In my recent post about the adoption of analytics (or 'Why is Analytics so hard'). I referred to an innovation model that has been firing synapses in my brain since quite a while, so it's about time to blog on it:
![]()
There are a lot of models about innovation - since its the driver of mankind's progress. There are even fellow bloggers who have dedicated blogs to collect everything innovative coming about. A lot for work has also been done to formalize the innovation process and evaluate ongoing innovations. One model that IMHO sticks out, is the focus of Harvard's Christensen disruptive innovation model, as it differs between sustaining and disrupting innovation.
The problem with both models is - what kind of enterprise is an enterprise. I had discussions with Gartner on this way back then - e.g. an enterprise could be Type A in sales, but Type C in services. Which e.g.CRM system should the select?
The alternative is to go after the actual user of a new innovation. This is what I am proposing in the "Persona driven Innovation Model" (PDIM) below.
Why pick the persona / user metaphor? Because it makes it easier to assess innovation from an enterprise perspective. Let's remind ourselves that enterprises are not in the business of innovating per se -- but at deploying innovations to automate their enterprise processes. And enterprise processes are driven by users. So instead of pondering what kind of 'type' of company an enterprise is - or if they are a 'laggard' vs a 'fast follower' - just ask these questions:
![]()
Now lets put this into the ubiquitous quadrants:
![]()
And I have added two more elements - the 'S-Curve' which shows, how an innovation could migrate through the PDIM. Many innovations will not make it all the way, some of them have their right by themselves to stay in the bottom left quadrant or the bottom two quadrants (e.g. a compiler, a engineering tool etc), as they are only targeting technical users.
Moreover, the innovation will always have to cross the 'disruption zone' when moving from phase to phase - which is both an opportunity and a risk. The opportunity lies in the disruption of the market, the risk is, that there are significant hurdles to move the innovation forward - as it may never make it. Or it make take a very long time (e.g. Analytics in the hands of a business user).
Let's test the model with these innovations:
![]()
The next question for an enterprise would of course be - what do we want our users to do?
Probably most enterprises are happy to have their CAD / CAM systems only used by their technical experts (Phase 2). But maybe some of them want to give an easier to use version down to some trained business users, making it (Phase 3).
Or: Do we want to put analytical tools in the hands of business users? If the enterprise decides to do so - they create demand for moving from - in the example of analytics - from Phases 1/2 to 3. That demand is what vendors want to capitalize on and build for. Staying with the example - the vendor that will be successful to put analytical tools in the hands of business users - will win the 'holy grail' of analytics.
The vendor perspective
There are a lot of models about innovation - since its the driver of mankind's progress. There are even fellow bloggers who have dedicated blogs to collect everything innovative coming about. A lot for work has also been done to formalize the innovation process and evaluate ongoing innovations. One model that IMHO sticks out, is the focus of Harvard's Christensen disruptive innovation model, as it differs between sustaining and disrupting innovation.
 |
| Christensen, from WikiPedia |
This distinction is well applicable to enterprise software:
- Nobody today would argue that client server technology completely disrupted the enterprise software space. Lower Total-Cost-of-Ownership (TCO) weeded out mainframe based ERP vendors, SAP being the only survivor of the mainframe age of ERP systems.
- Likewise no one would argue that the Oracle relational database provided much necessary platform capability to the client server age.
- And nobody would discuss that e.g. SAP's Hana in memory database is a potential disruptive innovation.
But this is where the crux is... I am sure you will find smart people to argue passionately
- if e.g. SAP's Hana will disrupt the enterprise software space.
- Or even more who would argue that e.g. Blackberry10 will not disrupt they Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) market.
- Or are ARM processors will disrupt the PC market - or only supporting the tablet market?
And while discussions on this are entertaining, a vendor's success hinges on the success of creating and bringing to market an innovation - it remains unsatisfactory as the status or capability of the innovation remains in a grey zone.
How can you avoid the grey zone? Analyst companies like Gartner and Constellation Research Group have created company type innovation selection models. If you are a "Type A" company in Gartner's model, you will use more newer technologies - with all the potential risks and rewards associated to them. Similar Ray Wang at Constellation uses 4 different roles to characterize enterprises:
 |
| Constellation RG - more here |
The alternative is to go after the actual user of a new innovation. This is what I am proposing in the "Persona driven Innovation Model" (PDIM) below.
Why pick the persona / user metaphor? Because it makes it easier to assess innovation from an enterprise perspective. Let's remind ourselves that enterprises are not in the business of innovating per se -- but at deploying innovations to automate their enterprise processes. And enterprise processes are driven by users. So instead of pondering what kind of 'type' of company an enterprise is - or if they are a 'laggard' vs a 'fast follower' - just ask these questions:
- Is the innovation available for all our users - 'out of the box', no training needed? We are in Phase 4.
- Is it available for business users - but they need some training? That's Phase 3.
- Is it available for our trained technical users? Phase 2.
- Is it available for our technical experts (only)? And Phase 1.
Now lets put this into the ubiquitous quadrants:
And I have added two more elements - the 'S-Curve' which shows, how an innovation could migrate through the PDIM. Many innovations will not make it all the way, some of them have their right by themselves to stay in the bottom left quadrant or the bottom two quadrants (e.g. a compiler, a engineering tool etc), as they are only targeting technical users.
Moreover, the innovation will always have to cross the 'disruption zone' when moving from phase to phase - which is both an opportunity and a risk. The opportunity lies in the disruption of the market, the risk is, that there are significant hurdles to move the innovation forward - as it may never make it. Or it make take a very long time (e.g. Analytics in the hands of a business user).
Let's test the model with these innovations:
Probably most enterprises are happy to have their CAD / CAM systems only used by their technical experts (Phase 2). But maybe some of them want to give an easier to use version down to some trained business users, making it (Phase 3).
Or: Do we want to put analytical tools in the hands of business users? If the enterprise decides to do so - they create demand for moving from - in the example of analytics - from Phases 1/2 to 3. That demand is what vendors want to capitalize on and build for. Staying with the example - the vendor that will be successful to put analytical tools in the hands of business users - will win the 'holy grail' of analytics.
When utilizing PDIM in practice there will be different perspectives depending on being an enterprise or a vendor. Let's look at the key questions for each of them:
The enterprise perspective
- Assess what benefits innovations can bring to user groups, use persona to guide the project
- Will it be beneficial to move innovations to the next user group?
- Will that move disrupt your market and can you gain a competitive advantage from it?
The vendor perspective
- Can you make an innovation work on the technology at hand?
- What is the addressable market if you move that innovation along the S-Curve in the PDIM?
- Can you move it towards a new quadrant and not get disrupted yourself by technology challenges?