1

Graduation Committee Chair: Prof. R. Curran - TU Delft First Supervisor: Dr. D. Hartmann - TU Delft Second Supervisor: Dr. L.M. Kamp - TU Delft Company Supervisor: Ir. H. Lucas - KLM

A Roadmap for Innovation Organizing the Implementation Process: from

Adoption to Diffusion

By Jennifer Adriansjah

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in: Construction Management and Engineering.

At the Delft University of Technology, January 2017.

At the Delft University of Technology, January 2017.

2

To my parents and grandparents. For their unconditional support and love.

Thank you for always supporting me.

3

Preface

Before you lies the thesis: A Roadmap for Innovation; organizing the innovation process, from adoption

to diffusion. The basis of which is a research on innovation projects, that need to be implemented

within the organization. An implementation manual that guides you through this implementation

process is therefore enclosed in this manual. Additionally, this thesis is also the end of a period of hard

work at the end of my master Construction Management and Engineering at Delft University of

Technology. To reach this achievement, I received a lot of support from people I would like to thank

here.

The project was undertaken at the request of Air France Industries KLM Engineering & Maintenance,

where I undertook a graduation internship. Firstly, I would like to thank my company supervisor Hans

Lucas for always finding time for me. Meetings with you were always full of energy. Your positive

attitude has been a great contribution to my entire internship. Furthermore, I would like to thank the

other employees of KLM to make me feel one of them.

Secondly, I would like to thank my graduation committee for steering me in the right direction and

providing me with useful feedback. I would like to thank Dap Hartmann for the inspiring meetings. I

would like to thank Linda Kamp for her critical reading and feedback. Ricky Curran, I would like to thank

for giving me new insights during the official meetings.

At last, I would like to thank my family and friends for their encouragements. Additionally, I would like

to thank my MRO Talent Buddy and hockey team and for the distraction during this final part of my

student life.

Jennifer Adriansjah

Delft, January 2017

4

“Good ideas are not enough.”

5

Abstract

Since innovation is a complex, company-wide endeavor it requires many practices and processes to

structure and organize it. Due to insufficient implementation, many projects are stuck in the innovation

process for a certain period. This results in innovation projects that are not set into practice.

Previous research shows a lack of an approach that guides an innovation project in a structured way

through the implementation phase of the innovation process. Besides, criteria are identified to

determine when an innovation project is ready for the implementation. Additionally, criteria need to

be identified that conclude if the implementation of the innovation project was effective. If so, the

innovation project is ready for confirmation within the organization.

In the first part of this thesis, possible options to integrate the implementation criteria and strategy in

a generic way were researched. It turned out that an agile-based framework which combines project

management elements with a Stage-Gate structure and an agile based strategy shows most potential.

This ensures that the implementation process will be managed step-by-step. Next, implementation

criteria were researched. Adoption criteria and diffusion criteria were therefore identified. For the

Adoption Gate, the following criteria were identified: employees must be competent enough to work

with the innovation project, employees must enjoy working with the innovation project and

employees must get relative advantage out of working with the innovation project. For the Diffusion

Gate the following criteria were identified: the innovation project must have shown a positive impact

on the organisation and job activities of an employee. Furthermore, the innovation project must be

consistent with the values of the organisation. Additionally, different agile-based strategies were

researched. A hybrid strategy to implement projects that uses Scrum and Kanban elements is most

promising.

Thereafter, an analysis to investigate the gap between the desired and actual level of performance of

the implementation process was conducted. It turned out that capacity and ownership were the most

mentioned barriers. Analyzing the implementation process of currently running, successful and failed

innovation projects show that innovation projects that were implemented on an agile way were most

successful.

The tool that is designed to provide the implementation process with more guidance and structure is

the Innovation Roadmap Manual. The designed manual briefly describes the agile principles and

organizational practices. Additionally the Innovation Roadmap is included, and consists of seven steps

(figure 1). It can be said that if the Innovation Roadmap would have been used earlier, some of the

delay during the implementation process could have been prevented.

Fig.1: Innovation Roadmap (own ill.)

6

Furthermore, a proof of concept checklist is also included, which gives an indication if an innovation

project is ready for the implementation. The identified criteria for this checklist are: financial gain,

productivity gain, fleet availability, hangar punctuality, employee value, image of the organization,

safety, capacity, time to impact and success rate.

7

Table of contents

Preface 3

Abstract 5

Introduction 9

1 Problem introduction 10

1.1 Current knowledge 10

1.1.1 Problem background 11

1.1.2 Previous research 11

1.1.3 Knowledge gap 12

1.2 Research problem 12

1.2.1 Problem statement 12

1.2.2 Research objective 13

1.2.3 Research scope 13

1.3 Relevance 13

1.4 Research questions 14

1.4.1 Main research question 14

1.4.2 Sub research questions 14

1.5 Research Method 15

1.6 Thesis Outline 16

I Knowledge Base

2 Managing the innovation process 18

2.1 Definitions 18

2.2 Innovation Management 18

2.3 Innovation Process 19

2.4 Implementation Phase 20

2.5 Conclusion 21

3 Integrating the implementation criteria and strategy 22

3.1 Definitions 22

3.2 Stage-Gate Model 23

3.3 Triple A-system 24

3.4 Industrial Scrum Framework 25

3.5 Conclusion 25

4 The Adoption Gate 27

4.1 Definitions 27

4.2 The Innovation Adoption Curve 28

4.3 Criteria 29

4.3.1. Technology Acceptance Model 3 29

4.3.2 CANE Model 31

4.3.3 Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness 32

4.4 Conclusion 33

8

5 A Strategy for Implementation 34

5.1 Definitions 34

5.2 Strategies 35

5.2.1. Scrum 37

5.2.2 Kanban 38

5.2.3 Scrum vs Kanban 38

5.3 Barriers 39

5.4 Conclusion 39

6 The Diffusion Gate 38

6.1 Definitions 38

6.2 Criteria 38

6.3 Conclusion 40

II Environment

7 Innovation at KLM E&M 43

7.1 KLM E&M 43

7.2 Innovation in the organization 43

7.3 Currently running innovation projects 44

7.4 Conclusion 45

8 A Gap Analysis 46

8.1 Desired levels of performance 46

8.2 Actual level of performance 48

8.3 The identified gap 50

8.4 Conclusion 52

III Design

9 Design of the Innovation Roadmap 55

9.1 Building the Innovation Roadmap 55

9.2 Verification 58

9.3 Validation 60

9.4 Conclusion 62

IV Conclusion

10 Conclusion, Discussion and Recommendations 65

10.1 Conclusion 65

10.2 Recommendations 67

10.3.2 Recommendations for the organization 67

10.3.3 Recommendations for further research 67

10.3 Discussion 68

References 69

Appendix A: Generations of Innovation Process Models 73

Appendix B: Agile Methodology 75

Appendix C: Interviews Innovation Projects 80

Appendix D: Innovation Roadmap Manual 94

Appendix E: Interviews Validation 109

9

Introduction

Innovation is becoming a competitive necessity for organizations. However, innovation is also

inherently associated with change and requires attention within an organization. More than other

projects, innovation projects may require from organizations to be implemented effectively.

Implementation is defined as the process of gaining targeted employees’ appropriate and committed

use of an innovation project (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Klein & Sorra, 1996). A recent survey shows that

there are more barriers during implementing ideas than generating them (Kambil, 2002). Additionally,

analysts identify implementation failure, not innovation failure, as the cause of many organizations’

inability to achieve the intended benefits of the innovations they adopt (Klein & Sorra, 1996).

Furthermore, another article shows that only one in eight executives felt strongly that their companies

excelled at implementing innovative ideas (Kambil, 2002).

Nowadays, organizations fail in implementing new innovation projects or technologies. Most of the

time, organizations think they fail in innovating because of a lack of ideas. A main challenge in

innovation processes is not the ideation or development failure, but implementation failure (Klein &

Knight, 2005). Firstly, the failure of insufficient acceptance by employees occurs. Secondly, the process

setting the innovation project into practice is too challenging. Lastly, employees reject the innovations

projects.

In a broad way, innovation is defined as a successful implementation of creative ideas within an

organization (Amabile, 1988). As the innovation process will be researched on organizational level, the

definition of an innovation project for this research will be: a new idea that is put into practice while

paying special attention to its usefulness (Camison-Zornoza, Lapedra-Alcami, Segarra-Cipres, &

Boronat-Navarro, 2004). The given definition of innovation emphasizes that a new idea should be

useful for the environment. Implementing an innovation project insufficiently will have a negative

influence on its effectiveness. Some individuals will say that structures and processes will hinder the

innovation process. On the other hand, while ideas may be created in a free environment, without

some structure and processes it is exceptionally difficult to translate the idea into an effective

innovation project. Some structure or guidance is therefore required for a successful implementation

process.

This thesis uses a structured approach to contribute to an effective implementation process of

innovation projects by developing a roadmap for these projects. The roadmap can be seen as a

complete set of implementation criteria and a strategy that improves the implementation process.

This approach, to make the implementation phase more effective, will first consist of a literature study

to become more familiar with innovation management, implementation criteria and strategies.

Second, an analysis to investigate the gap between the desired and actual level of performance of the

implementation process is conducted. The next step is integrating and designing the roadmap, which

consists of elements found in the literature combined with findings found in the environment. In the

end, an Innovation Roadmap that consists of a strategy and implementation criteria will be provided,

which can be used to implement within an organization. To use this roadmap in a successful way, a

manual that provides guidance for this roadmap will also be designed.

10

1. Problem introduction

The airline industry is widely seen as the leader of technology change in many engineering disciplines,

including maintenance techniques, the use of new materials and the development of new engineering

techniques. The airline industry maintains about complex examples of systems and assemblies,

present manufacturing challenges that have implications for many other engineering sectors. This

indicates that innovation projects are challenging, but also of great importance for this industry.

Additionally, the airline industry is unlike any other transportation sector. Take the maintenance

process for example; you cannot pull off the road and wait for a tow truck when a problem occurred.

Due to the unique environment and the complexity, an airline is required to use the best methods, and

continuesly keep on seeking for new concepts and technologies that add value for the organization.

An airline carries the responsibility to bring innovative methods and new technologies into the

organization and to use them to make the organization more competitive. Besides, the longer an

airplane is out of service, the higher the costs. If you for example need new assemblies during the

maintenance, think of a 3D printer as the solution. This technique uses new geometric shapes and

integrated functions to make metal components. Besides, it also saves delivery costs.

The question that raises; how can you successful implement an innovative project as a 3D printer,

within the organization? It can be said that there is a need to make the implementation process of

innovation projects successful. Additionally, previous research shows a lack of approach that guides

an innovation project in a structured way through the implementation phase of the innovation process.

Besides, also criteria to implement an innovation project are missing.

At AFI KLM E&M, some of the innovation projects are implemented insufficiently. Due to insufficient

implementation, a lot of projects get stuck in the innovation process for a certain period. This results

in innovation projects that are not set into practice. 3D scanning is for example one of the currently

running innovation projects within AFI KLM E&M. If you visualize the innovation process, it is

remarkable that this innovation project is stuck in the implementation process for two years. Another

innovation project is a device that focuses on an innovative coating process for airplanes. The device

should save more than 200.000 euro's per year, but the device was never used after the purchase. Also

innovation projects that have proven, for example by means of a Lean Six Sigma project, to save a lot

of money, are not used after they were bought. Innovation projects are too long on a hold within the

implementation process. So you can conclude that there is a demand for an approach that guides an

innovation project through the implementation process.

1.1 Current knowledge This part gives an overview of the problem background and previous research, which results in the

knowledge gap.

1.1.1 Problem background KLM E&M uses the innovation funnel concept to visualize the status of currently running innovation

projects. It concerns innovation projects that are developed within KLM E&M, but also projects that

were bought externally and are ready for implementation. By the time an idea leaves the innovation

funnel, it should be market-ready or confirmed by the organization. Figure 2 shows the innovation

funnel of KLM E&M.

11

The innovation funnel of KLM E&M has four different stages:

1. Ideation

2. Proof of Concept (PoC)

3. Implementation

4. Commercialization

No strict definitions were given to the four different stages. In the ideation phase, people are able to

bring up their ideas. When an idea is declared viable, the idea goes through the gate and arrives in the

PoC-phase. Two different categories can be distinguished: ideas on hold and ideas that are not on hold.

If an idea that’s not on hold gets an accord, based on budget, resources and technical impact, it passes

the gate and ends up in the implementation phase. No gate criteria were identified in this phase. Finally,

it ends up in the commercialization phase.

As mentioned earlier, innovation projects are too long on a hold during the implementation process.

It is essential that the innovation process can be recognized as a multi-track process, with specific

decision points during process where choices must be made that will steer you in the right direction.

KLM E&M’s innovation process must be organized in another way. It can be concluded that a

supportive tool that tells you how to implement, based on predefined criteria, an innovation project

is desired.

1.1.2 Previous research In the history of innovation management, several innovation process models were designed. Attention

must be given to how different authors provide their innovation process model with guidance and

structure. Besides, the innovation trends and changes have to be understood before developing an

innovation road map on firm-level. Kotsemir and Meissner (2013) give the following six generations

for the innovation process models:

Generation Period Innovation process model

1 1950-1960 Technology push

2 1960-1970 Market pull

3 1970-1980 Coupling model

4 1980-1990 Interactive model

5 1990’s Networking model

6 2000’s Open innovation

7 2000-2010 Fugle innovation

8 2010-now Cyclic innovation

Fig. 2: Innovation funnel KLM E&M (own ill.)

Table 1: Generation of innovation models (Kotsemir & Meissner, 2013)

12

In my opinion, and to update the generations of innovation process models, two more models can be

added to this table: the Innovation Fugle model (du Preez & Louw, 2008) and the Cyclic Innovation

model (Berkhout, Hartmann, & Trott, 2010). This innovation process model evolution has changed

from a simple linear model to an increasingly complex model that integrates stakeholders and

processes. Ortt and van der Duin (2008) emphasize the importance of understanding the various

innovation management approaches if you want to select the best approach. The different generations

of innovation process models will be researched based on general characteristics and guidance and

structure. Descriptions of these models can be found in Appendix A.

Looking at the innovation process from idea to market-launch, different authors state that the

difficulties are not within the idea generation or idea development phase. Successful management of

the innovation process is seen as a bigger challenge (du Preez & Louw, 2008). It is remarkable that

none of the models describe what should be done to go to the next phase within the innovation

process. Besides, a successful innovation process requires a disciplined stage-by-stage approval process

(Stosic & Milutinovic, 2014).

Another criticism on the models could be that ideas the main source of the innovations are (Denning

& Dunham, 2010). Except for the latest generation. Christenson (1997) says that many innovations

come as surprises from the edges and margins of awareness. Besides, there is no fixed plan how to

implement an innovation project into the organisation. Organisations can take several routes to

implement an innovation project. Organisations can have a top-down approach or bottom-up

approach. It turns out that companies don’t have difficulties with generating new ideas, but rather

with the ability to implement new ideas in the company.

1.1.3 Knowledge Gap Right now it is unclear what part of the innovation process should exactly be managed (chapter 2).

Models will be researched that can add guidance and structure to the phases of the innovation process

(chapter 3). The Stage-Gate model for example divides the innovation process into series of activities

and decision points. Each stage has two gates, one before and one after each phase. Based on the

criteria, the gate should give a go or no-go decision. Additionally, implementation criteria will be added

to this models

Previous research indicates that criteria that tell you if an innovation project is ready for

implementation are missing (chapter 4). Hence, what are the steps to implement an innovation

project? A strategy that tells you how to implement an innovation project is desired (chapter 5).

Different strategies, like the becoming more and more popular agile methodology, will be researched

to see if it has useful elements to create an implementation strategy. The agile project management

method uses an iterative approach to plan and guide processes, which is the opposite of the traditional

waterfall model. A further elaborated explanation of this agile methodology can be found in Appendix

B. Additionally, predefined criteria should give an indication if the implementation of the innovation

project was effective (chapter 6).

A tool that integrates an implementation strategy and criteria should make the implementation

process more effective. Additionally, visualizing the process should contribute to a more transparent

process. Transparency will stimulate the trust and decision-making within an organization.

13

1.2 Research problem In this paragraph, the problem statement, research objective and the research scope will be defined.

1.2.1 Problem statement To summarize the previous findings, it can be concluded that innovation process models do not provide

any guidance or structure during the implementation phase which is a part of the innovation process.

Additionally, no criteria can be found that have to be met when an innovation project enters or leaves

the implementation phase. Besides, there is no implementation strategy or step by step approach that

could contribute to an effective implementation of innovation projects within an organisation.

Especially for an airline, which is responsible to continuously keep on innovating, this means that

innovation projects needs to be implemented regularly. An innovation roadmap that describes how

to implement an innovation project and what criteria should be met is therefore desired.

1.2.2 Research objective Based on the problem statement, the following research objective can be formulated:

An implementation tool that provides guidance and structure, by developing an implementation

strategy and predefining implementation criteria, to make the innovation process of innovation

projects more effective.

1.2.3 Research scope The focus of this research is on the implementation phase of the innovation process. Different

innovation projects will be researched, with its emphasis on the implementation process. It concerns

innovations projects that were bought externally or innovation projects that are developed internally.

Thus, it concerns innovation projects that need to be implemented within the internal environment of

an organization.

1.3 Relevance In this paragraph, the academic relevance will be described and the managerial relevance will be

outlined.

1.3.1 Academic relevance This thesis contributes to the innovation management field, by developing an Innovation Roadmap

Manual. For the implementation phase, which is a part of the overall innovation process, no one ever

designed an implementation strategy with integrated gate criteria where a go/no go decision must be

taken. The Adoption Gate evaluates with predefined criteria if an innovation project will be accepted

by an employee. The Diffusion Gate evaluates with predefined criteria, if the innovation project will be

confirmed through the organisation. Additionally, the manual that is enclosed in this report provides

the implementation process with a step-by-step strategy that guides the innovation project through

the implementation process. An agile based strategy is designed that visualizes the workflow in

different columns during the implementation process and ensures the ownership of an innovation

project.

14

The designed Innovation Roadmap Manual is designed with regards to the airline industry. However,

the manual can also be useful in other sectors. Taking into account the significance of innovation for

an organization, it is worthwhile to design an agile based implementation strategy with predefined

implementation criteria.

1.3.2 Managerial relevance The managerial relevance of this research consists of three aspects:

1. Getting insight in the field of innovation management and agile project management. Different

innovation process models, implementation criteria and product development techniques will

be evaluated. Furthermore, the agile organizational practices and principles are researched.

2. The development of a supportive tool for implementing innovation projects. The tool will help

in the decision making process if an innovation project will be adopted by employees and if

the project will be confirmed by the organization.

3. The contribution to a more effective implementation process of innovation projects. With the

developed roadmap, innovation projects will be implemented based on the agile project

management which should lead to a more effective implementation.

1.4 Research questions In this chapter, the main research question and sub research question will be outlined. The main aim

of a research is to find out the truth which is hidden and which has not been discovered as yet.

1.4.1 Main research question Based on the information presented in the previous paragraphs, the following research question can

be formulated:

How should the implementation process to effectively implement an innovation project be

organized, and what are the implementation criteria and strategy that have to be integrated into a

tool that provides guidance and structure during the implementation process?

1.4.2 Sub research questions Several sub-questions are formulated in order to answer the research question. Four parts have been

set up, based on the research method of paragraph 1.5.

Part 1: The Knowledge Base

1. Why and what process of the innovation process must be managed, to successful implement

an innovation project?

2. What are possible options to integrate the adoption and diffusion criteria with the

implementation strategy, that contributes to more guidance during implementation process?

3. Which adoption criteria for individuals, that fit within an agile based strategy, must be

fulfilled before an innovation project can be implemented within an organisation?

4. Which agile based strategy need to be followed and which barriers should be avoided to

successful implement an innovation project?

5. What criteria can be used to evaluate if the implementation process of an innovation project

was effective?

15

Part 2: The Environment

6. How are innovation projects implemented within KLM E&M?

7. Which gaps are present between the desired and actual levels of performance and what are

therefore useful aspects for implementing an innovation project?

