[#strategy - 02] Corporate Innovation appetite.

What you find on the left is the word RISK written in Chinese. This word is made up of two characters, danger and opportunity. It expresses the very sense of risk. The more you risk, the higher the return of investment you expect. If you want to risk less and invest your energy (money, people, whatever), you’ll also expect less return.
I think it’s the very same with innovation.
Since the beginning of the global crisis, the competition in almost any market has focused on resistance strategies. That has actually meant spending best efforts to make efficiency (cost cutting, improving processes, etc). In many cases that hasn’t been enough and laying off people followed. There probably must be some limit to the efficiency you can do.
My view is that concretely investing in innovation is not an option anymore, if you want to differentiate your value proposition in your market and set up the present and future business for your company, your customers, your working people.
The point is that chances to make mistakes are high and the formerly spread innovation model, based on a closed and strictly R&D approach, is not affordable anymore, because it typically requires monolithic investments. The Open Innovation paradigm is more than an option.
Plus, the startup movement has long grown up over the point in which it’s become systemic. It offers the great opportunity to in-source marketing analysis and innovation value very cheaply, according to a scalable and affordable model.
That doesn’t mean you should dismiss your R&D, of course. My suggestion is that you set up your corporate innovation portfolio, differentiating with both, incremental and disruptive contents, in terms of potential impact and affordable feasibility. 

The more you’ll invest in disruptive innovation, the higher the potential value (impact or plausible benefits) you’ll create for your company. But the lower the likelihood to succeed. That means choosing ideas located in the bottom-right corner of your matrix.
You can compensate such investments with some being less risky, I mean those (located at the top-left corner) having more chances to get to concrete business.
Innovation appetite is related not only to your entrepreneurial attitude, but also to your actual and current possibility to invest in innovation opportunities. What I propose here is to use such elementary model to express it and help yourself build a balanced portfolio of incremental and disruptive innovation and to focus your energy only on the ideas that properly fit with your innovation appetite.

[#innovation - 12] Objectifying (as much as possible) the potential value of an idea.

Ok, you have some ideas. Now what?

Ideally, it would be fantastic if the proposer were already able to tell you something like: this project will need €1mln of initial investment and will take 3 years to pay you back with a 30% Internal Rate of Return.

Having such awareness would require a business case to be developed.

Numbers sound so comfortable when you navigate in a sea of uncertainty.

But, let’s suppose we can have very little clues about financials.

This means you cannot base your preliminary evaluation on quantitative criteria and you’ll have to base your estimate on qualitative ones.

Does it make you feel uncomfortable?

Even if a qualitative evaluation will necessarily be less precise … having common sense, shareable, well expressed a priori criteria will be surprisingly concrete.

When we have to evaluate many ideas, having a way to map them will help you to understand which of them will deserve your main attention. I mean prioritize.

Let’s talk about 2 main drivers.

The most important proposals will be those declaring the most plausible benefts and requiring the most affordable feasibility.

The potential impact (benefits) is related to:

    •The concreteness of the pretended market demand. Is the target well clear? Do you believe, based upon your experiece, that the demand  really exist? That means there is someone ready to give credit and pay some money to have the value you promise them.

    •More, what is the innovation content of that idea? Is it disruptive or incremental?  The more disruptive, the higheer the potential value; but only if the idea makes sense and you truly believe there might be a demand.

The stage of development is about the level of maturity of the idea in terms of its feasibility. How easy is it to be concretely realized by the team working on it? Is that team well balanced in terms of needed competence? Does it take to catch up on some competence and/or resource they lack?

Having to qualify those drivers (benefits and feasibility), according to a 1 to 9 range, will help you to classify ideas into three subsets: low, medium, high potential impact. The same will be for the maturity.

As raw this model might seem, you will appreciate its value when you’ll have to merge several contemporary evaluations, which might come from your cooperators, and when you’ll have to compare the qualitative value of several proposals.

What you get, in the end, is a map which can be read according to hyperbolic curves.

Any idea might have some good potential and probably it can be difficult to definitely say an idea is a good or a bad one. But now you can more easily say which ideas are more appealing, based on your evaluation criteria. And which ones are less valuable. 
You can also tell which ideas are the ones you’ll focus more now. And which ones you’ll focus on tomorrow.