.]
Innovation processes engaged by large multinationals are intended to respond to the future preferences of the consumers. This strategy is an extension of the supply-push theoretical approach which reinforces the needed for innovation which will serve to create a market. The 21st century business environment is filled with aggressive consumers who are more demanding that was the case in the past. Consequently, their demands change over time based on different environmental, psychological and social conditions. Consequently, large multinationals in order to sustain the client base that they are subject to, increasingly engage in the development of innovations that address the future demands (Chen & Ching-Fang, 2005). For instance, the Google corporation often engages in the development of new age technological advancements. The introduction of the green cars which do not employ fuel is an allusion to the future demands in the automobile sector. It is further an attempt to preempt environmental degradation which will comprise one of the major concerns in the future.
In conclusion, the need for innovation in the prevailing business environment cannot be overstated. More companies are integrating innovation frameworks in order to remain competitive. The need for innovation is inspired by the constantly changing consumer preferences. Likewise, the 21st century has seen an increase of business per industry ratios which significantly increase the competition levels. In order to remain relevant companies are compelled to engage several innovation strategies which are intended to reinforce their competitiveness in the business markets. In order to augment their competitiveness, organizations ought to determine specific set of goals which address the need for constant innovation. They should provide open communication, determine efficient payment reward systems, and the reduction of bureaucracies that hamper innovation. Alternatively, large multinationals and small and middle-size businesses project several differences with regards to innovative processes. These differences are a culmination of the financial resource differences between the corporations.
Agbor, E. (2008). Creativity and Innovation: The Leadership Dynamics. Journal of Strategic Leadership, 1(1), 39-45.
Chen, H., & Ching-Fang, W. (2005). A Comparative Analysis of SMEs and Large Companies in Relation to Integration Technologies Adoption. Fifth International Conference on Electronic Business, (pp. 839-848 ). Hong Kong.
Dey, D. R. (Ed.). (2012, November ). Innovation in Organisations. American Psychological Society, 1-29.
Hornstein, H. A., & Guerre, D. W. (2006). Bureaucratic organizations are bad for our health. Ivey Business Journal Online, 1-4.
Innovation Tools. (2013). 7 Strategies for Sustained Innovation.
Jamali, D., Khoury, G., & Sahyoun, H. (2006). From bureaucratic organizations to learning organizations: An evolutionary roadmap. The Learning Organization, 13 (4), 337-352.
Oracle, P. (2012). How to drive innovation and business growth: Leveraging emerging technology for sustainable growth. PWC Oracle, 1-10.
Pisano, G. P. (2015, June). You Need an Innovation Strategy.