Part 3: The Design

8. How can previous findings be integrated into a decision-making a tool that provides guidance

and structure and contributes to an effective implementation process of innovation projects?

Part 4: Conclusion, recommendation and discussion

9. What are the main findings of this research and what are recommendations for further

research and the organization?

1.5 Research method To answer the research question, a suitable research method will be used. In this research, the three-

cycle design view of (Hevner, 2007) is chosen. This method is chosen because it emphasizes the extend

to seek the boundaries of human and organizational capabilities by creating new and innovative

artifacts (Hevner, 2007). Three cycles are combined with each other so that one cyclic process is

created, that designs the artefact. This approach is chosen in order to explore uncovered problems

within the current implementation process of innovation projects. Another reason to choose for this

approach is that it centralizes the contribution of new knowledge as a key focus (Vaishnavi & Kuechler,

2007). This is why this research starts with the Knowledge Base. Additionally, design research is used

to create new things that can provide solutions for management problems. This means that news

insights will be developed because of the studied literature in the Knowledge Base. Furthermore, the

conceptual framework by Hevner (2007)will be used as research methodology, because it emphasizes

assessing and refining the ‘artifact’ or in this case, the implementation process.

Thus, because of adapting Hevner’s (2007) three cycle view this research start with conducting a

literature study. Academic literature about innovation process models, with the focus on structuring

the implementation phase will be studied in part one. The next chapter evaluates the environment,

which represents part two. As the process continues at part three, an Innovation Roadmap that focuses

on the implementation process, based on findings of the Knowledge Base and the Environment, will

be designed. Gaps between the desired and actual performance will be evaluated further. Thus, an

implementation strategy and criteria will be integrated in a support and decision-making tool in this

part. Lastly in part 4, the research questions will be answered by means of the conclusion. Additionally

Fig. 3 Hevnerss’ three cycle design (2007)

16

in this part the research question will be provided with an answer. This last part also gives the

recommendations for further research and the recommendations for the organization.

1.6 Thesis outline Part 1 represents the Knowledge Base, also known as the literature study. The literature review will

start broad, and then becomes more specific. It has to be noticed that this literature review will not be

a straightforward process. Sub research question 3, 4 and 5 are specified on the findings of sub

research question 1 and 2.

How the organization manages innovation will be evaluated in part 2. Thereafter, several innovation

projects will be researched with the emphasis on the implementation criteria and implementation

strategy they adopt. This in order to answer the sub research questions 6 and 7.

At part 3, findings of the Knowledge Base and Environment cycle will be evaluated. The useful findings

will be translated to a decision-making tool (the Innovation Roadmap) that provides guidance and

structure. This part provides sub research question 8 with an answer.

In part 4 , the model will be evaluated in the ‘evaluation’ block, followed by the recommendations and

discussion. An evaluation of the designed Innovation Roadmap will be done in order to answer sub

research question 9.

Fig. 4 Three cycle design (own ill.)

17

“The Wright brothers did not leap into the sky. The Wright brothers walked there one step by time,

building a kite in 1899, a glider based on the kite in 1900, a slightly improved glider in 1901, and another

improved glider in 1902 before, finally adding propellers to their glider design and making the first

airplane in 1903.”

In an essay of Kevin Ashton (2015), Ashton states that innovation is almost never the work of an ‘a-ha’

moment. Innovation can therefore be seen as a step-by-step process, where structure is seen as an

essential element.

18

Part I: The Knowledge Base

This part creates the Knowledge Base. Different theories, criteria, strategies and methodologies to

implement an innovation project will be evaluated further. The research will start broad, but becomes

more specific in the end. The outcome of this part results in a repository for information, mainly about

the implementation process of innovation projects.

In chapter 2, a closer look will be taken to what process exactly should be managed. The reason behind

this is that the innovation process must be understood before designing the implementation process

on firm level. To manage the implementation phase of an innovation process, different tools that will

integrate the implementation strategy with the implementation criteria will be researched in chapter

3. For example the Stage-Gate model, because the Stage-Gate is seen as a roadmap that ‘maps out

what needs to be done, play by play, huddle by huddle – as well as how to do it – in order to win the

game’ (Cooper, 2008)

Based on the findings in chapter 2 and chapter 3, the implementation process will be divided in 3 parts.

The process to adopt an innovation project by individual employees (chapter 4), the implementation

strategy that has to be taken within the organization (chapter 5) and the diffusion gate, where it will

be evaluated if the implementation was effective (chapter 6).

Fig. 5 Knowledge base (own ill.)

19

2. Managing the innovation process

Dealing with complex and a changing industry, organizations realize that innovation is critical to stay

ahead of the competition. This is a reason why we are obliged to lookout for new ideas that can

stimulate innovation. Innovative ideas can came up anytime and anyplace. Managing innovation is

therefore one of the most difficult processes that you will guide and shape (Maital & Seshadri, 2007).

This results in the following sub research question:

1. Why and what process should be managed, to successful implement an innovation project?

The answer of why innovation projects should be managed can be found in part 2.1. Innovation

management is seen as the discipline that manages the different process in innovation, more about

what should be managed can be found in part 2.2. Additionally, more research about the innovation

process, paying special attention to the implementation phase, can be found in part 2.3.

2.1 Definitions To build profitable, in-demand products from appealing new ideas, it is necessary to manage the

innovation process (Maital & Seshadri, 2007). This means that organizations need skills in innovation

management. Innovation management therefore includes a set of tools that allow managers and

engineers to cooperate with a common understanding of goals and processes (Simsit, Vayvay, & Ozturk,

2014). More about these suitable tools can be found in the next chapter. The following definitions are

applicable to innovation management:

Term Definition

Innovation A new idea that is put into practice while paying special attention to its

usefulness (Camison-Zornoza et al., 2004).

Innovation Management The discipline that manages the different process in innovation, including a set

of tools that allow managers and engineers to cooperate with a common

understanding of goals and processes (Simsit et al., 2014).

2.2 Innovation Management Why an organization should innovate? To energize the existing people and to attract great new ones

(Maital & Seshadri, 2007). Or with other words, organizations that do not innovate fast enough lose

their innovative people. A lot of innovative ideas in organisations go nowhere because they are not

linked to overall strategies, and in order to protect and keep these ideas, organisations need to create

a process from ideation up to and including an effective implementation. Additionally, there is nothing

wrong with having too many ideas, but what you do with them is more important than just having

them. Many organizations have developed an idea management system. To gain access to creative

ideas and streams of innovation projects, several methods are developed. For example with

maintaining a R&D Lab, forming one or more groups charged with incubating new ideas or a method

that allows employees to allocate part of their work time to side projects (Bailey & Horvitz, 2010).

To answer the question, what should be managed of an innovation project, different models where

developed. Galanakanis (2002) designed the model below; the Creative Factory Concept. The concept

has at its centre the firm's knowledge creation, the new product design and development process and

Table 2: Definitions related to innovation management

20

the competencies that separate successes from failures. The model gives the most complete overview

of the total picture of the innovation process. Additionally, the model suggests that an organisation is

in the middle of the innovation process. The core innovation process is surrounded by the Firm’s

Internal Factors and the National Innovation Environment. Thus, it can be said that the innovation

process is complex to manage. Mainly because the innovation process is related to a lot of factors and

systems.

2.3 Innovation process Whether you wish to adopt industry best practices for efficiency or pursue competitive differentiation,

you will need process management (Smith & Fingar, 2003). Process management, involves concerted

efforts to map, improve and adhere to organizational processes (Benner & Tushman, 2001). Benner

and Tushman (2001) also emphasize that much can be gained when the relation between process

activities and organizational outcomes are fully integrated. Technical, environmental and structural

conditions are for example conditions that have to be explored deeper when investigating the

innovation process.

Ortt & van der Duin (2008) emphasize that you have to understand the various innovation

management approaches, if you want to select the best innovation management approach for

managing the innovation process. The innovation process is by most authors (Kemp, Folkeringa, De

Jong, & Wubben, 2003; Loof & Heshmati, 2002; van der Pannen, van Beers, & Kleinknecht, 2003)

recognized as the process from an idea to successful product in the market. It should be noted, that

for this research it concerns innovation project that are bought or developed for internal use. In this

research it concerns an innovation process that stays within the organisation, thus projects that stay

in the internal environment. Equally important as the innovation process is the innovation project. The

innovation process is seen as the roadmap that is followed by an innovation project. An innovation

projects refers to projects that brings something new and replaces the existing project.

Fig. 6: Core Innovation Process that should be managed (Galakanis, 2002)

21

The innovation process consists of sequential phases, phases that are arranged in such manner that

first the current phase has to be finished before going to the next phase. A project needs to pass several

gates to succeed. Most of the times, it is not clear described what needs to be done for going to the

next phase. The implementation phase is one of these phases within the innovation process. Implementation is thus seen as an integral element of innovation (Leonard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988).

Within this implementation phase, several aspects have to be tackled, for example culture or

motivation elements. Adopting new innovations therefore seems essential to sustained

competitiveness for many organizations. Failure to adopt innovations won’t do the organization any

good. Besides, technical companies invest in R&D, but there often remains a persistent gap between

the value of technology and the ability to put this technology into work. Most of the times the decision

to implement a new innovation project or technology is at a higher level, but individuals choose if they

adopt or reject a technology (Rogers, 2003).

Additionally, when implementing an innovation project, the following actions can occur (Leonard-

Barton & Deschamps, 1988): an innovation project can be rejected, an innovation project can be used

and an employee can decided to discontinue the innovation project. Guidance and structure from the

possibility whether an employee rejects an innovation, till the continuously using an innovation project

is therefore desired. Additionally, a roadmap on how to implement an innovation project can be the

solution for an organization to implement an innovation project. Besides, innovation is indicated as a

process where an innovative is helpful to an organization if it’s implemented.

2.4 Implementation phase The implementation phase consists of all the activity on the ‘technical’ side of the innovation after the

initial experiment up to the point where the new management innovation is first fully operational

(Birkinshaw, Hamel, & Mol, 2008). This indicates that the implementation phase starts when the

innovative project is ready to work with. Additionally, they define the management of innovation as

the invention and implementation of a management practice, process, structure or technique that is

new to the state of the art and is intended to further organizational goals (Birkinshaw et al., 2008).

The implementation phase of a project is between the decision stage and the confirmation stage.

According to Rogers (2003), the decision stage contains the following: the individual chooses to adopt

or reject the innovation. The implementation stage is described as the stage where the innovation

project is put into practice (Rogers, 2003). He describes the confirmation phase as the phase where the

innovation-decision has already been made, but an individual looks for support for his or her decision.

In my opinion, an innovation project must meet certain criteria before it can be implemented. During

this implementation, (positive) results must be visible. If so, the innovation project is effective

implemented and enters the next phase; the confirmation phase.

Term Definition

Innovation Process The process from idea to confirmed innovation project (own def.).

Innovation process model The model that visualizes the process from idea to confirmed innovation project

(own def.).

Innovation project Projects that bring something new or replaces existing ones (own def.).

Table 3: Definitions related to the innovation process

22

Summarized:

1. Requirements must be met for an innovation project to enter the implementation phase. With

other words: what are the requirements for an individual to decide if they adopt an innovation

project?

2. Strategies have to be formulated that have to be taken when an innovation project can be

implemented.

3. Requirements should be formulated that determine if the implementation was successful so

that the innovation project will be confirmed and diffused through the organisation.

2.5 Conclusion To answer the sub research question; why and what process should be managed, to successful

implement an innovation project, it can be concluded that the implementation phase must be

managed because organizations need profitable ideas that have to be set into practice because these

ideas will energize their employees.

Managing the overall innovation process is challenging because it is in the middle of the organization,

surrounded by environmental factors and internal organizational factors. Most of the innovation

processes models focus on stages, but do not show a fixed plan on how to pass these stages. This

means that organizations can take several routes to implement an innovation project. The different

stages of the innovation process models need at least some structure.

According to (Rogers, 2003), within the implementation phase three processes have to be managed:

the process where individuals decide if they adopt an innovation project, the implementation process

where the project is set into practice and lastly the process where it is decided if the innovation project

is implemented effectively and therefore confirmed by the organization.

First, methods to integrate these three processes to manage the roadmap from adoption to diffusion

will be researched in chapter 3. Second, the adoption of an innovation project by an individual can be

found in the chapter 4. Third, strategies and barriers that an organization can take within the

implementation phase will be evaluated in chapter 5. Fourth, criteria that determine if the

implementation process of an innovation project was effective can be found in chapter 7.

Fig. 7: From adoption to diffusion (own ill.)

23

3. Integrating the implementation criteria and

strategy

In this chapter, two models and a framework to provide an innovation project with more guidance

during the implementation process will be researched. It concerns the process from adoption to

diffusion, which is translated into the following sub research question:

2. What are possible options to integrate the adoption and diffusion criteria with the implementation

strategy, which contributes to more guidance during implementation process?

3.1 Definitions The Stage-Gate model seems the most well-known model to visualize the product process. A Stage-Gate model consists of a set of stages followed by go/kill decision gates. The Stage-Gate model is seen as a very traditional approach (Sethi & Iqbal, 2008), so the second model that will be researched is the Triple A-system: Adaptive and flexible, Agile and Accelerated (Cooper, 2014). In this model, each phase is structured in an iterative way, so the outcome should be more flexible. The agile project management is an iterative approach to planning and guiding project processes. This method is designed to help a team to think more effectively, efficiently and make better decisions. More about Agile methodologies can be found in Appendix B. The third model that will be researched is the Scrum Framework (Sommer et al., 2015). Scrum is a part of the agile project management methodology. The Scrum framework is designed so that people can address complex, adaptive problems, while productively and creatively delivering products of the highest possible value (Lacey, 2015). The choice for this third model is based on the interesting combination that combines a traditional project management method with an iterative way of working. The Scrum Framework shows a combination between the traditional Stage-Gate process and elements of the Agile Scrum method, also known as a hybrid process (Sommer et al., 2015). For all three of the mentioned models, the characteristics, success factors and barriers will be evaluated.

3.2 The Stage-Gate model The Stage-Gate method is a tool to manage and visualize the process of product innovation. Too many

new-product projects move from the idea stage right into development with little or no up-front

homework (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2001). The Stage-Gate system therefore structures the

product innovation process into stages. Stage 4 of the model can be seen as the implementation stage,

because this stage concerns the testing and validation phase of the product. It should be noted that

the Stage-Gate is used for products that will be launched at the market, while this research focuses on

projects that will be launched internally. However, the structure is useful for both of the cases.

Term Definition

Stage-Gate Model Model that visualizes the development of a product process and

consists of a set of stages followed by go/kill decision gates (own

def.).

Triple A-system Model where each product phase is structured in an iterative way

(own def.).

Industrial Scrum Framework A hybrid process, that combines agile scrum elements with the

Stage-Gate model (Sommer et al., 2015).

Table 4: Definitions related to models that can structure the implementation process

24

3.2.1 Characteristics The Stage-Gate model consists of series of stages, which are followed by gates. The implementation

phase of the innovation project is seen as one of these stages, followed by gates where go/kill decisions

are made.

Figure 7 shows diamond shaped gates. The gates have three main functions and a common format

(Cooper et al., 2001). The gates functions as:

- A quality-control checkpoint

- Go/no go prioritization decision point

- Path forward decision, along with resource commitments

The common format of the gates consist of:

- Input: the result of the action of the previous phase. For the implementation phase of this

Stage-Gate model, it concerns the output of the development phase that serves an input for

gate 4.

- Criteria: the questions or metrics on which the project is judged in order to make to go/no go

decision.

- Output: the results of the decision criteria. For example an approved action plan for the next

stage.

As mentioned before, this research focuses on stage 4, testing and validation, of the Stage-Gate model.

The purpose of this stage is to verify and validate the entire project (Cooper et al., 2001). After this

stage, the product, or in this case the innovation project, should be ready for implementation. The

common format of the stages consists of (Cooper et al., 2001):

- Activities: information gathering activities by the project teams

- An integrated analysis: the result of the activities

- Deliverables: input to the gate

The Stage-Gate model provides the product process with guidance, but also requires a certain level of

discipline. The progress of the product should continuously be monitored. The format of the Stage-

Gate is easy to use, gate criteria must be formalized at the beginning of the process and a few times a

go or no go decision must be taken. The Stage-Gate itself doesn’t tell you which strategy need to be

taken in a certain stage; it only consists of undefined activities.

Traditional Stage-Gate Model

Success factors

- Guidance

- Easy to use

Barriers

- Discipline

- Linear

- Broad stage description

Fig. 8: Traditional Stage-Gate model (Cooper, 2008)

Table 5: Success factors and barriers Traditional Stage-Gate model

25

3.3 Triple A-system The Triple A-system was developed to connect with the agile project management method, and

because of the criticism that the previous models were too linear, rigid and planned to manage

innovative or dynamic projects (Cooper, 2014). More about the shift from a traditional waterfall model

to the agile approach can be found in Appendix B2. The stages where the work is done and the gates

were decisions are made stayed the same, but the processes are different. The process should result in

a more agile, vibrant, dynamic and flexible process (Cooper, 2014). The model therefore differs from

the normal Stage-Gate model in the iterative way of working. The outcome of the stages should result

in a more flexible and often improved result, this because the model stimulates regular feedback

moments during the product process.

3.3.1 Characteristics As mentioned before, most characteristics are the same when comparing with the traditional Stage-

Gate model. Except for the iterations. Each spiral consists of four elements, namely (Cooper, 2014):

- Build; demonstrate prototypes the customer.

- Test; let customers tell you what they like and what value they see.

- Feedback; get feedback from the users

- Revise; adapt the innovation project, based on information that is gained from the test and

feedback phase.

For implementing an innovation project it can be said that customers are irrelevant, because it

concerns innovation projects that are implemented within the same company. However, if you see the

employees as the customers, especially the feedback can be interesting. Users of an innovation project

should be asked if they see potential in an innovation project. If not, an innovation project could be

rejected. A way to do this is by means of a pilot. At the traditional Stage-Gate model, the gate focuses

on information. The Scrum-Based model emphasizes focusing on the results, but this also requires a

dedicated communication between the people working on the project and the customers.

Triple A-system

Success factors:

- Opinion of customers is taken into account

- Flexible

Barriers

- Need of dedicated communication with the

customers

Fig. 9: Triple A-system (Cooper, 2014)

Table 6: Success factors and barriers Scrum-Based Stage-Gate model

26

3.4 Industrial Scrum Framework Motivated by the upcoming trends of the agile project management method, the Industrial Scrum

Framework is developed. This model resulted in a hybrid process, that combines agile elements with

the Stage-Gate model (Sommer et al., 2015). One of the goals of the framework is to manage the

iterations, thus the authors linked the framework with a project Management.

3.4.1 Characteristics The framework is linked with project management elements, which resulted in three phases, namely

(Sommer et al., 2015):

- Strategic project management is the planning level for the product portfolio management and

steering committee. This means managing the traditional Stage-Gate Model by defining a

planning and making someone responsible to monitor the planning.

- Value-chain/project portfolio coordination, which is the tactical planning level between

product development teams and the operational organization. Employees are here expected

to for example meet their managers to coordinate about the resources that are involved in

their innovation project.

- Project execution, which is the planning level of the development team. This means using an

agile approach for managing the implementation phase itself.

Industrial Scrum Framework

Success factors

- Someone is responsible to monitor the

product process and define a planning.

Barriers

- Full commitment and attention for the

process are needed because of all the

aspects that need to be managed.

3.5 Conclusion To answer the sub research question; what are possible options to integrate the adoption and diffusion

criteria with the implementation strategy, which contributes to more guidance during implementation

process, all the mentioned methods are suitable to integrate the adoption and diffusion criteria with

Fig. 10: Industrial Scrum Framework (Sommer, Hedegaard, Dubosvka, & Steger-Jensen, 2015)

Table 7: Success factors and barriers Industrial Scrum Framework

27

the implementation strategy. However, the method that provides the implementation process with

the most guidance is the Industrial Scrum Framework. This method is the only one that uses project

management to ensure ownership of every aspect in the process. People will be assigned with tasks

that need to be done, tasks that need to be done on an agile way. The Industrial Scrum Framework

seems therefore most suitable to the implementation phase and integrate the implementation criteria

and strategy. This results in the following figures:

The adoption gate will be evaluated in the next chapter. Followed by the implementation strategy in

chapter 5. Lastly, the diffusion gate will be researched in chapter 6. Figure 12 visualizes the

implementation process in the broader innovation process.

