We have broken out our survey results by size of organization and compiled the results for all respondents reporting to have 100 or fewer employess; thus more related to the size of SMEs than the  overall survey results.

What we have found

1.  The biggest concerns lie with two factors which come under the heading of ‘idea management’; reward mechanisms for innovators  (F14), and the general availability of resources  (F19).

2. Of least concern are  risk tolerance in the planning process (F9), use of independent work groups (F11), the formality of the decision process (F13), tolerance for mavericks (F3), R&D budgets (F23), attitudes to mergers etc. (F16), and the role of employee organizations (F25).

3. For the balance of Factors, SMEs noted a significant difference between their ‘Ideal’ for each Factor and their own ‘Reality’, In terms of Factors , 3 of 4  Factors come under leadership,  4 of 8 Factors are under day-to-day management, and 4 of 6 Factors come under idea management practices.  Thus gaps in innovative performance surface in all 3 major topics covered by the survey. 

Most of the gaps are addressable by management by  carefully choosing the appropriate – not just one - enabling mechanisms.

If you would like further background information on the survey results for SMEs just follow the link above (survey results) and download the 4 pages. 

1. There is substantialconcern that innovation in India corporates is on the decline, that it is very difficult to retain ‘innovators’ and part of this may be that  there is little recognition given to the work of innovators. ‘Innovation Outcomes’; Factors;  24, 21, and 7. 

2. There is little use of independent work groups (one of the key identifiable management techniques of highly-innovative companies). Management is highly centralized with little encouragement of ideas from staff overall. ‘Day-to-day management’ approaches appear to be lacking; Factors;  11, 12, 18, and 20. 

3. There is every indication that tolerance on a  number of fronts is lacking; tolerance of failure, of mavericks,  and for variations from a corporate norm. ‘Idea management’; Factors  3, 5 and 8. 

In summary,  and  based on respondents input to date, India corporates appear to be highly centralized, make little use of the delegation  of authority and resonsibility, and demonstrate little tolerance – all characteriistics which are evident in highly-innovative companies in  the U.S., Canada, Japan, and Europe.  Perhaps these are the Factors which contribute to the negative ‘Innovation Outcomes’.

Further, it appears that employee organizations (see Factor 25)  are a major contributor to a lack of innovation in the country. 

In somewhat sharp contrast to the negativity implied by the above noted results, there was less concern with respect to leadership. Management’s were seen to have a balanced view on the attainment of profits (F#1), were calling for innovation (F#2),  seeking new opportunities (f#4) and were willing to entertain risk in the planning process (F#9).

Comments are most welcome, in particular the reference to employee organizations (F#25), and their negative impact on innovativeness.

Overall, we are not optimistic that RIM can survive in the current environment unless the real issues are addressed and quickly. So far there is little information from the company that the issues we have identified are being addressed and almost no information that the issues are understood let alone acted upon at this critical time. Stakeholders, particularly shareholders, deserve more than a ‘have-faith’ platitude.

A brief – 2-page – document  Download Starbucks Innovation Profile Only provides an outline of the range of innovation at Starbucks. Use this example to profile your own ‘spectrum of innovation’.