InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Why innovate

Innovation provides a source of competitive advantage Whether through

incremental new developments to a product or a big leap forward innovation

involves the creation selection and efficient delivery of new ideas to allow

companies to outperform their competitors by being the quickest and smartest

to grasp new technological opportunities create unique propositions and

deliver compelling new products and services

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation is significant in both good times and bad In times of economic growth

new ideas products and services are the lifeblood of sustained increases in revenue

and profitability In a recession innovation is no longer an option to add value and

deliver competitive advantage but a core means of survival in an increasingly

selective market

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation affects the organization as well as financial performance A company with

a creative culture and a motivated workforce sends a positive message to the outside

world and attracts the best people

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation also influences the external environment Through the impact on

customers suppliers and sub contractors innovation success within a firm promotes

and encourages more innovation outside (eg founding new companies by ex-employees

new ventures relocation of a partner or supplier into the local area)

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation performance

There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in

share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable

indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation

Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of

assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large

multinationals tend to dominate

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage

of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this

carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput

ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent

output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a

percentage ofsales

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that

apply to help one

company be a more effective innovator than another

The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined

band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does

not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being

outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector

that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger

companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than

their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a

more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is

certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the

automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are

better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in

their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts

Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but

geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of

investment andcompany size

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Why innovate

Innovation provides a source of competitive advantage Whether through

incremental new developments to a product or a big leap forward innovation

involves the creation selection and efficient delivery of new ideas to allow

companies to outperform their competitors by being the quickest and smartest

to grasp new technological opportunities create unique propositions and

deliver compelling new products and services

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation is significant in both good times and bad In times of economic growth

new ideas products and services are the lifeblood of sustained increases in revenue

and profitability In a recession innovation is no longer an option to add value and

deliver competitive advantage but a core means of survival in an increasingly

selective market

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation affects the organization as well as financial performance A company with

a creative culture and a motivated workforce sends a positive message to the outside

world and attracts the best people

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation also influences the external environment Through the impact on

customers suppliers and sub contractors innovation success within a firm promotes

and encourages more innovation outside (eg founding new companies by ex-employees

new ventures relocation of a partner or supplier into the local area)

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation performance

There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in

share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable

indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation

Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of

assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large

multinationals tend to dominate

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage

of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this

carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput

ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent

output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a

percentage ofsales

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that

apply to help one

company be a more effective innovator than another

The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined

band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does

not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being

outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector

that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger

companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than

their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a

more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is

certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the

automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are

better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in

their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts

Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but

geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of

investment andcompany size

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation is significant in both good times and bad In times of economic growth

new ideas products and services are the lifeblood of sustained increases in revenue

and profitability In a recession innovation is no longer an option to add value and

deliver competitive advantage but a core means of survival in an increasingly

selective market

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation affects the organization as well as financial performance A company with

a creative culture and a motivated workforce sends a positive message to the outside

world and attracts the best people

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation also influences the external environment Through the impact on

customers suppliers and sub contractors innovation success within a firm promotes

and encourages more innovation outside (eg founding new companies by ex-employees

new ventures relocation of a partner or supplier into the local area)

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation performance

There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in

share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable

indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation

Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of

assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large

multinationals tend to dominate

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage

of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this

carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput

ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent

output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a

percentage ofsales

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that

apply to help one

company be a more effective innovator than another

The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined

band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does

not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being

outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector

that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger

companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than

their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a

more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is

certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the

automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are

better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in

their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts

Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but

geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of

investment andcompany size

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation affects the organization as well as financial performance A company with

a creative culture and a motivated workforce sends a positive message to the outside

world and attracts the best people

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation also influences the external environment Through the impact on

customers suppliers and sub contractors innovation success within a firm promotes

and encourages more innovation outside (eg founding new companies by ex-employees

new ventures relocation of a partner or supplier into the local area)

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation performance

There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in

share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable

indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation

Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of

assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large

multinationals tend to dominate

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage

of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this

carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput

ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent

output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a

percentage ofsales

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that

apply to help one

company be a more effective innovator than another

The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined

band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does

not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being

outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector

that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger

companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than

their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a

more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is

certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the

automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are

better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in

their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts

Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but

geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of

investment andcompany size

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation also influences the external environment Through the impact on

customers suppliers and sub contractors innovation success within a firm promotes

and encourages more innovation outside (eg founding new companies by ex-employees

new ventures relocation of a partner or supplier into the local area)