Fig. 11: Integration of the agile based implementation strategy and criteria (own ill.)

Fig. 12 integrating the basis for the roadmap in the innovation process of KLM E&M (own ill.)

28

4. Adoption gate

Leonard-Barton and Deschamps (1988) suggest in their research that characteristics of individual

employees determine if an innovation project is rejected, used or discontinued. Straub (2011) concludes

in his study that: individuals construct unique perceptions of an innovation project that influence the

adoption process. Straub (2011) states that organizations should focus on how individuals understand

and adopts new innovation projects. Explaining and predicting user adoption of a new innovation

project is therefore important because it influences the implementation process.

Adoption criteria will be used as evaluation criteria to decide if an innovation project may enter the

implementation stage. The aim of this chapter is therefore to find these adoption criteria. This is

translated in the following research question:

3. Which adoption criteria for individuals, that fit within an agile based strategy, must be

fulfilled before an innovation project can be implemented within an organisation?

4.1 Definitions To answer the above research question, three different technology acceptance models are evaluated

based on the criteria they describe. These adoption criteria can influence the acceptance of a new

technology, or in this case the acceptance of an innovation project. The acceptance models that will

be evaluated are: the TAM Model 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) CANE Model (Clark, 1998) and the

Individual Adoption of Information Technologies Model (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997). These models will

be evaluated because all of them have a different focus. The TAM Model 3 focuses on use behavior,

the CANE model focuses on goal commitment and the Individual Adoption of Information Technologies

model focuses on the future intensions of a new technology. Additionally some background

information about different kind of people that have to adopt an innovation project will be presented,

and can be found in paragraph 4.2. But first, some definitions about the adoption of innovation

projects will be discussed in this paragraph.

According to Mone, McKinley and Barker (1998), innovation capability is the most important

determinant of firm performance. There needs to be acceptance and willingness to allow an idea

forward from the people within the company. Zbaracki (1998) stated that the reaction of employees

to implement new practices is mostly negative. Employees feel intimidated by innovations, because

new innovation projects might replace their current job activities.

Rogers (2003) defines adoption as a decision of full use of a project as the best course of action

available, while rejection is the decision to not adopt an innovation. The behaviour most commonly

referred to in the definition of adoption is ‘the acceptance and the continued use’ of an innovation

project. For this research, it concerns the acceptance and the continued use of an innovation project

by an individual. The following definitions are therefore important:

Term Definition

Adoption Acceptance and continued use of an innovation project

by an individual (own def.).

Rejection Not adopting an innovation project (Rogers, 2003)

Table 8: Definitions adoption

29

4.2 Innovation adoption curve Rogers (2003) emphasizes that employees do not always want to innovate and translated this

phenomenon into the innovation adoption curve. This innovation curve classifies the adopters of

innovation projects into various categories. Namely: innovators, early adopters, early majorities, late

majorities and laggards. The innovators are the most enthusiastic people with about the new project.

They imagine the possibilities and are eager to give it a try. The early adopters are the ones that are

open for new ideas, but in a careful way. The early majority will be adopting an innovation more quickly

than the most people. The late majority group are the careful ones. Only when the majority adopts,

they will follow. Lastly, the laggards are the ones that are very traditional and will having difficulties

with adopting an innovation.

"People say: we're doing it for 30 years so, so why would we change it? Or sometimes, they see an

innovation project as a threat. They think an innovation project can replace their job. It is difficult to

involve other employees. You always need other units and their recognition" (Interviewee, 2016).

The above sentence indicates that not everyone in the company is willing to innovate. Denning and

Dunham (2010) say that the adoption of an innovation occurs three times; in the mind, hand and body.

They describe that the third time of adoption the outcome is of sustaining practice. This knowledge

will help when defining an innovation strategy, because people not willing to innovate should be taken

into account. You want to involve the right people at the right time, when an innovation project is

implemented. You therefore want to know what factors can influence the behavior of people who are

not open for new innovation projects, as you want most of this people to be integrated in the

concerning project. Additionally, you want to involve early adopters before the innovation project

accelerates, as you can use them to involve the late majority innovators. Attitude towards a new

innovation project is namely from direct influence on using the concerning technology (Davis, 1985).

Taken into account the Agile principles (Appendix B), innovation projects should be build around

enthusiastic people. People will for example be curious towards a new innovation project if they

experience that colleagues are enthusiast about a project.

The following statement comes from an interview that was conducted later in the research process,

but indicates exactly why it is important to taken into account the late majority or the laggards.

“One of the barriers during implementing an innovation project is the resistance of skeptic people. You

should really take this into account. We have put so much effort into convincing people. Some people

just do not want to come on board. I have no idea why some people are not willing to cooperate. People

do not like change. I don’t know the exact reason for this. You can probably only convince them until

their managers will say that they don’t have a choice. In my opinion, you are not a part of the team

them.

Fig, 13 Adopters of innovation (Rogers, 2003)

30

“It's not like they don’t have time. If the world goes into a certain direction, you cannot stand still and

wait for something to happen. As an airline, you are definitively not in the position to remain behind. It

really is a competitive world, so I don’t get it. To be honest, I’m wondering what these kind of people

are still doing here? It definitely frustrates me. It is a rather extensive world compete with rather low

profit margins, you have to. I do not understand that. Actually, I wonder about those people what they

do. Dot frustration. The worst is that you cannot exclude them, you have to involve them in the project”

(Interviewee, 2016).

Adoption criteria are helpful because they can explain why the majority or the laggards reject an

innovation project. According to Rogers (2003) this people have most difficulties with adopting an

innovation project.

4.3 Criteria Several criteria coming from the innovation project, can influence the employees during the

implementation process. Is a new innovation project for example easy to work with, or is training

required before implementing the new innovation project? Several criteria can influence the adoption

process within the organization. Additionally, these criteria can also be helping in explaining why an

employee rejects an innovation project.

One of the areas that have not been exploited in practice is the potential for intrinsic motivation to

enhance user acceptance and usage (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Legris, Ingham, and Collerette (2003)

state that the TAM is an useful model, but has to be integrated into a broader one which would include

variables related to both human and social change processes. This model identifies motivational

problems. Aggarwal and Prasad (1997) state that innovation characteristics explain acceptance

behaviour. To also taken into account the innovation characteristics, a third model will be evaluated.

Summarized, the following models will be discussed in the next paragraphs:

- TAM Model 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)

- CANE Model (Clark, 1998)

- Innovation characteristics (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997)

4.3.1. Technology Acceptance Model 3 Davis (1985) emphasizes the importance of the attitude of an employee towards a project. According

to the author, the attitude of an employee determines if the user is important if the user will adopt or

reject the innovation project. This user is considered to be influenced by two major factors: perceived

usefulness and perceived ease of use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Both factors were believed to directly

influence the behaviour of the user (Chuttur, 2009).

31

Perceived usefulness is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that using a particular

system would enhance his or her job perceived (Davis, 1985). The author means that the attitude of an

employee will be positive if he or she considers the innovation project as useful. With perceived ease

of use is meant; the degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would be free

of physical and mental effort (Davis, 1985). This means the complexity of an innovation project, will

influence the adoption of the project. According to the author, perceived usefulness and perceived

ease of use both influence the adoption of an innovation project by an individual.

According to the TAM 3, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are both influenced by several

factors. For perceived usefulness it concerns the following factors, are:

- Voluntariness; are individuals forced to work with an innovation project?

- Experience; are individuals familiar with the features of an innovation project?

- Subjective norm; the person’s perception that most people who are important to him think he

should or should not perform the behaviour in question (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

- Image; has an innovation project a positive or negative influence on the image of an

employee?

- Job relevance; how relevant is the innovation project for their current job activities?

- Output quality; improves an innovation project the output quality of their job activities?

- Result demonstrability; did individuals experience a demonstration about the innovation

project?

Factors that influence perceived ease of use are also researched in TAM 3. Venkatesh and Bala (2008))

divided the factors in two categories: anchor determinants and adjustments determinants. Anchors

drive initial judgements of perceived ease of use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). This means that anchors

create a baseline towards a new technology, while the adjustments determinants are defined to adjust

the users attitude towards a new technology.

Fig. 14 TAM model (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)

32

The factors that are defined:

- Computer self efficacy; indivuals’ control beliefs regarding his or her personal ability to use a

system (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). So does an employee think that he or she is capable to use

a new technology?

- Perception of external control; individuals’ control beliefs regarding the availability of

organizational resources and support structure to facilitate the use of a system (Venkatesh &

Bala, 2008). So how much support gets an employee from his or her organisation?

- Computer anxiety; does the new technology create a feeling compared with fear?

- Computer playfulness; intrinsic motivation associated with using a new technology (Venkatesh

& Bala, 2008). So have individuals a spontaneously interaction with an innovation project?

- Perceived enjoyment; the extent to which the activity of using a specific system is perceived to

be enjoyable in its own right (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Do employees or users therefore enjoy

using the new technology?

- Objective usability; the comparison of systems based on the actual level of effort required to

completing specific tasks (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Is the effort comparable to what it was

perceived to be by users?

The TAM model implies that the attitude of an employee is of major importance when adopting a new

innovation project.

4.3.2. CANE Model A model that not only focuses on technology acceptance is the CANE (Commitment And Necessary

Effort) Model (Clark, 1998). The CANE model identifies motivational problems. Clark (1998) states that

performance problems a systematic approach require for validating the problem at the front-end. The

CANE model describes the affect in two concepts: emotion and mood. People will feel a positive or

negative vibe towards a new innovation project, which can result in the acceptance or rejection of an

innovation project. This means that motivation can affect the implementation of an innovation project.

Goal commitment

Task Assessment x Emotion x Values

- Ability (Can I do it?

- Context (Will I be

permitted?)

- Do I feel like it? - Utility (Value later?)

- Interest (Am I curious?)

- Importance (Is this me?)

Three factors have been identified to increase or decrease goal commitment, namely: task assessment,

emotion and values (Clark, 1998). Task assessment refers to the feeling if users are able to carry out a

certain task. Does an employee feel like he or she is capable to fulfil the tasks? If an user feels like he

or she can do the task, this will have a positive influence on the goal commitment. The second factor

is emotion. Implementing a new innovation project can give strong emotional reactions from the

employees. As companies struggle to convince their customers to adopt new self-service technologies,

it has become important to understand the factors affecting customers’ attitudes (Liljander, Gillberg,

Gummerus, & van Riel, 2006). Optimism can for example influence the behaviour of a consumer, just

like a motivated employee will influence the implementation process in a positive way. Satisfied

employees will have a positive influence on the goal commitment, while depressed or sad employees

influence the goal commitment negatively. The third factor that influences goal commitment is value,

is defined as our personal value in the goal (Clark, 1998). If people think that the goal commitment will

bring them success, people will be more convinced to commit their goal.

Table 9: CANE model (Clark, 1998)

33

A limitation of the CANE model (Clark, 1998) is that every person has his or her own interpretation of

the three factors. Does an employee like a new project if he or she wants to use it every day? Or does

an employee like a new project because it is easy to work with?

4.3.3. Innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness Model Individual adoption of new information technologies derives its roots from the adoption and diffusion

of innovation (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997). The authors suggest that innovation characteristics and

perceived voluntariness are both the major influences on the current use of an innovation project as

well as their future use.

The innovation characteristics they mention are based on the work of Rogers (1983):

- Relative advantage; the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than its

precursor. Thus, how much better is an innovation project than the existing one?

- Ease of use; level of complexity.

- Compability; the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the

existing values, needs and past experiences of potential adoptions.

- Trialability; the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with before the

implementation. This can also be seen as the opportunity for an employee to experiment with

an innovation project or to start a pilot.

- Visibility; the extent to which potential adopters see the innovation as being visible in the

adoption context. Do employees see themselves working with the innovation project?

- Result demonstrability; the result of the amount of trainings and demonstrations that are given

before implementing an innovation project influences the adoption of an innovation project.

- Image; what does a new technology for the image of an employee to his or her colleagues?

- Voluntariness; can employee make their own decision if they are going to use the innovation

project?

The above factors are believed to be important for the acceptance outcome. All of the factors are

believed to influence the current use, which leads to the future use intentions (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997).

4.4 Conclusion To answer the sub research question; which adoption criteria for individuals, that fit within an agile

based strategy, must be fulfilled before an innovation project can be implemented within an

organisation, the criteria derived from the three evaluated models are researched. The TAM 3 model

is most detailed, but the CANE model gives a very generic solution. The latest model shows some equal

criteria with the TAM 3 model.

Fig. 15 TAM model (Aggarwal & Prasad (1997)

34

To look forward, the CANE model fits the agile based strategy the best, because of its simplicity and

flexibility. Besides, it captures all the remaining criteria in the three different models. This model will

also saves the most time, but the remaining factors are very useful when it has to be explained why

employees reject an innovation project. Additionally, to taken into account the adoption curve of

Rogers (1993) it is important that the criteria will not only be tested on the innovators, early adopters

and the early majority but also on the later majority and the laggards.

Hence, the following criteria must be fulfilled before an innovation project can be implemented; it has

to fit within the task assessment of an individual, individuals must have an emotional connection with

an innovation project and individuals should get a personal value out of an innovation project. When

no is answered to a question, the remaining factors from previous models are very useful.

Summarized, the following criteria are applicable for the adoption gate:

1. Can employees work with an innovation project; are they competent enough? If no, a reason

that an employee rejects an innovation can for example be because of: a lack of experience,

difficult to use, no trainings or demonstrations were given.

2. Do employees enjoy working with the innovation project? If no, a reason that an employee

rejects an innovation can for example be because of: it damages their image or employees are

forced to use an innovation project.

3. Is there something in it for employees when they adopt an innovation project; shows the

innovation project any relative advantage for employees? If no, a reason that an employee

rejects an innovation project can for example be because of the relevance for the current job

of an employee.

TAM 3 model CANE model Individual adoption of information

technologies model

- Voluntariness

- Experience

- Subjective norm

- Image

- Job relevance

- Output quality

- Result demonstrability

- Self efficacy

- Perception of external

control

- Anxiety

- Playfulness

- Perceived enjoyment

- Objective usability

- Task assessment

- Emotion

- Values

- Relative advantage

- Ease of use

- Compability

- Trialability

- Visibility

- Result demonstrability

- Image

- Voluntariness

Table 10: Comparison of mentioned elements in the three models

35

5. Strategy for implementation

A successful implementation strategy is needed to provide the implementation process with more

support and guidance. Projects that get the right conditions deliver better results and ensure the

performance of an innovation project. The main goal of this chapter is to find an implementation

strategy that provides guidance to implement an innovation project within the organization. The Agile

methodology will therefore be elaborated further. This because of the choice for the Industrial Scrum

Framework of paragraph 3.3.

Paragraph 5.1 contains definitions that are related to defining an implementation strategy for a project.

Thereafter, the agile methodology will be evaluated further. Appendix B describes the basic knowledge

about the agile project management method. Additionally, some other recently developed agile

methodologies; Scrum and Kanban will be evaluated in this chapter. The choice is based upon this two

methods because these two are the most well-known methods (Goodpasture, 2010). Besides, the agile

concept is new for KLM E&M. Kanban focuses on process improvement and eliminating waste. While

scrum focuses on promoting and facilitating collaboration. This chapter therefore deals with the sub

research question:

4. Which agile based strategy need to be followed and which barriers should be avoided during

the implementation an innovation project?

Based on the findings of this chapter an agile based strategy can be formulated. Part 5.3 evaluates

barriers that should be avoided during the implementation phase. The conclusion of this chapter will

show an agile based strategy that guides you through the implementation stage.

5.1 Definitions What exactly needs to be done within the implementation phase is captured in the definition. For this

thesis, the focus is on organizational implementation The definition of implementation which is used

for this thesis is defined as: the process of gaining targeted employees’ appropriate and committed use

of an innovation project (Klein & Sorra, 1996). Innovation projects can be implemented in a traditional

way, but adopting an agile mindset should help a team with thinking more effectively and efficiently

during the implementation phase (Stellman & Greene, 2014).

Simply said, the agile methodology is a different approach than the traditional project management

approach like for example the waterfall approach. Agile project management can be seen as an

iterative approach to planning and guiding project processes. Each defined iteration will be reviewed

and criticized by a project team. Agile is about delivering business value quickly and about being

adaptive and responsive to evolving customer needs and business circumstances (Goodpasture, 2010).

For this thesis, the implementation strategy will be based on the different agile methodologies.

Term Definition

Implementation The process of gaining targeted employees’ appropriate and committed use of an

innovation project (Klein & Sorra, 1996).

Agile methodology A methodology that makes use of an iterative approach to plan and guide the

project through different processes (own def.)

Table 11: Definitions related to the implementation strategy

36

Additionally, it should be noticed that the term implementation must not be confused with the term

adoption. The implementation concerns establishing the innovation project into the organization, while

the adoption concerns individuals who make use of a new idea as the best course of action available

(Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971).

5.2 Agile based strategies The agile project management method is seen as a set of methods, methodologies and a mindset that

must help a team to think more effectively, efficiently and make better decisions. Additionally, the

right mindset can make a difference in how effectively a team applies their practices. This general

agile philosophy concerns (Cohn, 2006):

- Work as one team

- Work in short iterations

- Deliver something in each iteration

Agile teams work in time-boxed iterations that deliver an in advanced agreed output at the end of each

time box. According to Cobb (2011)the following organizational practices are most important when

you want to implement an agile methodology: teamwork, empowerment and transparency.

1. Teamwork: “agile projects go well beyond that level of teamwork—in an agile project, people

from functional organizations are assigned to the project and from that point on, the agile

project team works as a highly integrated individual entity to take collective ownership for the

success of the project from both an engineering design and a business results perspective”

2. Empowerment: “each member on the team is fully empowered to do the tasks that he or she

is assigned, and the team as a whole feels joint responsibility for the results—if one member

on the team fails to deliver his or her expected results, the team as a whole has failed”.

3. Transparency: “most agile methodologies are based on a close and collaborative relationship

between the business user and the development team. In an agile environment, problems, risks,

and issues are normally shared openly and transparently with the business user, and the

business user normally plays an active role in helping to set the direction to resolve those

issues”.

5.2.1 Scrum Scrum is described as a framework within which people can address complex, adaptive problems, while

productively and creatively delivering products of the highest possible value (Lacey, 2015). According

to Stellman and Greene (2014) typical scrum project consists of the following steps:

1. Three roles should be identified within the team: a Product Owner, Scrum Master and the rest

of the team is assigned as Team Member.

2. The product owner defines a product backlog that includes requirements that have to be met

during the implementation phase.

3. Together, a sprint planning needs to be defined: this includes the time boxed iterations

(sprints). Also known as the sprint backlog.

4. Every day, the Daily Scrum meeting should be organized. This is a short meeting where the

team updates each other with the progress they have made.

5. Lastly, the Scrum Master is responsible for keeping the Sprint Review up to date. This involves

an evaluation per sprint, to figure out the lessons the team has learned.

37

5.2.2 Kanban The word Kanban means literally: visual – board. Hence, the progress of a project is visualized on a board. In this way, the workflow is visualized and has to be optimized. Kanban provides a simple approach to delivering high-quality value to customers, on time and on budget (Brechner, 2015). This workflow is categorized in three different stages: to do, doing and done.

The idea behind this methodology is that transparency should be seen as the source for the team’s effort. Visualizing the work flow should also improve the communication between the team members, which leads to a improved productivity.

5.2.3 Scrum vs. Kanban In this paragraph, Scrum and Kanban will be compared with each other. Useful aspects will be used

design an implementation strategy for innovation projects.

Comparing both methods, Scrum has more steps than Kanban. Hence, it can be said that Scrum is more

prescriptive, because there are more rules to follow. Kanban leaves a lot of information open. No roles

are assigned at the Kanban method, while Scrum identifies at least three roles: Product Owner, Scrum

Master and Team Members. The Scrum team also has to decide what points of the backlog should be

completed within one sprint. Within a Kanban team, no required time boxes are set. Both of the

methods emphasizes that only things which are really necessary should be done. The two methods

show both advantages and disadvantages. Creating a hybrid strategy therefore looks most promising.

Scrum Kanban (Hammarber & Sunden, 2014)

Focus Controlling of all types of projects Process improvement, eliminating waste and

work more effectively

Steps 1. Identify: Product Owner, Scrum

Master and Team member

2. Define Backlog

3. Define Sprints

4. Organize Daily Scrum meeting

and update Sprint review

1. Visualize the workflow (on a board)

2. Map the workflow by identifying the

stages

3. Define what work has to be done, is in

progress and define what is done

4. Limit work in processes

5. Adapt and improve

Differences Number of steps, therefore Scrum is more prescriptive then Kanban

Responsibilities, at Scrum every team member has its own role

Assigning of certain time periods/time boxes is only done at the Scrum method

Scrum is more iterative, while can seems more linear

Advantages Responsibilities are linked with

specific roles

Structure

Defining what is done, gives insight in

which team members are finished with a

specific task. Team members can then be

assigned with a new task.

Reduces waste

Challenges Sprints must be time-boxed

Deliverables must be shown at

the end of a sprint

Little structure is provided

Table 12: Scrum method vs Kanban method

38

5.3 Barriers If you want to implement an agile method; Scrum or Kanban, the following barriers should be taken

into account:

- Everyone should be familiar with the agile terms. Teams must understand how agile

working applies to the team and the company. Agile therefore requires a little shift in the

mindset (Lacey, 2015).

- It takes time for everyone to understand the Agile, Scrum or Kanban principles. It is said

the Scrum for example takes 3 months to learn the basis (Lacey,2015).

- Individual team members must not be rewarded more than the team effort (Stellman &

Greene, 2014).

Looking at the barriers at this part, an agile coach during the implementation of an innovation project

can be helpful (Stellman & Greene, 2014). This is someone who helps the team to adopt agile practices.

This coach can help the team members with their new attitude, mindset and barriers while adopting

the agile methodology.

5.4 Conclusion To answer the sub research question: which agile based strategy need to be followed and which

barriers should be avoided during the implementation an innovation project, it can be said that a

hybrid strategy which takes the best of the two agile based methods looks most promising. Both of the

methods show useful aspects, comparing it with a traditional waterfall approach. Based on the Kanban

methodology; the implementation process has to be divided in three columns, namely: to do, doing

and done. Then, the steps of the Scrum process can be categorized within this three columns, namely:

define backlog, define sprints, define sprints in progress, organize daily Scrum meeting and define

sprints that are done. This results in the following strategy:

To Do (Product Owner) Doing (Team Members) Done (Scrum Master)

1. Define Backlog

(tasks that need to

be done to

implement the

innovation project)

2. Define

sprints

1. Define sprints that are in

progress

2. Discuss and update sprints

in regularly meeting

3. Update sprint review

1. Define sprints that are

done

2. Assign people who

finished their sprint to

a new sprint

It also could be helpful to assign, if possible and varying from the size of the innovation project, at

least; the Product Owner who is responsible for the elements in the ‘To Do column’, Team Members

who are responsible for the tasks “In Progress’ and someone who is responsible for updating the ‘Done

column’.

Additionally, because the agile methodology requires a shift of mindset, especially when the concept

is new for an organization, it should be taken into account that it takes time to implement a new

methodology.

Table 13: Implementation strategy based on Scrum and Kanban

39

6. The Diffusion Gate

According to Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir (1997) one of the project success’ dimensions is preparation for

the future. Is an organization able to sustain an innovation project for a certain period? What criteria

of the innovation project must therefore be fulfilled after the implementation process, in a way that

employees confirm working with an innovation project? After the implementation phase, individuals

decide to continue the full use of an innovation project (Rogers, 2003). The author also explains that

diffusion of innovation was the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain

channels over time among members of a social system. In this chapter, criteria that must be fulfilled

before an innovation project goes to the final phase of confirmation will be discussed. According to

Rogers (2003) the project should be accepted through the organisation; which is called diffusion. Hence,

in this paragraph criteria will be researched that tell you if an innovation project is implemented

effectively, which is translated into the following sub research question:

5. What criteria can be used to evaluate if the implementation process of an innovation project was

effective?

Firstly, some definitions according to the diffusion will be given in part 6.1. Secondly, possible criteria

that evaluate if an innovation projects is effectively implemented will be discussed. Thirdly, the

conclusion of this chapter is presented in paragraph 6.3.

6.1 Definitions The definitions of confirmation and diffusion can be seen as confusing. Both of them are related to the

future use of an innovation project. Premkumar, Ramamuthy, and Nilankanta (1994) gave the

following definition: the diffusion perspective attempt to understand why and how an innovation

spreads and what characteristics of the innovation lead to widespread acceptance. While Rogers (2003)

uses the definition of diffusion differently, he means planned and unplanned spontaneous spread of

new ideas. For this research, the distinction will be made between the diffusion gate and the

confirmation phase. When an innovation project passes the diffusion gate, it goes to the confirmation

phase.

Term Definition

Diffusion Widespread acceptance of the innovation project by

employees through the own organization (own def.).

Confirmation phase Phase where an individual decides to continue using the

innovation project (own def.)

6.2 Criteria In this paragraph, criteria have to explain why some of the innovation projects never become widely

accepted. Rogers (2003) identified five of these criteria, namely: observability, relative advantage,

compatibility, trialability and complexity. He gives the following definitions:

- Observability; is defined as the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others.

This means that if an innovation shows positive results during the implementation phase to

the organization, the innovation project will be more likely to be confirmed.

Table 14: Definitions related to diffusion

40

- Relative advantage; is defined as the degree to which an innovation project is perceived as

being better than the idea it supersedes. It concerns the relative advantages, so has it shown

a positive result during the implementation phase of the project?

- Compatibility; to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values and

past experiences. When an innovation projects fits into the personal life of an individual, the

project is more likely to be widespread accepted.

- Trialability; is defined as the degree to which an innovation project may be experimented with

on a limited basis. This means that experimenting with an innovation project will improve its

diffusion.

- Complexity; is defined as the degree to which an innovation project is perceived as relatively

difficult to understand and use. This refers to the level of difficulty of an innovation project.

It should be noted that complexity is already taken into account in the adoption gate of chapter 4, and

can be left out of the diffusion gate. In my opinion, trialabilty is more applicable during the

implementation strategy, to get feedback from employees or to see their reaction towards a project

and will therefore also be left out. Observability, relative advantage and compatibility will be used as

diffusion criteria after the implementation.

Rogers (2003) also states that diffusing an innovation project is difficult, even when it shows a lot of

advantages. This because the advantage for one person, can be seen as a disadvantage for another

person. The innovation adoption curve, described in part 4.2 can therefore be helpful. The innovation

adoption curve emphasizes that not everyone is willing to innovate, and therefore not willing to

confirm an innovation project. Every person evaluates an innovation project differently. Some

employees will find a certain innovation project complex, while for others will not have problems with

it. This makes the criteria of the gates even more important to taken into account.

According to Ruppel and Harrington (2000) communication is also seen as a critical success factor for

the commitment of innovation projects. Rogers (2003) also indicates communication channels as a way

to improve the diffusion of innovation. According to him, communication channels refer to the rate and

degree that people talk about and spread the new about innovation projects.

Kreps (1990) expressed the importance of consideration for the informal, social line of communication

in organization. According to him, the communication between employees in an organization is

important when experiences are shared and knowledge is exchanges. The use of information in

communication systems can improve the organizational processes and therefore also fostering the

diffusion of innovation projects. Additionally, individuals in organizations participate in different

networks, both formal and informal (Kreps, 1990). Also according to Castells (1996), it is important for

organizations to taken into account how they spread their information and in what way they

communicate. No research is done to how communication can improve the diffusion of innovations.

However, communication plays a role when individuals decide to continue the full use of an innovation

project. To stimulate the diffusion of an innovation project, innovation projects should be mentioned

on the communication channels of the organization.

41

6.3 Conclusion To answer the sub research question; what criteria can be used to evaluate if the implementation

process of an innovation project was effective, the following criteria must be fulfilled to determine if

an innovation project is implemented effectively. These criteria are: observability, compatibility and

relative advantage. The following questions are applicable for the diffusion gate:

1. Has the innovation project shown positive results during the implementation for the

organization?

2. Has the innovation project shown a positive impact on the job activities of an employee during

the implementation?

3. Is the innovation project consistent with the existent values of the organization?

If yes is answered, the implementation process can be seen as effective. To improve the confirmation

phase, the innovation project must be mentioned on different communication channels of the

organization.

42

Conclusion part I: The Knowledge Base

For this thesis, three processes have to be managed within the implementation phase: the process

where individuals decide if they adopt an innovation project, the implementation process where the

project is implemented and the process where it is decided if the innovation project is implemented

effectively and therefore confirmed by the organization. An useful option to integrate these elements

is the Industrial Scrum Framework (Sommer et al., 2015), which combines project management

elements with an agile based strategy. This is also the most prescriptive method and gives the most

guidance and support in the implementation phase. According to the Industrial Scrum Framework, the

implementation process consists of an adoption gate, an implementation strategy and the diffusion

gate.

For the adoption gate, three criteria are set:

- Employees must be competent enough to work with the innovation project

- Employees must enjoy the working with the innovation project

- Employees must get relative advantage out of working with the innovation project

The chosen strategy to implement an innovation project is based on the agile project management

method. This means that innovation projects should be implemented in short iterations, where

something should be delivered in each iteration. The defined implementation strategy shows aspects

from the Scrum and Kanban method. This means that a hybrid strategy is designed. To ensure

transparency during the implementation process, the process will be categorized in three columns: to

do, in progress and done.

To pass the diffusion gate, to determine if the implementation was effective, three criteria are set:

- Observability: the innovation project must have shown a positive result during the

implementation for the organisation

- Comptability; the innovation project must be consistent with the values of an organization.

- Relative advantage; the innovation project must have shown a positive impact on the

employees.

-

The image below visualizes the above information:

Fig. 16: Basic elements of the Innovation Roadmap: from adoption to diffusion (own ill.)

43

Part II: The Environment

In this part of the research, the environment will be researched. This means that a short overview of

innovation management within AFI KLM E&M will be outlined in chapter 7. Thereafter it will be

investigated in chapter 8 how AFI KLM E&M implements the innovation projects, together with the

barriers that employees experience during the implementation process. Finally, the gaps between the

desired and actual level of performance will be researched.

Fig. 17: The Environment (own ill.)

44

7. A case for an Innovation Roadmap: KLM E&M

This chapter firstly sketches a brief overview of innovation management within the organisation. This

is captured in the following research question:

5. How is innovation managed within AFI KLM E&M?

7.1 KLM Royal Dutch Airlines In 1919, KLM was founded as the Dutch Royal Airlines and its Colonies. Together with subsidiaries KLM

City Hopper, Martinair and Transavia also known as the KLM group. (KLM Company Profile, 2016). In

2004, Air France and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines have become the largest European airline group (KLM

History, 2016). This resulted in one group, two airlines and three businesses. KLM has three core

businesses: Passenger Business, Cargo and Engineering & Maintenance. Together with Air France

Industries, KLM E&M is the maintenance division of KLM. Both airlines run their own maintenance

operations, Air France industries from Paris-Charles de Gaulle and KLM Engineering & Mainteance from

Amsterdam-Schiphol (KLM, 2016).

7.1.1. Vision KLM wants to become the most customer centric, innovative and efficient European network carrier

(KLM, 2016). This means that KLM strives to be the most innovative and efficient airline from Europe.

Additionally, KLM wants to become an attractive airline for their customers. To achieve this vision,

KLM defined the following organization structure:

7.2 Innovation at KLM E&M Air France Industries and KLM E&M maintain aircraft, engines and components for around 150 clients

worldwide. Around 5000 people are working at KLM E&M in the Netherlands (KLM, 2016). Some of

these people are given the title of Innovation Champion or Innovation Leader. This because these

people have shown an innovative spirit. Looking back to Rogers’ (2003) adoption curve, these people

would be categorized as the innovators of the organization. As mentioned earlier in paragraph 1.1.1,

Fig. 18: Organizational structure KLM (own ill.)

45

KLM E&M uses the innovation funnel to visualize the innovation process. To become more innovative,

KLM E&M has created the MRO Lab and KLM E&M launched the Moonshine Program.

7.2.1. MRO Lab

In Singapore, cooperation between AFI KLM E&M and Ramco systems is realized in an innovation

center. Ramco Systems is an organization that focuses on providing innovative solutions. This MRO

Lab, can be seen as a center where ideas are generated. Furthermore, it develops innovative ideas till

projects they are located in the Proof of Concept phase of the innovation process. Innovative related

problems, discovered at the locations at Air France Industries or KLM Engineering & Maintenance are

worked out in this lab.

7.2.2. Moonshine Program Innovation within KLM E&M is partly driven by the Moonshine Program. When an employee faces a

problem, related to the field of innovation, a team of experts is launched to solve this problem. Hence,

the Moonshine Program provides problems faced by employees with innovative solutions. The

Moonshine Program does not focus on the implementation process of the potential innovative

solutions, only on the Proof of Concept phase of the innovation process.

7.3 Currently running innovation projects at KLM E&M Examples of currently running innovation projects at KLM E&M are: 3D printing, 3D scanning, Virtual

Reality or Paperbit. Most of the times, these projects are managed by the earlier mentioned

innovation leaders. People that contain an innovative spirit.

7.3.1 3D printing 3D printing, which is also known as additive manufacturing, refers to a manufacture technology were

three-dimensional physical objects are created from a digital design. Different technologies and

materials are available to print with. Objects can be printed, almost in any shape. The digital design is

sliced into layers which will be send to a 3D printer. Liquid plastic is then converted into solid 3D objects.

Within the airline industry, this technique offers potential. KLM E&M has therefore bought a 3D printer

in 2003.

7.3.2. 3D scanning Hailstones combined with strong winds and unstable weather conditions can heavily effect an airplane.

Damage caused by hail impacts causes a major delay during an inspection for an airplane. Normally,

this visual inspections happen manually. These visual inspections will take four to five hours per square

meter. The shape of the dents caused by the hailstones vary, and therefore geometric measurement

needs to be carried out. With an handy scanner, which was purchased in 2012, a high accuracy of

measured data can be collected by laser processes. This technique improves the efficiency of visual

inspections.

7.3.3. Virtual Reality The Virtual Reality project within KLM E&M is based on the Google Cardboard, which is a Virtual Reality

platform developed by Google for use with a head mount for a smartphone. Users are therefore able

to build their own viewer from simple components. The viewer places his smartphone into the back of

it and views trough the lenses in the front.

46

The current Project Leader from the Virtual Reality project, saw a 360 picture of an airplane within the

hangar and was wondering; how could we profit from an virtual world with an airplane within the

hangar? The environment for an airplane evacuation is for example difficult to simulate. This

environment makes training and learning a challenge. At the same time, a lot can only be effectively

learned on the job. The VR glasses therefore introduce an situational VR scenario training. In the end,

this thought resulted in a virtual world where evacuations in the hangar are simulated.

7.3.4. Paperbit At this moment, a damage inspection costs a lot of time. Mainly because it consists of too much

steps, namely:

- Photos have to be taken with a camera

- The photo’s must be uploaded to the computer

- Inspection report is done hand written

- Everything has to be retyped at the computer

An app is therefore desired, the Paperbit app, that consists of a standard form in inspection and

damage-assessment. In this way, simplifying operations could save time. In the end this also has to

result in fewer errors. Photos should therefore be integrated in a standard report on a fixed location.

Additionally, a dashboard gives an overview of the status of the damage inspection.

7.4 Conclusion To answer the sub research question; how are innovation projects managed within KLM E&M, it can

be said that KLM E&M uses the innovation funnel concept to manage their innovation process.

However, the innovation funnel is more use to visualize the process, instead of managing the process.

Employees are encouraged to hand in their ideas, that have to be translated into innovation project,

but it seems to happen that E&M is flooded in too many suggestions. Innovation challenges and the

presence of idea boxes, together with the amount of ideas that are handed in, confirm that innovation

is alive under the employees.

Currently running innovation projects are most of the times managed by innovation leaders, people

that have shown an innovative spirit. KLM E&M only seems to struggle with the implementation

process for some of these different innovation projects, because a lot of these projects are on a hold

for a certain period within the implementation phase.

KLM Engineering & Maintenance launched an innovation lab and an innovation related program. Both

of of them, the MRO Lab and the Moonshine Program, mainly focus on the Idea Generation process

and the Proof of Concept phase of the innovation process. Even though innovation is prioritized in the

vision statement, there is no outspoken vision on how innovation projects should be managed or

implemented within the company.

47

8. A Gap Analysis

In this chapter, the desired levels of performance will be compared with the actual level of

performance that results in the identified gap. For this thesis, with performance is meant the

performance of the innovation projects within the implementation phase. In the end, these findings

will be integrated into the Roadmap of Innovation.

5. Which gaps are present between the desired and actual levels of performance and what are

useful aspects for the innovation roadmap?

8.1 Desired levels of performance As an Airline, AFI KLM E&M has developed a unique portfolio of know-how and engineering capabilities

reflected in its development of a wide range of value-adding innovations (Maintenance, 2016). T he

previous sentence indicates that an innovation project is successful, if it adds value to the business. It

can be said that an innovation project adds value, when it is successful implemented. To find out the

desired level of performance of the implementation process, several interviews will conducted with

people with different functions.

8.1.1. Interview set up Different types of interviews can be categorized. One way of categorization is the level of structuration

of an interview. According to Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2007) the following types of interviews

exists: structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and unstructured/in depth interviews. These

three types of interviews will shortly be described.

- Structured interviews; use questionnaires based on a predetermined and standardised set of

questions and are referred to as interviewer-administered questionnaires. This means that

structured interviews ensure that each interviews is presented with exactly the same

questions in the same order.

- Semi-structured interviews may be used in an explanatory study in order to understand the

relationships between variables, such as those revealed by a descriptive study; this kind of

interview is also used in relation to an exploratory study. In a semi-structured interviews, news

ideas are allowed to be brought up during the interview itself.

- Unstructured interviews are informal; they are employed to discover more information about

a general area in which researchers are interested and there is no predetermined list of

questions to work through, although the researcher needs to have ideas about the features

that he/she wants to explore. Thus, an unstructured interview is the opposite of a structured

interview. Unstructured interviews tend to be more informal.

The most common interview form is a face-to-face interview. In a face-to-face interview, an

interviewer directly communicates with the interviewee. In the opposite form, a group interview,

multiple candidates are interviewed at the same time.

To discover the desired level of performance, firstly unstructured face-to-face interviews will be

conducted. Later on, the desired level of performance will be discussed in a group interview. This

because probably a lot of different answers will be given in the face to face interviews, thus a ranking

of answers will be done in the group interview. The following question will be conducted in the face-

to-face interviews: what are the success factors of an innovation project that must be implemented?

48

8.1.2 Interviewees selection To determine the implementation criteria; by means of an unstructured interview, different people

with different functions were asked in face-to-face conversations what the success factors are of an

innovation project that must be implemented.

Function Relation with innovation

projects

Number of interviewees

Managers Sponsor of innovation projects 2

Engineers and technicians Project leaders of innovation

projects

6

Hangar Managers Location were several

innovation projects are carried

out

2

Mechanics, Inspectors Users of innovation projects 4

8.1.3 Interview results The summarized results of the face-to-face interviews can be found in this paragraph. After this face-

to-face interview, a group interview was organized.