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation performance

There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in

share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable

indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation

Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of

assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large

multinationals tend to dominate

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage

of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this

carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput

ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent

output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a

percentage ofsales

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that

apply to help one

company be a more effective innovator than another

The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined

band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does

not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being

outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector

that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger

companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than

their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a

more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is

certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the

automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are

better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in

their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts

Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but

geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of

investment andcompany size

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation performance

There are many ways of comparing the performance of one company (growth in

share price market capitalization price-earnings (PE) ratios) but few are reliable

indicators of corporate growth derived from innovation

Number of patents granted per annum or new product output is one way of

assessing innovative performance but this measurement means that large

multinationals tend to dominate

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage

of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this

carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput

ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent

output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a

percentage ofsales

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that

apply to help one

company be a more effective innovator than another

The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined

band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does

not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being

outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector

that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger

companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than

their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a

more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is

certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the

automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are

better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in

their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts

Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but

geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of

investment andcompany size

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipAnnual research and development (RampD) expenditure as a percentage

of companyrevenue is a second means of evaluating innovativeness but this

carries with it asector bias (eg pharmaceuticals invest more than automotives)Innovation Indextrade is the most effective approach using an inputoutput

ratio Ittakes into account company size revenue RampD investment and patent

output Innovation Indextrade = number of patents per employeeRampD as a

percentage ofsales

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that

apply to help one

company be a more effective innovator than another

The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined

band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does

not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being

outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector

that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger

companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than

their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a

more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is

certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the

automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are

better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in

their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts

Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but

geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of

investment andcompany size

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Innovation Index implicationsThere are clear commonalities across sectors in the influences that

apply to help one

company be a more effective innovator than another

The level of investment correlating with higher innovation performance is a defined

band of RampD intensity differing from sector to sector Being within the bands does

not guarantee innovation leadership but is clearly a contributing factor Being

outside whether above or below certainly seems to have little benefit

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector

that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger

companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than

their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a

more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is

certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the

automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are

better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in

their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts

Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but

geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of

investment andcompany size

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation Leadership

Company size With the exceptions of Microsoft and Unisys in the software sector

that both pay specific attention to creating the small company feel the larger

companies do seem to find it more difficult to be a top innovation performer than

their smaller competitors Being smaller does not imply that a company will be a

more effective innovator but it can be a positive influence

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is

certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the

automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are

better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in

their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts

Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but

geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of

investment andcompany size

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipHome geography Again this does not guarantee success but is

certainly a potentialdriver Where they all compete on largely equal terms such as in the

automotivechemical and life science sectors Japanese and Korean firms are

better innovatorsthan US and Canadian companies who are in turn more effective in

their use andleverage of RampD investment than their European counterparts

Relatively poorperforming companies show that this is not a clear division but

geography doesgenerally seem to have a more significant impact than both level of

investment andcompany size

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Over the past 20 years there have been three main waves of innovation each identifiable by a differing strategic emphasis These have impacted all aspects of a companyrsquos operations

Phase 1 1980ndash1986 Putting the basics in place

1048713 A rise in the number range and type of new products available through consumerdemand new technologies and market growth demanded formulating a productstrategy as an element of the overall corporate vision

1048713 Technology transfer A need arose for companies to access specific newtechnologies that could give them competitive advantage through networking andpartnering with external sources or recruiting of experienced employees

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

Innovation LeadershipInnovation LeadershipEvolution of innovation capability

Phase 2 1987ndash1993 Globalization and acceleration

1048713 Identifying and exploiting a companyrsquos core competences to the full for creation of new business became a key issue for many

1048713 Supplier partnerships ndash improving alliances with vendors and customers improvedthe efficiency of both development and production processesPhase 3 1994ndash1999 Focus and integration

1048713 Successful integration of RampD with overall business strategy helped improvetechnology application

1048713 Competitor collaboration ndash short- and long-term strategic alliances for information sharing came into place

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1

InnovationInnovation LeadershipLeadership

Rene A RosenthalMicrosite mobileFounder amp CEO

Part 1