Function Relation with innovation

projects

Number of

interviewees

Criteria coming from

interviews

Managers Sponsor of innovation projects 2 Financial gain,

safety, innovative image

Engineers and

technicans

Project leaders of innovation

projects

6 Success rate, time to

impact, quality

Hangar managers Location were several

innovation projects carried out

2 Hangar punctuality, fleet

availability and quality

Mechanics, inspectors Users of innovation projects 4 Productivity gain,

employee value

Remarkable at these criteria is that only two of the criteria are applicable to the employees. Almost all

the implementation criteria that were mentioned are related to the organization. This means that the

ones who purchase the innovation project, do not take into account the employees that have to work

with the innovation project.

8.1.4 Ranking of results The table on the next page shows the ranking of implementation criteria that came out during the

group interview session

Implementation criteria

1. Safety

2. Quality

3. Innovative image

4. Financial gain

5. Productivity gain

6. Hangar punctuality

Table 15: Interviewees selection desired level of performance

Table 16: Interviewees selection desired level of performance

49

7. Fleet availability

8. Time to impact

9. Productivity gain

10. Employee value

Again, this ranking reveals that the priority is firstly the organization, secondly the customers and

thirdly the employees itself. This can be the reason why several innovation projects fail in their

implementation. Employees that have to use the innovation projects are not or too little taken into

account. Innovative image is ranked at the third place, which would indicate that some of the

innovation projects are only bought because they improve the innovative image of the company. This

is another reason that could cause a slow implementation process.

8.2 Actual level of performance To determine the actual level of performance, this paragraph evaluates several innovation projects

within KLM E&M. First, it describes the interview set up. Second, it discusses the selected cases and

last; it presents the interview results.

8.2.1. Interview set up To discover the actual level of performance, the interview uses prepared questions. Structured

interviews are held with people who are involved at different innovation projects, to discover the

relation between the literature and the environment. To determine what is happening in the

environment, the interview set up is shown below:

Interview actual level of performance:

1. General information:

- Name innovation project

- Name, function and department from interviewee

- Description about the innovation project

2. Sketch of the innovation process:

- Planning

- Phases that can be distinguished within the process of the innovation project

- Current phase of the innovation project

3. Successful implemented: yes/no?

- Success factors?

- Barriers?

4. Implementation phase:

- Strategy during implementation phase

8.2.2. Case selection Besides the four currently running innovation projects which are in the implementation phase

(paragraph 7.3), two successful implemented innovation projects and two less successful implemented

innovation projects will be evaluated.

Innovation project Bought? Implemented? Successful?

3D Printing Yes Yes Yes

3D Scanning Yes Running -

Table 17: Ranking of criteria mentioned in interview

50

Virtual Reality Yes Soon -

Paperbit Yes Running -

High Enthalpy Plasma Gun Yes No No

Laser Cladder Yes Yes Yes and no

Carpet Car Yes No No

Big Data Yes Yes Yes

8.2.3 Interview results In this paragraph the interview results will shortly be described. The implementation strategy, success

factors and barriers will also be described. The complete interviews can be found in Appendix C.

Project Strategy implementation phase Success factors Barriers

C1. 3D Printing "During the implementation of the 3D printer,

the printer is basically put down. I had some

experience with 3D printing, so the

implementation didn’t cause any problems."

Expertise -

C2. 3D

Scanning

“During this project we have done everything

step by step. We did the Proof of Concept even

twice.”

Teamwork and

cooperation

Capacity, anxiety

and ownership

C3. Virtual

Reality

“You achieve the most when you stay off radar.” Trust and

financial

support

-

C4. Paperbit "In the initial phase we just went for it, we

started the pilot and tested it. This paid off

results immidiately. "

Focus and

enthusiasm

Ownership and

reorganization

C5. High

Enthalpy

Plasma Gun

"He was purchased in 2004, put down, and since

then never used.”

- Priorities

organization,

capacity and

expertise

C6. Laser

Cladder

"In 2003 we purchased a basic Laser Cladder,

actually he was still at research level. Then we

just put it down.”

Accurate

business case

and preparation

Capacity and

underestimating

complexity

C7. Carpet Car "The project took part in the Moonshine

program: in the workplace occurs a problem

and solution, and then a team is built around

the idea to put it all together.”

Easy to use and

usefulness

Difference between

theory and practice

and ownership

C8. Big Data “Show how something looks and ask for

feedback. Just build something. "Then we just

started with small projects. Ultimately, this is

expanded a year later.

Knowledge

exchange,

initiative and

teamwork

Skeptic people

According to the interview results, it is remarkable that ownership is mentioned the most as a barrier.

This indicates that people think too easy about the purchase of an innovation project. Projects have

been bought, only because of the reason they can make profit out of it or because it improves the

image of the company or someone. It is very important that an innovation project satisfies predefined

implementation criteria. The High Enthalpy Plasma Gun and Laser Cladder for example were both

purchased, but during the implementation it turned out that the projects were ‘too complex’. No one

within the organization had the expertise of the bought innovation projects. Even if a Lean Six Sigma

Table 18: Selected cases for interviews to determine the actual level of performance

Table 19: Interview results

51

proves that there would be a financial gain, there are much more requirements that need to be fulfilled

before an innovation project can be implemented within the organization. Besides, ‘easy to use’ and

‘expertise’ is mentioned as success criteria. Both of them are related to the employees.

8.3 The identified gap In this paragraph, the gap between the desired level of performance and the actual level of

performance of the implementation criteria and strategy will be evaluated further.

8.3.1 Implementation criteria The implementation criteria that were mentioned within the literature study and the group interview

will be evaluated further. Too compare the findings of the knowledge base with findings of the

environment, the table below visualizes the overview.

Adoption criteria

(Knowledge Base)

Diffusion criteria

(Knowledge Base)

Implementation criteria

(Environment)

- Employees must be

competent enough to

work with the

innovation project.

- Employees must enjoy

working with the

innovation project.

- Employees must get

relative advantage out

of the innovation

project.

- The innovation project shows

relative advantage for employees

during implementation

- The innovation project shows

positive results for the organisation

- The innovation project is consistent

with existing organizational values

- Safety

- Quality

- Success rate

- Innovative image

- Financial gain

- Productivity gain

- Hangar punctuality

- Fleet availability

- Time to impact

- Productivity gain

- Employee value

When comparing the implementation criteria mentioned in the Knowledge Base with the criteria

coming from the environment, it can be seen that the criteria are different. During the group interview

the employee value was ranked at the last position while, according to the literature, employee value

should be on high priority. Employee value, which is mentioned during the group interview, shows

similar aspects with the adoption criteria: ‘employees must enjoy working with the innovation project’.

Additionally, the same applies for productivity gain which shows similar aspects with the criteria:

‘employees must get relative advantage out of the innovation project’. Ranking both of these criteria

at the bottom, could be the reason behind the fact that innovation projects are slowly passing the

implementation process.

To make a final list of adoption criteria and diffusion criteria, it is important to take a closer look to the

scope of this thesis. As mentioned earlier, it concerns innovation projects that are developed or bought

for internal use. Some of the described criteria are useful, but not for the adoption or diffusion gate.

If an innovation project is for example is not safe enough, it should not leave the gate at the proof of

concept phase. The same applies to quality, success rate and time to impact. Besides, innovative image,

financial gain, hangar punctuality and fleet availability are criteria that are more important for the

organization itself. The useful criteria that will have priority within the adoption gate will therefore be:

employee value and productivity gain. However, the remaining mentioned criteria will also be taken

into account.

Table 20: Compared implementation criteria

52

8.3.2 Implementation strategy According to an effective implementation, it should be researched if the strategies of innovation

projects show aspects from the advised agile project management method. If so, it can be concluded

that an agile approach results in a more effective implementation of the innovation projects.

Innovation project Traditional elements Agile elements Effective

implementation? Yes/no

D1. 3D Printing - Bought with Trial and

error mentality

Yes

D2. 3D Scanning Step by step approach - Not yet (on hold for: 2

years)

D3. Virtual Reality - Feedback, project is built

around motivated

individuals

Successful start,

implementation within a

few weeks

D4. Paperbit - Feedback by means of a

pilot

Successful start, on hold

because of reorganization

D5. High Enthalpy

Plasma Gun

Complexity, Step by

step approach

- No

D6. Laser Cladder Complexity, Step by

step approach

- More or less (for the

second time)

D7. Carpet Car - Simplicity, self-organized

team

Yes

D8. Big Data - Feedback, cooperation,

project is built around

motivated individuals

Yes

It can be seen that the implementation strategies that show elements of an agile approach, lead to a

more effective implementation. Some of the innovation projects that were bought were bought with

an agile mindset: ‘buy it, and put it down somewhere’. It turned out that this mindset works, but only

if someone within the organisation has the knowledge and expertise of the innovation project. For 3D

printing, there was someone with a lot of knowledge and expertise, which led to a successful

implementation. Unfortunately for the Laser Cladder, it turned out that the device and the program

software were too complex. Thus, complexity is seen as very important adoption criteria. This was also

the problem with the 3D scanning project.

8.4 Conclusion To answer the sub research question; which gaps are present between the desired and actual levels of

performance and what are therefore useful aspects for implementing an innovation project, it turned

out that an adoption gate that takes the employee value into account is desired. However, during the

group interview the employee value was ranked at a bottom position. Additionally, complexity and a

lack of expertise were also mentioned as barriers during the implementation in most of the interviews.

At the actual level of performance, criteria to implement an innovation project are focused on the

organization and the customers at first. This could be the reason behind the fact that innovation

projects fail in their implementation. Adoption criteria for employees are desired before implementing

an innovation project, three criteria in specific. The three criteria that should be emphasized within

the adoption gate are: productivity gain, complexity and employee value.

Table 21: Identified gap - implementation strategy

53

During the more in-depth interviews, it turned out that the strategy of effective implemented

innovation projects show characteristics of the agile methodology. Asking for feedback and providing

pilots about an innovation project seem to be critical success factors during the implementation

process. Thus an agile project management is desired, but the actual project management methods

show a traditional project management approach. Projects that were implemented on an agile way,

turned out to be more successful than projects implemented on a traditional way.

Additionally, ownership seems to be the biggest barrier during the implementation phase and is

therefore desired within the implementation process. In my opinion, the agile project management

method can solve this problem, as one of the specific roles with the project management method is

Product Owner.

54

Conclusion part II: The Environment

Right now, there is no outspoken vision within KLM E&M on how innovation projects should be

implemented within the company. The most attention is at this moment paid to the idea generation

and the Proof of Concept phase. After interviewing people, it turned out that the employees are not

on the highest priority of KLM E&M to implement an innovation project. The organization itself, the

image of the company and their customers seem to have a higher priority when purchasing an

innovation project. This can be the reason why innovation projects are passing the implementation

process slowly. Adoption criteria are therefore very essential. Productivity gain and employee value

should be given extra attention, when designing the Roadmap for Innovation.

The most effective implemented innovation projects show essential elements of the agile

methodology. The biggest barrier during the implementation process is definitely ownership. The

scrum methodology ensures ownership, because someone gets the role of product owner. Gained

feedback by means of a pilot seems to be a success factor. Besides, providing feedback is one of the

essential elements of the agile methodology.

55

Part III: The Design

In this part, the findings of the Knowledge Base and the Environment will be integrated in one decision-

making and support tool. The Innovation Roadmap is designed in this part. The Innovation Roadmap

have to provide the innovation projects with more guidance and support during the implementation

process.

Fig. 19 The Design (own ill.)

56

9. Design of the Innovation Roadmap: opportunities for

agile within KLM E&M

In this chapter, the roadmap an innovation project takes during the implementation process is

designed. The roadmap is based on findings from part 1 and part 2. This is captured in the following

sub research question:

8. How can previous findings be integrated in a decision-making a support tool, that contributes to an

effective implementation process of innovation projects?

9.1 Design of the Innovation Roadmap By identifying the success factors and barriers in the previous parts, an agile based strategy for

implementing an innovation project will be designed in this paragraph. Additionally, an adoption gate

and diffusion gate will be added to the implementation process. The identified factors from the

environment part will be integrated with findings from the literature.

9.1.1 Elements for the Innovation Roadmap Based on the agile principles described in the appendix B, a new implementation process will be

designed. The adoption gate (chapter 4) and the diffusion gate (6) should both be integrated into the

implementation process. From the implementation strategy (chapter 5), the following elements should

be taken into account: the agile based philosophy and organizational practices, and the

implementation strategy which consists of Scrum and Kanban elements. All the mentioned elements

will be supplemented and combined with the findings of the environment.

Elements for the Innovation road map

Adoption gate

Criteria:

- Are employees competent to work with the innovation project?

- Do employees enjoy working with the innovation project?

- Can employees get relative advantage out of the innovation project?

Implementation process

Agile philosophy

- Work as one team

- Work in short iterations

- Deliver something in each iteration

Organizational practices

- Teamwork

- Empowerment

- Transparency

Implementation strategy

- Ensure ownership

Visualize:

- To do (project owner)

o Divide project specific roles and assign tasks to team members

o Define “to do’s”

- Doing (team members)

o Define sprints in progress

o Discuss, change and adapt

o Update sprint review

- Done

o Reflection

57

o Check “to do’s”

Diffusion gate

Criteria:

- Has the innovation project shown a positive result for the organization during the implementation?

- Has the innovation project shown a positive impact on the job activities of an employee during the

implementation?

- Is the innovation project still consistent with the existent values of the organization?

9.1.2. Building the Innovation Roadmap In this chapter, the first design of the Innovation Roadmap is presented. The Innovation Roadmap

consists of 7 steps. First, the innovation project passes the adoption gate. Second, the innovation

project is implemented by means of an agile based strategy. Third, the innovation project passes the

diffusion gate to make sure the implementation was effective.

0. Adoption Gate

The Adoption Gate determines if employees adopt an innovation project. As described by Rogers

(2005), it are the individuals who decided if an innovation project will be implemented by an

organization. It turned out in chapter 8 that most of the times innovation projects are rejected because

of a lack of knowledge or expertise within the company. Three questions need an answer:

1. Are employees competent to work with the innovation project?

2. Do employees enjoy working with the innovation project?

3. Can employees get relative advantage out of the innovation project?

If no is answered, the remaining criteria which are not captured in the above three questions and

which were mentioned in chapter 4 can be useful. It concerns: voluntariness, experience, subjective

norm, image, job relevance, output quality, results demonstrability, self-efficacy, perception of

external control, anxiety, playfulness, perceived enjoyment, objective usability, ease of us,

comptability, trialability and visibility.

1. Teamwork & Empowerment

The first aspect of the implementation strategy concerns the teamwork & empowerment. An

empowered employee has the authority and responsibility to make its own decisions. In this

Fig. 20: Elements for the Innovation Roadmap

Table 22: Elements for the Innovation Roadmap

58

empowered team, team members should be for the result, in stead of the individuals. In this way, the

effectiveness of teamwork can be ensured. Employees have to be able to use its maximum potential.

An important aspect of the agile scrum approach is the role distribution. Besides, this ensures the

ownership of an innovation project, which was one of the most mentioned barriers during the

interviews. It is therefore very important that someone gets ownership of an innovation project.

Additionally, dividing the roles should be done effectively; to make sure the innovation project is built

around motivated individuals where possible.

2. Transparency

At the second step of the implementation process, the workflow must be visualized. When the

workflow is made visible, barriers or queues can easier be managed. Examples are the use of a

whiteboard, were post its can easily be added to the board.

3. To do

For this ‘to do’ step it is important that everything that needs to be done, is made visible on the board.

If you for example want to introduce a new software program, to do’s can be: arrange a license for a

program or make sure someone gives a training. Employees should be given insight in the overall

workload of the project.

4. Doing

The doing step consists of visualizing and updating all the work that is in progress. It turned out that

success factors for the implementation process were organizing pilots and send questionnaires to gain

feedback. If the feedback shows a negative outcome, the project team must adapt the innovation

project.

5. Done

At fifth step, it the tasks that are done must be visualized. In this way, employees should be kept

motivated and productive. Additionally, when an employee is finished with his or her tasks, a new one

can be assigned.

6. Diffusion gate

If an innovation project is implemented effectively, will be evaluated at the diffusion gate. Three

questions must therefore be answered:

1. Has the innovation project shown a positive result for the organization during the

implementation?

2. Has the innovation project shown a positive impact on the job activities of an employee

during the implementation?

3. Is the innovation project still consistent with the existent values of the organization?

If so, the innovation project can pass the diffusion gate. The next phase where the innovation project

ends up is the confirmation phase. According to Rogers (2003), mentioning the innovation project on

different communication channels of an organization will influence the confirmation positively.

59

9.2 Verification In this paragraph, the Innovation Roadmap will be verified. It is interesting to see what would have

happened if the Innovation Roadmap was used during the implementation process of the evaluated

innovation projects.

9.2.1 Reviewing the implementation process To verify the Innovation Roadmap, the following question arises: what if the Innovation Roadmap was

used during the implementation process? To answer this question, the previous identified barriers that

came up during the interviews from paragraph 8.2.3 are useful. In this way, it can be implied how the

Innovation Roadmap potentially could have caught these barriers. The barriers that are set down in

the table below.

Project Barriers

1. 3D Printing -

2. 3D Scanning Capacity, anxiety and ownership

3. Virtual Reality -

4. Paperbit Ownership and reorganization

5. High Enthalpy Plasma Gun Priorities organization, capacity and expertise

6. Laser Cladder Capacity and underestimating complexity

7. Carpet Car Difference between theory and practice and ownership

8. Big Data Skeptic people

3D Scanning

For 3D scanning, the mentioned barriers during the implementation process were: capacity, anxiety

and ownership. When the Innovation Roadmap was used during the implementation process, at least

two of these all barriers could have been prevented. Namely: anxiety and ownership. The Adoption

Gate of the Innovation Roadmap evaluates if employees would enjoy working with the innovation

project. However for the 3D scanner, the employees were afraid that the 3D scanner would replace

their current job activities. Thus, the Adoption Gate could have indicated that employees would not

enjoy working with the 3D scanner. Step 1.2 of the Innovation Roadmap, Teamwork & Empowerment,

ensures the ownership of the innovation project. Which could have prevented that no one felt

responsible for the 3D scanner. Capacity seems a barrier that must be avoided before the

implementation process. In my opinion, capacity is an issue between the proof of concept phase and

the implementation process. Capacity will therefore be explained further in the next paragraph: areas

of improvement.

Paperbit

Just likt the 3D scanning project, Paperbit also experienced difficulties with the ownership of the

project. Again, step 1.2 of the Innovation Roadmap, Teamwork & Empowerment, could have

prevented that nobody experienced ownership of the Paperbit project. The other barrier,

reorganization, seems a barrier that is difficult to prevent. If someone loses his or her job, the

implementation of an innovation project has perhaps been on a back burner.

High Enthalpy Plasma Gun

At least one of the three barriers during the implementation process could have been prevented, it

concerns: expertise. The Adoption Gate evaluates if employees are competent to work with the

innovation project. It turned out that the High Enthalpy Plasma gun was very difficult to understand.

Table 23: Identified barriers during the implementation process

60

Again, capacity was a barrier during the implementation process and will be elaborated further in the

next paragraph: areas of improvement. Although there was insufficient capacity to manage the High

Enthalpy Plasama Gun, the project was updated, which costs a lot of money. This could be an indication

for the need of an escape option during the implementation process. Integrating an escape route

during the implementation process will be evaluated further within the next paragraph.

Laser Cladder

The software to program the Laser Cladder seemed to difficult to understand, it even caused

dangerous situations. The Adoption Gate questions if employees are competent to work with the

project. In this case, the answer would be: no.

Carpet Car

Unfortunately, after designing the Carpet Car, no one took the responsibility to implement the project

into the organization. The Innovation Roadmap could have prevented this. The other barrier,

difference between theory and practice, could might have been prevented. Step 4 of the Innovation

Roadmap, emphasizes asking for feedback. Feedback from the employees could have revealed that

the Carpet Car did not satisfy the expectations.

Big Data

An experienced barrier during the implementation process of the Big Data project was the cooperation

with skeptic people during the implementation of the project. This is a barrier that would not been

noticed with the Innovation Roadmap. However, the Adoption Curve of Rogers indicates that people

respond differently on the implementation of an innovation project. This aspect will therefore be

evaluated further in the next paragraph.

9.2.2. Areas of Improvement

During the look back on the implementation process, three aspects need to be elaborated

further: capacity, skeptic people and the need for an escape route.

Capacity

Before the start of the implementation process, it has to be ensured that there is sufficient capacity to

implement the project. Should this not be the case, the implementation process must not proceed.

Sceptic people

It should not be forgotten that different people with a different attitude towards innovation are

present within an organization. Which means that the questions of the Adoption Gate should be

answered by different kind of people. Ideally, you want to question all people from the different

categories of Rogers (2003). Adoption Curve; innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority

and the laggards.

Escape Route

In first instance, it is being thought that all the bought innovation projects will be implemented.

However, if the innovation project cannot fulfil the adoption criteria of the Adoption Gate, the

implementation process cannot continue. The same applies for the Diffusion Gate, if the diffusion

criteria cannot be fulfilled, the innovation project is not ready for the confirmation phase.

61

9.3 Validation To validate the Innovation Roadmap, the project leaders of the earlier interviewed innovation projects will be interviewed again. To validate the Innovation Roadmap, a manual that can be used during the implementation process is designed and can be found in Appendix D. The manual is designed for innovators or an implementation team that focusses on the implementation of innovation projects. The manual will be used during the interview, where project leaders will be questioned if something is incorrect or missing and can be improved.

9.3.1 Missing elements Innovation Roadmap Manual Project leaders of the innovation projects are questioned if they miss something within the Innovation Roadmap Manual. The complete interviews can be found in Appendix E. The summarized results can be found in table below. It should be noted that it was not possible to interview the project leaders of the Carpet Car and Big Data again.

Innovation project Mentioned wrong or missing elements

1. 3D Printing -

2. 3D Scanning Define ‘good result’

3. Virtual Reality Define ‘positive’ in the Diffusion Gate

4. Paperbit -

5. High Enthalpy Plasma Gun -

6. Laser Cladder General checklist that must be fulfilled before the implementation

process can go on.

7. Carpet Car -

8. Big Data -

3D Printing The project leader of the 3D printer did not have remarks with regards to the implementation manual. He also didn’t miss any elements in the Innovation Roadmap Manual. 3D Scanning When is the implementation of an innovation project seen as good result? This was questioned by the Project Leader of 3D scanning. This aspect is mentioned earlier, and will therefore be worked out in the next paragraph: areas for improvement. The project leader also mentioned that indeed capacity and ownership are very important aspects to define during the implementation of innovation projects. Virtual Reality The project leader of Virtual Reality emphasizes that involving the employees during the implementation is very important. In the Innovation Roadmap, this is done within the Adoption Gate. According to the Project Leader, the employees are the target group. Besides, people will adopt an innovation project faster when you involve them more often during the implementation process. However, he also questioned what is meant with criteria of the Diffusion Gate; a positive result? This is something that must be elaborated further in the next paragraph; areas of improvement. Paperbit According to the project of leader of Paperbit, visualizing the tasks of the implementation process that are already completed, was something he also wants to do more often. Additionally, ensuring the ownership is very important according to the project leader. Laser Cladder The project leader of the Laser Cladder mentioned that all most all elements were covered during the implementation process, apart from a checklist that needs to be fulfilled before the implementation

Table 24: Missing elements mentioned by project leaders

62

process can start. Ideally, this checklist reminds people to the fact that it is important to keep certain aspect in mind. For example safety aspects or certain legislation. High Enthalpy Plasma Gun According to the project leader of the High Enthalpy Plasma Gun, the Implementation Manual looks complete. However, the proof of concept list is advised to be reconsidered which will be done in the next paragraph.

9.3.2: Areas of Improvement According to the previous paragraph, the project leaders were missing two elements: a checklist that indicates if the innovation project is ready for implementation and a definition of ‘positive results, which is a criteria of the Diffusion Gate. The first problem can be solved by adding a Proof of Concept check list to the Implementation Manual. Actually, the proof of concept phase is outside the scope of this thesis. However, it can be considered as input for the implementation process. The criteria that were mentioned within paragraph 8.3.1, can be used for the proof of concept checklist. Based on the Lean Six Sigma formula: results = quality x acceptance. The criteria can be divided, based on: result, quality and acceptance. The result of the checklist can be found below and within the Appendix A of the Implementation Manual.

Proof of Concept checklist

Results the innovation project… in financial gain? in productivity gain? in an improved fleet availability? in an improved hangar punctuality? Adds the innovation project… value for the employees? quality to the image of the organization? Is the innovation project in line with reasonable… safety regulations and legislation? capacity requirements for the organization? time to impact? success rate?

The answers given to the above questions, can give an indication if the implementation process will result in a successful innovation project. Additionally, a reflection to this list will be included into the Diffusion Gate. This because for example project can turn out five times more expensive during the implementation process.

9.4 Conclusion To answer the sub research question; how can previous findings be integrated in a decision-making

and support tool, that contributes to an effective implementation process of innovation projects, the

Innovation Roadmap is designed (figure 23). This Innovation Roadmap consists of seven steps. First,

the criteria of the Adoption Gate need to be fulfilled. Second, the implementation strategy must guide

the innovation project through the implementation process. Third, the innovation project is evaluated

after the implementation process in the Diffusion Gate.

Table 25: Proof of concept checklist

63

Additionally, the verification of the Innovation Roadmap which is done with a review on the barriers

of the implementation process, resulted in three improvements for the Innovation Roadmap. Namely:

the addition of escape routes and the innovation adoption curve of Rogers (2003). Besides, also

capacity must be mentioned. If there is insufficiently capacity present within an organisation, it is

advised not to implement or to carry out the innovation project.

For the validation of the Innovation Roadmap, interviewing the project leaders of the resulted in the

design of the Innovation Roadmap Manual. The design of this Innovation Roadmap Manual can be

found in Appendix D. The manual guides innovators or the implementation team through the

implementation process. Additionally, in the appendix of the Innovation Roadmap Manual a check list

for the proof of concept is added. Which serves as input for the implementation process. This proof of

concept checklist can give an indication if the implementation process of the innovation project will

result in an effective implementation.

64

Conclusion Part III: The Design

Within this part, findings of the Knowledge Base and findings of the Environment were integrated in

one decision making and support tool. The Innovation Roadmap that is designed to guide people

through the implementation process can be found in Appendix D of this report. The designed

Innovation Roadmap briefly describes the agile principles and organizational practices. This because

an agile project management method is advised during the implementation process. Thereafter the

Innovation Roadmap itself is included within the manual. The Innovation Roadmap consists of seven

steps. Additionally, two appendices are added to this Innovation Roadmap manual. The first appendix

includes a proof of concept checklist, which need to be fulfilled before starting the implementation

process. The second appendix includes an explanation of the Innovation Adoption Curve of Rogers

(2003). This Adoption Curve must remind people to the different attitudes that people can have

towards an innovation project.

65

Part IV: Conclusions, recommendation and

reflection

In this final part, the conclusion provides the research question of this thesis with an answer.

Additionally, this last part presentments the recommendation for further research and

recommendations for the organization. Lastly, this part presents the discussion of this repot.

Fig. 21 Conclusions, recommendations and discussion (own ill.)

66

10 . Conclusion, recommendations and discussion

During this research, it became clear that KLM E&M wants to implement their innovation projects

more effectively within the organization. Furthermore, no one ever designed an agile based

implementation strategy; the Innovation Roadmap Manual is designed during this research that guides

innovation projects through the implementation process .

This chapter reflects on the previous chapters, in order to answer the research question. Followed by

recommendations for the organization, recommendations for further research and recommendations

for the innovation process. Additionally, the limitations of this research will be discussed.

10.1 Conclusion In this paragraph, the research question will be provided with an answer. The following research

question was designed at the start of this research:

How should the implementation process to effectively implement an innovation project be organized,

and what are the implementation criteria and strategy that have to be integrated into a tool that

provides guidance and structure during the implementation process?

The implementation process, which is a critical part of the overall innovation process, that must be

organized involves three processes: the moment where individuals decide if they adopt or reject an

innovation project, the process were the innovation project is set into practice and the moment where

it is decided if the implementation was effective.

To organize the described implementation process, a project management method that combines a

traditional Stage-Gate structure with an agile based strategy shows potential. These method combines

decision moments and an iterative way of working to guide a project effectively through the innovation

process. Additionally, the ownership is ensured within this method.

Two decision moments are included in this method. The adoption gate determines if an innovation

project is ready for implementation. The diffusion gate evaluates if the implementation was effective.

For the adoption gate, three criteria are set: employees must be competent enough to work with the

innovation project, employees must enjoy the working with the innovation project and employees

must get relative advantage out of working with the innovation project. To determine if the

implementation process was effective, the following diffusion criteria are set: innovation projects must

have shown a positive result during the implementation process, the innovation project must have

shown a positive impact on the job activities of an employee. Furthermore, the innovation project

must be consistent with the values of the organisation.

The chosen strategy to implement an innovation project is based on the agile project management

method. This means that teamwork, empowerment and transparency are important organizational

practices. Furthermore, to emphasize the transparency, the workflow of the implementation process

must be visualized. Three columns can divide the workflow; tasks that need to be done, tasks that are

in progress and tasks that are finished.

67

The tool that is designed to provide the implementation process with more guidance and structure is

the Innovation Roadmap Manual. The designed manual briefly describes the agile principles and

organizational practices. Thereafter the Innovation Roadmap is included, and consists of seven steps.

Followed by a proof of concept checklist, which evaluates if an innovation project is ready for

implementation by subjecting the innovation project to several criteria. The Innovation Roadmap with

the integrated implementation criteria and strategy that should provide the implementation process

with guidance and structure can be found below. Additionally, a proof of concept checklist is designed

as input for the roadmap. The proof of concept checklist is based on the Lean Six Sigma formula: Results

= quality x acceptance.

Innovation Roadmap

Proof of Concept Checklist: Predefined criteria need to be considered before the implementation process continues. Adoption gate: A go or no go decision indicates if employees will adopt the innovation project during the implementation process. Teamwork & Empowerment: This step emphasizes that self-organized teams are the owner of an innovation project. The team needs to have authority to make their own decisions. Transparency: The workflow within the implementation process must be made visible in three columns.

Table 26: Innovation Roadmap

To do: Tasks that need to be done must be categorized in this first column. Doing: All the tasks that are in progress must be set in second column. Ask for feedback on regular moments. Done: Categorize everything which is done in the third column. Assign new tasks to employees who finished their task.

Diffusion gate: Evaluate if the implementation was effective. Additionally, reflect back on the Proof of Concept Checklist.

68

10.2 Recommendations This chapter presents the recommendations for the organization and recommendations for further

research.

10.2.1 Recommendations for the organization The following recommendations can be defined for the organization of KLM E&M:

- It is recommended that an Innovation Implementation Team should me made responsible for

the implementation of innovation projects. However, working in different shifts can hinder the

team spirit. Different work locations will make the collaboration worse. Additionally,

employees can work in day or night shifts, which can make it difficult to get everyone involved

in a daily meeting. It is therefore recommended to set a standard working location, time and

date to discuss and reflect on the implementation process. A daily meeting is advised but the

amount of meetings depends on the size of the innovation project. For the current running

innovation projects KLM E&M, a daily meeting will not be efficient.

- The agile methodology is relatively new at KLM E&M, so it should be helpful to organize some

agile workshops or to hire some agile coaches that will support employees to make their

mindset more agile. Terms and definitions related to the agile project management method

can be misunderstood. A recommendation would therefore be to translate the agile terms into

more familiar terms for the employees. Instead of a Product Owner, use for example the term:

Implementation Captain. Additionally, a recommendation would also be to pick the Product

Owner or Implementation Captain wisely. Innovation projects can be technical complex, thus

the implementation team should have a certain level of knowledge about the potential

innovation projects. In any case, the Product Owner must have the expertise to understand

the entire workflow.

- To make sure the Innovation Roadmap Manual is used, it is recommended to make a digital

version of the Innovation Roadmap. In that way, the manual is accessible at every location.

Furthermore, to make the manual more user-friendly an interactive version within an app

could be an interesting option to elaborate further.

10.2.2 Recommendations for further research For this research, the focus was specific on the implementation phase of the innovation process. KLM

E&M visualizes the innovation process in four phases: ideation, proof of concept, implementation and

commercialization. It turned out that the agile project management method can make the

implementation process more effective, so an interesting thing would be the potential for agile in the

other innovation process phases.

- If people would do a research to the options for agile in the ideation phase, a suggestion would

be to investigate the combinations of self-empowered teams with idea generation. If a team

comes up with an innovative idea, what are for example the organizational requirements to

give these teams the authority to translate the idea into a confirmed innovation project.

- Another recommendation for further research is the definition of effective. When is an

innovation project implemented effective? For this thesis, an implementation is seen as

effective if it meets a certain amount of the predefined criteria. What are the options that

measure the progress of an innovation project during the implementation process? A

suggestion would be a quantitative tool or system that monitors the progress of a project.

- The development of a tool or technique that measures the level of the applied agile project

management method. A suggestion would be a technique that measures the agile way of

working in an organization.

69

10.3 Discussion This paragraph discusses the results that were obtained during this research. Results for this research

were mainly obtained during different types of interviews.

- The verification is now done with interviews, where a look back on the implementation process

is used for the results. Ideally, you want to verify the Innovation Roadmap on a long term

innovation process. The implementation process of an innovation project requires a time span

that goes beyond the duration of this thesis.

- Another point of discussion is the identification of the success factors and barriers that were

mentioned during the interviews. The mentioned success factors and barriers were used to

design the Innovation Roadmap. People can have a different opinion about what they

experience as a success factor or barrier during the implementation process. Additionally,

some employees will get more organizational support during the innovation process than

other employees. This can influence their opinion towards the identification of success factors

and barriers of the implementation process. If someone gets for example all the financial

resources to carry out the innovation project, the organization can be identified as a success

factors. While at another implementation process, the organization can be considered as

barrier if the organization delays the implementation process.

70

References Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived

Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3).

Almirall, E., & Casdesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open Versus Closed Innovation: A Model of Discovery and Divergence. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 27-47.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10.

Ashton, K. (2015). The end of creativity. How to fly a horse New York: Double Day. Bailey, B. P., & Horvitz, E. (2010). What's your idea? A case study of a Grassroots

Innovation Pipeline within a Large Software Compaony. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Exploitation, exploration, and process

management: the productivity dilemma revisted. Berkhout, G., Hartmann, D., & Trott, P. (2010). Connecting technological capacibilities

with market needs using a cyclic innovation model. R&D Management, 40(5). Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management Innovation. Academy of

Management Review, 33. Brechner, E. (2015). Agile Project Management with Kanban. Caetano, M., & Amaral, D. C. (2011). Roadmapping for technology push and partnership:

A contribution for open innovation environments Technovation, 31(7), 320-335. Camison-Zornoza, C., Lapedra-Alcami, R., Segarra-Cipres, M., & Boronat-Navarro, M.

(2004). A Meta-analysis of Innovation and Organizational Size. Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy,

Society, and Culture. Chesbrough, H. (2011). Open services Innovation: rethinking your business to grow and

compete in a new era: Jossey-Bass. Chidamber, S. R., & Kon, H. B. (1994). A research retrospective of innvoation inception

and succes: the technology-push, demand-pull question. International Journal of Technology Management, 9(1), 94-112.

Christenson, C. (1997). The innovator's Dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Chuttur, M. (2009). Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model:origins, devleopments and future directions Sprounts: working papers on information systems, 9(37).

Clark, R. E. (1998). Motivating Performance Diagnosing and Solving Motivation Problems and Opportunities. Performance improvement, 37(8).

Cobb, C. G. (2011). Making Sense of Agile Project Management Cohn, M. (2006). Agile Estminating and Planning: Pearson Education Inc. Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The Stage-Gate Idea-to-Launch process what new and

next gen systems Journal of Innovation Management, 25(3), 218-232. Cooper, R. G. (2014). What's next? After Stage-Gate. Research technology management,

20-31. Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Portfolio Management for New

Product Development: results of an industry practices study. R&D Management, 31(4).

Davis, F. D. (1985). A Technology acceptance model for empiracally testing new end-user information systems: theory and results.

Denning, P. J., & Dunham, R. (2010). The Innovators Way: Essential Practices for Successful: The MIT Press.

71

du Preez, N. D., & Louw, L. (2008). A framework for managing the innovation process. Paper presented at the Management of Engineering & Technology Portland.

Duin van der, P. A., Ortt, J. R., & Kok, M. (2007). The cyclic innovation model: a new challenge for a regional approach to innovation systems? European Planning studies, 15(2), 195-215.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, J. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.

Galakanis, K. (2002). The Creativity factory: an innovation systems model using a system think approach. Warwick.

Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a Theory of Open Innovation: Three Core Process Archetypes. Paper presented at the R&D Management Conference, Lisbon

Goodpasture. (2010). Project Management in an agile way. U.S.A.: J. Ross Publishing Inc. Hammarber, M., & Sunden, J. (2014). Kanban in action. United States of America:

Manning Publications. Hevner, A. R. (2007). A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research Scandinavian

Journal of Information Systems, 19(2). Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2010). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives.

Technovation, 31(1), 6-9. Kambil, A. (2002). Good ideas are not enough. Kemp, R. G. M., Folkeringa, M., De Jong, J. P. K., & Wubben, E. F. M. (2003). Innovation and

firm performance. Klein, K. J., & Knight, A. P. (2005). Innovation Implementation. Overcoming the challenge.

Current directions in psychological science. American Psychological Society, 14(5), 243-246.

Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055-1085.

KLM. (2016). Company Profile from www.klm.com/corporate/nl/about-klm/profile Kotsemir, M. N., & Meissner, D. (2013). Conceptualizing the Innovation Process. High

School of Economics Research Paper, WP BPR 10/STI/2013. Kreps. (1990). A course in microeconomic theory. Lacey, M. (2015). The Scrum Field Guide. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology?

A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3).

Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial Influence in the Implementation of New Technology. Management Science, 34(10).

Liljander, V., Gillberg, F., Gummerus, J., & van Riel, A. (2006). Technology readiness and the evaluation and adoption of self-service technologies. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13.

Loof, H., & Heshmati, A. (2002). On the relationship between innovation and performance: a sensitivity analysis

Lu, I., Yang, C., & Tseng, C. (2009). Push-Pull interactive model of service innovation cycle - under the service encounter framework. African Journal of Business Management, 3(9), 433-442.

Maintenance, A. F. I. K. E. (2016). THe MRO Lab - Adaptive Innovations from www.afiklmem.com/AFIKLMEM/en/g_page_standard/MRO_lab_Innovations/About_The_MRO_Lab.html

Maital, S., & Seshadri, D. V. R. (2007). Innovation Management: Strategies, concepts and tools for growth and profit California: SAGE.

72

Mone, M. A., Mckinley, W., & Barker, V. L. (1998). Organizational Decline and innovation:a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23(1).

Ortt, J. R., & van der Duin, P. A. (2008). The evolution of innovation management towards contextual innovation. European journal of innovation management towards contextual innovation, 11(4), 522-538.

Premkumar, G., Ramamuthy, K., & Nilankanta, S. (1994). Implementation of Electronic Data Interchange: An Innvoation Diffusion Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(2), 157-186.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (Third Ed.). New York: The Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (1993). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker. (1971). Communication of Innvoations: a cross-cultural

approach. New York: The Free Press. Rothwel, R. (1994). Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International

Marketing review, 11(1), 7-31. Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical work

climate and trust to commitment and innvoation. Journal of Business etics, 25(4), 313-328.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for Business Students: Pearson Education.

Schutte, C. S. L., & Du Preez, N. D. (2008). Knowledge networks for managing innovation projects Paper presented at the Management of Engineering & Technology, Portland.

Sethi, R., & Iqbal, Z. (2008). Stage-Gate control, learning failure, and adverse effect on novel new products Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 118-134.

Shenhar, A. J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project succes. School of Technology Management, 28(2).

Simsit, Z. T., Vayvay, O., & Ozturk, O. (2014). An outline of Innovation Management Process: Building a Framework for Managers to Implement Innovation,. Procedia - Social and behavioural science, 150(15).

Smith, H., & Fingar, P. (2003). Business Process Management: The Third Wave: Technical Excerpt BPLM.

Sommer, A., Hedegaard, C., Dubosvka, I., & Steger-Jensen, K. (2015). Improved Product Development Performance through agile/stage-gate hybrids. Research technology management, 58(1), 34-45.

Stellman, A., & Greene, J. (2014). Learning Agile: Understanding Scrum, XP, Lean and Kanban.

Stosic, B., & Milutinovic, R. (2014). Possibilities of opening up the stage gate model. Romanian Statistical Review, 4, 41-53.

Straub, E. T. (2011). Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for Informal Learning.

Vaishnavi, V. K., & Kuechler, W. (2007). Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Inofrmation and Communication Technology. Boston: Auerbach Publications.

van der Pannen, G., van Beers, C., & Kleinknecht, A. (2003). Succes and failure of innovation: a review on the literature. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3).

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2).

73

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2).

Voigt, K., & Brem, A. (2009). Integration of Market Pull and Technology Push in the Corporate Front End and Innovation Management - Insights from the German Sotware Industry. Technovation, 29(5), 351-367.

Zbaracki, M. J. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43.

74

Appendices Appendix A: Generations of innovation process models

A.1 Technology Push According to Chidamber and Kon (1994), this first model is developed because of the increased

attention for science. Caetano and Amaral (2011)state that technology push especially the small and

medium-sized enterprises dominates, because their focus is on their core competence.

When the development of new products is driven by research and development, the development of

a new innovation project is characterized as a technology push process. Technology does not involve

market research and tends to start with a company that focuses on a new technology, mostly

originating from a Research & Development perspective. After developing the technology, the

company enters the market.

Guidance & structure

Within this model, the structure is captured in a traditional Stage-Gate process. When a stage is

finished, the model guides the innovation project to the next stage.

A.2 Market Pull Chidamber and Kon (1994) state that the user demand is the primary factor for innovation, while the

markets, users and applications are the key drivers of innovation. Voigt and Brem (2009) suggest that

market pull and technology push both have to be integrated in the innovation management’.

Market Pull therefore refers to the need for a new product to a problem, which comes from the

marketplace and is often identified by potential customers. It therefore suggests that desire for new

innovation comes from the needs of society. This model adds a stage of exploring market need before

the invention stage of the technology push model. Market pull creates a competition between

companies to see who can create the newest technology first.

Guidance & Structure

The structure of the model is the same as the Technology Push Model. Again, the structure is captured

in a traditional Stage-Gate process. When a stage is finished, the model guides the innovation project

to the next stage.

A.3 Coupling Model Rothwel (1994) describes the coupling model as a representation of the confluence of technological

capabilities and market needs within the framework of the innovation firm. Gassmann and Enkel (2004)

define this coupling process as a linking outside-in and inside-out by working in alliances with

complementary companies during which give and take are crucial for success. A complexity for

developing an innovation process model is the constantly changing aspect of technology and market.

Therefore a link has to be defined at every stage of the innovation process between technology and

market. Additionally, feedback loops are designed in this coupling model. Feedback loops have to

stimulate the interaction between the innovating firms and external parties. So the emphasis lies on

Research & Development and marketing at this third generation. The target market can be observed,

and R&D allow a better understanding of customers’ needs and expectations, gain customer insight

and to provide an improved basis in which to base innovation.

75

Guidance & structure

Within this model, the model is guided by feedback which is obtained by two different aspects: the

market and the technology. A combination of sequential phases with integrated feedback loops have

to provide the generated idea with structure.

A.4 Interactive Model According to Rothwel (1994) this model integrates parallel development; strong linkages with leading

edge customers; strategic integration with primary suppliers, including co-development; strategic

alliances where appropriate; emphasis on corporate flexibility and on development speed; and focus

on quality and other non-price features. Lu, Yang, and Tseng (2009) describe this interactive

relationships as a new relationship between service personnel and customers within a service

innovation activity and how the parties can influence the development and direction of the innovation.

This fourth generation of innovation models view the innovation process as parallel activities across

different organisational functions, namely: marketing, research & development, product development,

parts manufacturing and manufacturing. A high level of functional integration, whereby information

sharing in the form of joint meetings across the parallel activities is the main goal. The model reflects

overlaps between the parallel activities.

Guidance & structure

Parallel activities provide the Interactive Model with structure. Different phases are integrated with

each other that have to guide an innovative idea through this model. The model guides the idea from

market to launch.

A.5 Network Model du Preez and Louw (2008) describe this fifth generation as a model where business processes and the

marketing of new products took place within the firm boundaries. Indivuals within the organisation

develop the ideas internally and in secrecy. This model is also known as closed innovation. Almirall and

Casdesus-Masanell (2010) describe a closed innovation process as a process where a product

development choices are made within one firm. At this fifth generation, the emphasis lies on a

distributed networking process requiring continuous change occurring within and between firms.

Guidance & structure

At this model, the organization is structured as the centre, and therefore the organisation is also the

one who guides innovation projects in the market. The model is divided in four parts: marketing and

sales, finance, engineering and manufacturing and research & development. The process is affected

by external inputs.

A.6 Open Innovation Model Chesbrough (2011) describes open innovation as a way of commercialization where both its own ideas

as well as innovations from other firms and seeks ways to bring its in-house ideas to market by

deploying pathways outside its current businesses. Huizingh (2010) defines open innovation as a

framework in which any intermediate product of innovation processes is considered as an economically

good that can be exploited internally and/or externally. In this sixth generation, with open innovation

is meant that internal and external ideas are combined as well as internal and external paths to market

to advance the development of new technologies.

76

Guidance & structure

The boundary between the company and its surrounding environment can be seen as a loose

structure, where innovation projects are guided between the internal and external markets.

Additionally, the model also categorizes three different phases: fuzzy-front end, development

and commercialization.

A.7. Fugle Model According to du Preez and Louw (2008) the aim of the model is to help businesses to identify, evaluate,

develop, implement and exploit new products and services more efficiently and effectively. Schutte

and Du Preez (2008) define the fugle innovation process as an integrated knowledge network that

offers a viable option, as they encompass a number of organizations, people and resources and the

relationships between them.

Guidance & structure

In this innovation process ideas flow into funnel, after different gates they came through the point

where they pass a portfolio point. The point supports the open innovation and network innovation

approach. This means that ideas will be developed along the model leveraging internal and external

resources. The divergent phase is described as the bugle.

A.8 Cyclic Innovation Model

Duin van der, Ortt, and Kok (2007) describe the Cyclic Innovation Model as a process model that can

be used by actors within the system to establish an innovation system and to keep it running. (Berkhout

et al., 2010) describe the CIM as processes in innovation by a circle of change. Interconnected changes

in science, industry, technology and markets. Within the Cyclic Innovation Model, various aspects

interact and influence each other within this innovation process.

Guidance & structure

The emphasis of the Cyclic Innovation Model therefore lies on the constantly changing aspect driven

by innovation all around us, which is needed to build interactive and adaptable networks.

77

Demand pull model

Interactive model

Open model

Cyclic model

Optim

i

z ed innovation system

Fuggel

Network model

Coupling model

Technology push model

Fig. 22 Generations of innovation processes (own ill.)

78

Appendix B1: The Agile Methodology A small group of people got together in 2001 to discuss their feelings that the traditional approach of

developing software was failing, and there had to be a better way. They discovered a development

method, and were willing to help others with it by writing and publishing the Agile Manifesto. This

publication consists of four statements, which were the contrary of the mostly used rigidly defined

processes. According to the authors of the Agile Manifesto, this rigidly defined process, also known as

the waterfall process, was believed of being very ineffective. Sequential phases which have to be

finished before you may enter the next phase. Four main principles were therefore developed

(Goodpasture, 2010):

- Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

- Working software over comprehensive documentation

- Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

- Responding to change over following a plan

In my opinion, the purpose of these four principles is to deliver better software. The added value of

this software for an organization should therefore have the highest priority. This was also the focus of

the traditional waterfall process. The thing is that very often, the focus lies on the process itself and

got therefore too much attention. Besides, in some cases the communication with the end user can be

hard to find. Using an Agile approach should

The following principles were therefore designed : (Goodpasture, 2010)

1. Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable

software.

2. Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change

for the customer’s competitive advantage.

3. Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a

preference to the shorter timescale.

4. Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.

5. Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need,

and trust them to get the job done.

6. The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development

team is face-to-face conversation.

7. Working software is the primary measure of progress.

8. Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should

be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

10. Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is essential.

11. The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

12. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts

its behavior accordingly.

These 12 Agile principles are seen as a set of guiding concepts, that must support project teams to

implement an agile mindset. This appendix shortly describes the 12 agile principles. With the first

principle, the authors refer to shortening the distance between gathering requirements and customer

feedback by planning less change at a time. This has to result in a more satisfied customer because he

can give feedback more often. The second principle states that if there is a need for changing a

79

direction, you should go for it. The third principle advises a shortened distance between the planning

and delivery. The fourth principle stands for a better cooperation between the business people and

the developers. The fifth principle indicates that making a self-guided teams should be given trust and

the responsibility during a project. With the sixth principle, face-to-face conversation should be the

most effective form of communication. The seventh principle states that the quality of the working

software can be used to measure the progress of the project. That there should not be stressed

atmosphere is said with the eighth principle. The ninth principle refers to taking in to account the

technical quality level continuously. That things should be kept simple during the project is said with

the tenth principle. The eleventh principle emphasizes that a team must take its own direction. Lastly,

in the twelfth principle it is said that there should be a regular reflections to the project, followed by

an adjustment when necessary.

Some of these principles can easily be narrowed. For example, the fifth principle says that people

should be trusted to get the job done. In my opinion, this is also normal in a traditional waterfall

approach. Most of these principles are not very prescriptive, they seem to steer the project towards a

more dynamical atmosphere.

Summarized, according to the agile principles, the following elements can be filtered out the agile

principles:

Agile Principles

1 Customer satisfaction: more feedback moment

2 Need for change? Go for it

3 Shorter deliveries

4 Cooperation

5 Build project around motivated individuals

6 Face-to-face conversations

7 Building prototypes

8 Constant pace

9 Technical excellence

10 Simplicity

11 Self-organized teams

12 Regular reflection moments

Appendix B2: Shift from a traditional waterfall methodology to

an agile methodoloy When comparing the agile methodology with a traditional approach, normally teams go from A to B,

and when B is reached people begin with building a plan for going to C (fig. 23). Sometimes unforeseen

circumstances happen and the plan has to be revised. Instead of building a perfect plan, agile accepts

that unforeseen circumstances occur and states that a plan can go directly from A to C. (fig. 24).

Table 27: Elements for the Innovation Roadmap

80

In a traditional project implementation plan, organizations schedule a date that the project should be

implemented. In reality, this can be very hard. Usually this ends up in sacrifices in costs, quality, time

or money (Lacey, 2015). Agile teams however, don’t promise to deliver an output by a certain date.

They vary the end date, or promise to deliver certain features by a set date. This means that when

changes occur, a choice must be made between changing the features or extending the schedule. For

a traditional approach, these features are fixed at the beginning of the implementation phase. This

difference is visualized in fig. 18.

Fig.23: Traditional approach (Lacey, 2015)

Fig. 24: Agile approach (Lacey, 2015)

Fig. 25: Traditional method vs. Scrum method (Lacey, 2015)

81

Appendix C: Interviews It should be noted that only the interesting parts of the interview will be reported.

C.1.1 3D Printing - General Information 3D printing, which is also known as additive manufacturing, refers to a manufacture technology were

three-dimensional physical objects are created from a digital design. Different technologies and

materials are available to print with. Objects can be printed, almost in any shape. The digital design is

sliced into layers which will be send to a 3D printer. Liquid plastic is then converted into solid 3D objects.

Within the airline industry, this technique offers potential. An engineer can use the 3D printer to

develop a prototype for a design, or to replace an existing part that is broken or missing. Also for special

components such as fuel nozzles, which normally must be ordered, the technique looks promising.

However, components within the airline industry are subjected to strict safety regulations and

legislation.

Planning Innovation Project

Date Phases

January 2013 Ideation

April 2013 Business case, Proof of Concept

September 2013 Purchase of 3D Printer

September 2013 Implementation, confirmation

Implementation process project

Successful: yes/no Yes

Success factors: Expertise

Barriers: None

Strategy “Tijdens de implementatie van de 3D printer, is de printer eigenlijk gewoon

neergezet Ikzelf had wel ervaring met 3D printen dus implementatie leverde

weinig problemen op.”

Fig. 26: 3D Printed part (own ill.)

Table 28. Planning 3D Printer

Table 29. Implementation process 3D Printer

82

C.1.2 Interview – user 3D Printer (Dutch): J: “Wat was de insteek van de aanschaffing van de 3D printer?”

A: “We hebben de printer niet aangeschaft omdat er een duidelijke behoefte aan was maar meer om

te kijken of we er wat mee konden doen. Inmiddels hebben de diverse toepassingen de aanschaf en de

geringe investering meer dan gerechtvaardigd.”

J: “Hoe ging de implementatiefase van de 3D printer, was er een implementatie strategie?”

A: “Tijdens de implementatie van de 3D printer, is de printer eigenlijk gewoon neergezet. Ikzelf had wel

ervaring met 3D printen dus implementatie leverde weinig problemen op.”

J: “Wat zijn volgens jou de succesfactoren tijdens de implementatie van dit innovatieproject geweest?”

A: “Expertise en kennis.”

C.2.1 3D Scanning - General information Hailstones combined with strong winds and unstable weather conditions can heavily effect an airplane.

Damage caused by hail impacts causes a major delay during an inspection for an airplane. Normally,

this visual inspections happen manually. These visual inspections will take four to five hours per square

meter. The shape of the dents caused by the hailstones vary, and therefore geometric measurement

needs to be carried out. With an handy scanner, a high accuracy of measured data can be collected

by laser processes. This technique improves the efficiency of visual inspections.

Planning innovation project

Date Phases

2012 Ideation

2013 Business case, Proof of Concept

August 2014 Purchase of 3D scanner

September 2014 Livery 3D scanner

September 2014 – now Implementation

Implementation process project

Successful: yes/no Not yet

Success factors: Teamwork, cooperation

Barriers: Capacity, fear of replacing current job activities from employees , ownership

Table 30. Planning 3D Scanner

Fig. 27: 3D Scanner (Own ill.)

83

Strategy “In 2014 hebben we ook meerdere scanners onderzocht. Proof of Concept

gedaan. Tijdens dit project hebben we alles stap voor stap gedaan. De Proof of

Concept hebben we twee keer moeten doen, een keer met Inkoop erbij. Dit heeft

tijd gekost.”

“Mensen zeggen al heel vaak: doe maar normaal, dan doe je al gek genoeg.

Mensen zeggen: we doen het al 30 jaar zo, dus waarom zouden we daar wat

aan veranderen?”

C.2.2 Interview – Project Leader 3D Scanner (Dutch) J: “Kan je iets vertellen over het 3D scan project?”

A: “Het idee komt merendeels bij mij vandaan. Ook moet ik credits geven aan mijn oud collega. Wij

hadden dit op een beurs gezien. Toen is mijn collega gaan kijken voor sponsorship. Ik ben toen gaan

kijken wat we ‘on wing’ kunnen doen. Toen heb ik een business case opgesteld.

In 2014 hebben we ook meerdere scanners onderzocht. Proof of Concept gedaan. Tijdens dit project

hebben we alles stap voor stap gedaan. De Proof of Concept hebben we twee keer moeten doen, een

keer met Inkoop erbij. Dit heeft tijd gekost. Uiteindelijk is er een KI bijgekomen. Toen is hij in augustus

2014 aangekocht. Daarna zijn we eigenlijk een beetje blijven hangen in de implementatie fase. Bij KLM

zijn we er heel goed in om slimme dingen uit te proberen, maar wij zijn iets minder goed in het inrichten

van slimme dingen. Het is nu de taak: hoe kunnen wij moet de huidige middelen dit proces in onze KLM

processen gieten. Dat is het moeilijke verhaal. Je gaat dan praten over capaciteit en ownership. En in

deze tijd hebben we natuurlijk daar al genoeg discussies over. Het is daarom moeilijk om dit er tussen

te frommelen.”

J: “Wat zijn volgens jou de succesfactoren en barrières tijdens deze implemantie?”

A: “Zoeken naar een sponsor die in je gelooft. Dat is het moeilijkste. Je kan de mooiste technologie en

data hebben, maar als je geen sponsor hebt die zegt: ik trek mijn knip er voor open. Het probleem is

meestal ook dat een business case pas later komt in een innovatief project. Je zult dan dus een

projectbeschrijving aanleveren en de pro’s en con’s tegen elkaar zetten. Je hebt daarna iemand nodig

die zegt, ik geloof er in en ik plak mijn sponsorship daar aan vast. Op dit moment moet je of gaan

lobby’en bij je eigen afdelingen, of bij anderen, of je komt niet van de grond. Wel zijn er plannen voor

een innovatieplatform.

Ook capaciteit is een barrière. Het is moeilijk omdat het innovatieproces nog niet echt gebakken is in

de organisatie. Mensen zeggen al heel vaak: doe maar normaal, dan doe je al gek genoeg. Mensen

zeggen: we doen het al 30 jaar zo, dus waarom zouden we daar wat aan veranderen? Of zien soms zelf

een innovatieve verbetering als een bedreiging. Zij denken: er gaat een stuk werk verloren dus zijn bang

voor hun eigen werk. Het is dan lastig om medespelers te krijgen. Je hebt altijd weer andere partijen

nodig en de erkenning van je eigen afdeling. Ook moet jouw eigen afdeling gunnen dat jij daar mee

bezig bent.

Mensen zagen 3D scanning ook als een bedreiging, totdat de praktijk voorbeelden kwamen. Toen

werden ze weer herinnert aan het feit hoeveel werk hagelschade is en hoe pijnlijk het is om dit allemaal

Table 31: Implementation process 3D Scanner

84

in kaart te brengen. Het besef dat dit een mooie technologie is kwam pas later. Dit kwam bij de

constructiespecialisten vandaan.”

J: “En de succesfactoren?”

A: “Product Ownership is een hele belangrijke. Dit was ook lastig, omdat het ownership van de 3D

scanner op papier bij de leverancier lag, bij Creaform. Daardoor was er dus officieel niemand ownership

bij de KLM. Ook samenwerkingsverband is een belangrijke. Vooral omdat het rapport wat mede

gemaakt wordt door de 3D scanner moet worden verzonden naar Boeing of naar Airbus. Het is daarom

ook belangrijk om met hun om de tafel te gaan zitten. Zij zijn bezig met het implementeren van 3D

scannen in de cabine. Wij lopen dus eigenlijk een stapje voor. Dit is ook zo afgesproken, wij doen het

lijn gedeelte en AFI doet het cabine deel. Zij gebruiken dit nu voor modificatieplannen.

Ook moeten we altijd blijven kijken naar nieuwe technologieën, en kijken waar we de beste prijs

kwaliteit verhouding kunnen vinden. Verder hebben wij ook een veiligheidsanalyse gedaan, en alles

bleek veilig. Het is niet een heel gevaarlijk iets of iets wat belemmerend is.”

C.3.1 Virtual Reality - General information The Virtual Reality project within KLM E&M is based on the Google Cardboard, which is a Virtual Reality

platform developed by Google for use with a head mount for a smartphone. Users are therefore able

to build their own viewer from simple components. The viewer places his smartphone into the back of

it and views trough the lenses in the front.

Planning innovation project

Date Phases

January 2016 Ideation

April 2016 Proof of Concept

September 2016 Implementation

Implementation process project

Successful: yes/no Yes

Success factors: trust, pilots and feedback,

Barriers: Not having trust and financial support

Strategy “‘This is my project and I’m going to push it through the organization.”

C.3.2 Interview – Project Leader Virtual Reality (Dutch) J: “Wat zijn volgens jou de succesfactoren voor het implementeren van een innovatie project?”

C: “Het vertrouwen krijgen van de organisatie om ergens mee bezig te zijn. Vooral van het management.

Ze moeten het vertrouwen geven dat je dit zelfstandig kan uitwerken. Tegen mij is er letterlijk gezegd:

hier heb je een zak met geld en regel maar wat.”

J: “En de barrières?”

Table 32. Planning Virtual Reality Project

Table 33. Implementation process 3D Printer

85

C: “Het niet krijgen van het vertrouwen of de financiële middelen. Het niet durven nemen van een grote

stap betekent dat de organisatie niet het gevoel geeft dat ze je vertrouwen.”

C.4.1 Paperbit general information At this moment, a damage inspection costs a lot of time. Mainly because it consists of too much

proceedings. Namely:

Photos have to be taken with a camera

The photo’s must be uploaded to the computer

Inspection report is done hand written

Everything has to be retyped at the computer

An app is therefore desired, the Paperbit app, that consists of a standard form in inspection and

damage-assessment. In this way, time could be saved by simplifying operations. In the end this also

has to result in fewer errors. Photo’s should therefore be integrated in a standard report on a fixed

location. Additionally, a dashboard gives an overview of the status of the damage inspection.

Planning innovation project

Date Phases

March 2015 Ideation

April – May 2015 Proof of Concept

September 2015 - now Implementation

Implementation process project

Successful: yes/no Yes

Success factors: focus, enthusiasm

Barriers: ownership, reorganization,

Strategy “Ze zouden mij eigenaarschap moeten geven van het project. Dan zou ik er heel

anders aantrekken dan dat ik het nu doe.”

“In de beginfase zijn wij er gewoon voor gegaan, we hebben de pilot gestart en

hebben het uitgeprobeerd. Dit werpte zijn vruchten af.”

“Ik denk dat innovaties heel erg een kans van slagen hebben als iedereen die

er aan mee werkt enthousiast is.

C.4.2 Interview – Project Leader Paperbit Project (Dutch):

Interview: J: “Kan je iets vertellen over de implementatie van Paperbit?”

A: “In november hebben we een pilot gedaan in de shop. Hier is uit gebleken dat we er geld mee

verdienen. Eind november is er toen een presentatie in het OMT gegeven. Hierna heeft het OMT

goedkeuring gegeven om het helemaal uit te rollen. Toen zijn er extra iPads besteld, voor de pilot

hadden we namelijk maar 8 ipads besteld. Dus toen hebben alle specialisten een ipad gekregen. Dit

duurt een maandje of twee. In mei heb ik de laatste ipad uitgedeeld.

Table 34. Planning Paperbit Reality Project

Table 35. Implementation process Paperbit Project

86

Toen is er een ander problem gekomen: HPO. Want naar wie gaan ze toe als de iPad stuk is? Allemaal

van dat soort zaken. Een aantal functies aan wie wij iets willen toeeigenen zijn boventallig geworden.

Die functies zouden niet meer bestaan. Vanaf die tijd heb ik zitten wachten en pushen tegen ons MT.

Wanneer gaan we nu een uitspraak doen, over wie wat gaat doen? Nu ben ik de administrator van het

software project. Ze komen ook naar mij toe als de ipad stuk is. Verder ben ik ook Engine Services aan

het helpen. Ik ga het niet definitief uitrollen zolang de basis niet geregeld is. Dit is niet mijn bedoeling,

en dit is ook niet mijn functie. Eigenlijk is er nog steeds niks gebeurd. Dus ja we wilden het vorig jaar

november uitrollen. We hebben nog steeds geen personen bij wie het zou komen te liggen.”

J: “Ownership is dus nu het grootste problem?”

A: “Ja dat klopt.”

J: “Hoe werd gereageerd op de pilot?”

A: “Mensen uit de shoppen die vragen ons wanneer we er aan gaan beginnen. Zij zien er namelijk het

voordeel van in. Maar ik wil ermee wachten als we niet eerst de basis goed hebben staan. Er moet

iemand zijn die dus de ipads in ontvangst moet nemen of een nieuwe kan bestellen als er een stuk is.

Omruilen, dat soort dingen. Maar dat is nog niet geregeld. Ik denk nu dat we dat gezamenlijk moeten

regelen, een iemand voor zowel Engine Services als Component Services. Bij VO kan het ook uitgerold

kunnen worden.”

J: “De reorganisatie legt dus alles plat?”

A: “Ja dat klopt. Ik zit ook eigenlijk te popelen om er mee verder te gaan.”

J: “Wat zijn volgens jou de succesfactoren van deze implementatie?”

A: “De focus er op. Ik heb het gevoel dat de focus van de mensen die ik nodig heb totaal op andere

dingen gericht is. Dus inderdaad ondersteuning van back up van het MT. Die is er het laatste jaar niet.

Meer daadkracht. De grootste stappen hebben we gemaakt met de eerste IT manager die aan ons

groepje toegewezen is. Daarna heb ik 3 andere project managers erbij gekregen. Vorig jaar ging er een

naar het hoofdkantoor, daarna 2 die allebei na een maand weggingen. Nu hebben we inmiddels alweer

de vierde projectmanager.

Ik denk dat innovaties heel erg een kans van slagen hebben als iedereen die era an mee werkt

enthousiast is.”

J: “Iedereen wisselt nu van functie..”

A: “Ook zijn we overgegaan op IMRO. Trace is een normale SAP module. In Trace duurde het 2 dagen

voordat alles werd overgedragen naar SAP. IMRO communiceert met SAP. Maar SAP is niet het meest

gebruiksvriendelijke programma. Vorig jaar hebben we daar best wel veel last van gehad.

De Blackbelt is na de goedkeuring van het OMT naar het hoofdkantoor vertrokken. Hij is er uitgestapt

en toen is er nooit meer een andere blackbelt voor in de plek gekomen. Sinds die tijd hebben we geen

project manager of leider gehad. Ik zou het prima vinden om het te trekken, maar er wordt tegen mij

gezegd dat ik Development Engineer ben. Prima, maar dan ga ik het project ook niet trekken. 2 Weken

87

geleden zou er eeen nieuwe Change Manager aangenomen worden. Die was een jaar op zeilvakantie

geweest. Die komt hier, kijkt een paar weken om zich heen, en hij zegt: hier blijf ik niet. Toen is hij naar

voren gegaan, naar Ground Services. Nu moeten we weer een ander gaan zoeken.”

A: “Je hebt normal allemaal cel managers die de shops aansturen, die gaan allemaal weg. Hier komen

allemaal shop leaders voor terug. Het problem is dus dat een aantal cel managers eieren voor hun geld

hebben gekozen. De shop moet wel gewoon doordraaien. Nu wordt er gezegd: oke mensen, we moeten

in teams gaan werken in de shop, maar ik hoor vorige week dat GK daar nog een training voor moet

opstarten. Dan denk ik, hadden we nou niet eerst de mensen in de shop moeten trainen om in teams

te gaan werken, en daarna pas de cell managers wegtrekken? Nu hebben we van de 4 cel managers,

er nog maar 2 in de shop. Eentje die gaat naar het LC toe, dan hebben we er nog een over die is

overtallig. Je kunt je voorstellen hoe enthouasiast die is. Die mannen in de shop zijn nu dus compleet

stuurloos. Dus dan denk ik; top down zijn we opnieuw de boel aan het inrichten, maar beneden op de

vloer is het nu al stuurloos. Ik weet niet wat ze besluiten, er moet een tussenoplossing komen. Er zijn

een aantal personen in april die vrijkomen uit de VO organisatie. Wat moeten we dan in die tussentijd?

Een noodoplossing moet dus gevonden worden. Wat dat betreft ligt er nu heel veel stil. “

J: “Klopt het dat het dat de beginfase veel beter verliep?”

A: “In de beginfase zijn wij er gewoon voor gegaan, we hebben de pilot gestart en hebben het

uitgeprobeerd. Dit werpte zijn vruchten af. We hebben gewoon gezegd: oke we doen een onderzoek

naar wat voor software er is in de wereld, wat voor bedrijven gebruiken al zoiets? Toen zijn we gewoon

mensen gaan interviewen. Mensen op de vloer werden ook enthousiast. Het heeft wel 2 maanden

geduurd voordat we ze hadden. Als we ze nou 2 weken eerder hadden gehad, waren we IMRO

voorgeweest. “

J: ”Waarom duurt het bestellen van de iPads dan zo lang?”

A: “Als wij hier een stukje automatisering aanvragen dan moeten er 10 handtekeningen op het

formulier. Vervolgens heeft het echt heel lang geduurd. Waarom ligt het dan stil? Ja het ligt nog op

goedkeuring van onze purchasing te wachten. Ja hoezo dan? We hebben toch een KI met goedkeuring

van Dortmans. Waarom moet er dan nog iemand bij automatisering een goedkeuring geven? Vincent

van Hoof zei ook: waarom ben je niet gewoon naar de mediamarkt gegaan? Dit kan niet want het moet

op het KLM systeem draaien. In de pilot doen we alles via 3 en 4G. Alles gaat via het telefoonnetwerk.

Door een aantal foto’s wordt het document best zwaar en gaat het traag. Het is daarom goedkoper

om er Wifi voor te nemen. Die kaartjes hebben een bundle van 1G. Er moet dus wifi komen in de shop.

Bij Polish Airlines hebben ze wifi voor het personeel, maar ook gastenwifi. Gewoon in de hangar.

Met HPO willen ze met minder mensen meer werk doen, maar zorg eerst dat ze de tools hebben. Ik

ging naar een beurs, dan kom je terug en dan moet je met een blocknote en doordrukvelletjes de

kilometervergoeding aanvragen.

Ze zouden mij eigenaarschap moeten geven van het project. Dan zou ik er heel anders aantrekken dan

dat ik het nu doe. Als je het er met zijn allen over eens bent dan zou het moeten werken.”

C.5.1 High Enthalpy Plasma Gun – General information KLM has introduced a High Enthalpy Plasma Spray System in the engine shop, in order to improve the

efficiency of plasma spraying, which results in less consumption of plasma spray powders and a

88

decreased process time of plasma spraying. It also improves the quality of the coatings, which results

in fewer rejections of the coatings.

Planning innovation project

Date Phases

2003 Ideation

2004 Innovation project on loan

2005-2006 Lean Six Sigma project for savings with Innovation

project

2006 - Now Implementation

Implementation process project

Successful: yes/no No

Success factors: Other priorities of the organization,, capacity and expertise

Barriers: ownership, reorganization,

Strategy “In 2004 kregen we die gun “gratis” van de leverancier om hem uit te proberen.

Na een uitgebreid Lean Six Sigma project bleek die gun bij gebruik een paar ton

per jaar aan euro’s te kunnen besparen”

“Hij is toen in 2004 aangeschaft, neergezet en sindsdien nooit gebruikt.

C.5.2 Interview Project Leader High Enthalpy Plasma Gun (Dutch) J: “Kan je iets vertellen over het implementatie process van de High Enthalpy Plasma Gun?”

A: “In 2004 kregen we die gun “gratis” van de leverancier om m uit te proberen. Na een uitgebreid Lean

Six Sigma project bleek die gun bij gebruik een paar ton per jaar aan euro’s te kunnen besparen. De

investering van 75.000 dollar was het dus waard om m definitief aan te schaffen. Hij is toen in 2004

aangeschaft, neergezet en sindsdien nooit gebruikt. Hij zou 246.000 euro per jaar besparen dus

eigenlijk hebben we sindsdien 2,9 miljoen euro sindsdien weggegooid.

Na diverse tests en lab onderzoek waarbij alle coatings werden goed gekeurd volgens GE en CFMI

normen, werd de gun “vrij gegeven” aan de productie.

Sindsdien stond de gun 10 jaar stil, en in 2014 probeerde ze ‘m weer eens een keer op te starten. Wat

ie natuurlijk niet deed (na 10 jaar stilstand). Toen heeft Equipment Engineering van TM er weer 80.000

euro tegen aan gegooid om ‘m weer aan de praat te krijgen (inclsuief nieuwe massa flow meters,

nieuwe software, nieuwe kabels, etc…. ).

En vervolgens stond ie weer 2 jaar stil

Tot 4 weken geleden, omdat toevallig bij de nieuwe NMRL-repair line, er 2 repairs ipv Teflon een plasma

coating moet krijgen en die alleen maar met de High Enthalpy gun gedaan kan worden, hebben ze m

nu eindelijk na 12 jaar stilstaand daadwerkelijk opgestart.”

J: “Wat waren de barriers waar je je tijdens de implementatie tegen aan liep? “

Table 36. Planning Plasma Gun Project

Table 37. Implementation process Plasma Gun Project

89

A: “Prioriteiten? Capaciteit? Mentaliteit? Vakmanschap? Aansturing? Verzin het maar.”

C.6.1 Laser Cladder – General Information KLM E&M’s Engine Shop is developing the use of robots to carry out certain particularly repair

tasks. Laser Cladding is a techniquewhich can be used for adding a material to the surface of

another in a controlled manner. A stream of a desired powder is used through a focused laser.

Planning innovation project

Date Phases

2002 Preparation

2003 Purchase, implementation

2003 Failed implementation

2014 Update Laser cladder

2014 Successful implementation, confirmation

Implementation process project

Successful: yes/no No

Success factors: accuracy with business case, preparation

Barriers: capacity, underestimating complexity

Strategy Je begint er aan, hebt de theorie, er gaat ook wel iets verloren, maar gewoon

uitproberen en dan zien we het wel! Dit heeft goed uitgepakt. Af en toe bewust

voor enige onzekerheid kiezen.”

“In 2003 is een basis Laser Cladder aangeschaft, eigenlijk zat hij nog op

onderzoekslevel. Toen is hij neergezet”

”Ik denk dat het allerbelangrijkste is dat je van tevoren goed onderzoek

verricht. Hoe innovatiever het wordt, hoe onzekerder de implementatie.”

C.6.2 Interview Project Leader Laser Cladder – General Information (Dutch) Interview: J: “Kan je iets vertellen over de implementatie van de Laser Cladder?”

A: “De Laser Cladder is enerzijds een geslaagd project, omdat we met een minimale investering nu een

robot hebben kunnen realiseren die we ook free format kunnen opzetten. Ook hebben we hem

succesvol op repairs kunnen inzetten, die ons enorm veel kosten bespaard. Voorheen gebeurde dit met

de hand. “

J: “Hoe zag de implementatie er precies uit?”

A: “In 2003 is een basis Laser Cladder aangeschaft, eigenlijk zat hij nog op onderzoekslevel. Toen is hij

neergezet, en al snel bleek dat de programmering niet goed liep. De programmeertaal was dusdanig

specifiek dat niemand het begreep. Waardoor hij niet te programmeren was.”

J: “De inhoudelijke kennis ontbrak dus?”

Table 39. Implementation process Laser Cladder Project

Table 38. Planning Laser Cladder Project

90

A: “Ja dat klopt. We hadden nog iemand ingehuurd, maar die kwam er ook niet uit. De programmering

zat vast in de robot. Een paar keer is het dusdanig fout gegaan dat de robot onverwachte bewegingen

maakten. Dit was zo gevaarlijk dat er niet meer aan gewerkt mocht worden. Toen is nog een business

case voor een nieuwe machine gemaakt. Eigenlijk dachten we dat dit heel dom was. Het allerduurste

onderdeel, bijvoorbeeld de laserbron hadden we bijvoorbeeld al in huis.”

J: “En de leveranciers?”

A: “Nee dit kon ook al niet meer. Nu zijn er weer andere programmeertalen. Toen hebben we gekeken

naar andere mogelijkheden met een minimale investering. Liefst op een manier dat we er extra veel

aan hebben. Het is toen een aanpassing geworden naar Robot Studio, op deze manier kan het virtueel

geprogrammeerd worden en kunnen er dingen naar de robot gestuurd worden. Het is makkelijker

gemaakt. Je programmeert vanuit 3D modellen. Je kunt zelfs virtueel testen. De aanschaf is volgens

planning geloven, dit was een groot succes. We hebben hem nu ook zeker terugverdiend.

Toen kwam GE met een voorstel om het project anders te doen. We mogen dan in een keer seals doen,

we kwamen toen helaas in capaciteitsproblemen. Degene die hier over, de proces engineer, zou gaan

was overboekt. Vele technische specificaties zouden door deze persoon gedaan moeten worden. Ook

hebben we problemen gehad met de audits van ES door GE op NDO gebied. Hierdoor waren we zijn

capaciteit kwijt en kwam de andere onwikkeling stil te leggen.”

J: “Kwam dit ook door de reorganisatie?”

A: “Dit vind ik een goeie. We hebben nu eindelijk iemand die het NDO gedeelte overneemt. Projecten

liepen vast vanwege zijn belangrijke skills. Verantwoordleijkheden vielen ook stil. We hebben er toen

bijna ¾ jaar over gedaan. HPO heeft hier misschien ook invloed opgehad.

Maar, de implementatie was opzich succesvol. De manier waarop we het deden ook. We hielden het

simpel. Keken naar onze uitbestedingen en afkeur, maar ook naar de technieken waarop we dit konden

oplossen. We gaan per techniek kijken wat eigenlijk de financiele potentie is, van deze techniek was hij

erg hoog. “

J: “Wat zijn volgens jou succesfactoren bij de implementatie van andere innovatie projecten? En

barrières?”

A:”Ik denk dat het allerbelangrijkste is dat je van tevoren goed onderzoek verricht. Hoe innovatiever

het wordt, hoe onzekerder de implementatie. Kijk bijvoorbeeld naar wetgeving en denk na over de

haalbaarheid van het project. Voorbereiding vooraf is dus ontzettend belangrijk. Wat wij bij RDI doen,

we hebben toen gekeken naar de belangrijkste bottle neck. Dit was toen nog de business case. We

zagen veel kansen, en vervolgens gingen we niet de repair droog uitschrijven om te kijken wat we

allemaal nodig hadden. Door te kijken wat je nodig hebt, kun je beter een inschatting maken en dan

heb je een betrouwbaarder project. Heel veel voorbereiding dus!”

J: “Barrières?”

A: “Ik denk dat capaciteit wel een barrier is. Soms wordt er ook te makkelijk over innovatie gedacht. De

meeste innovatie is leuk, en daardoor ga je het te positief inschatten. Je stelt voor hoe het moet, maar

91

zo werkt het niet. Ook is het belangrijk om het management er goed van op de hoogte te hebben. In

veel gevallen zijn ze namelijk toch alleen geinteresseerd in wat het kost en wat het oplevert. Dat zijn de

vragen die ze graag beantwoord willen zien en dat vergt nauwkeurigheid en perceptiemanagement.

Maar, ik weet nog niet eenes hoe het helemaal in elkaar zit? Dat moet je ook eerlijk durven zeggen. Wil

je dit risico nemen?”

J:”Wat is een van de meest innovatie projecten bij ES”?

A:”Waar ik erg trots op ben is de CDP Seal, we hebben een EB Welder. Dit zorgt voor het samensmelten

van onderdelen. Interessant is de acceptatie die je nodig hebt, zodat het voldoet aan alle eisen. Je

begint er aan, hebt de theorie, er gaat ook wel iets verloren, maar gewoon uitproberen en dan zien we

het wel! Dit heeft goed uitgepakt. Af en toe bewust voor enige onzekerheid kiezen.”

C.7.1 Carpet Car – General Information A project that is developed within the Moonshine Program is the carpet car. A car with an integrated

workbench that captures the different carpet rolls, that are designed for the airplane. After the car

was designed and developed, there were some troubles with who should be responsible for the car.

Planning innovation project

Date Phases

2015 Ideation

2015-2016 Designed

2016 Implementation

2016 Confirmation

Implementation process project

Successful: yes/no No

Success factors: Easy to use, usefulness

Barriers: Difference between implementation rules theory and practice, ownership

Strategy “Eigenlijk is het project ontstaan door wijze van de Moonshine strategie: op de

werkvloer ontstaat een probleem en vervolgens wordt om dat probleem een

team heen gebouwd om het idee daadwerkelijk in elkaar te zetten.”

Fig. 28: Carpet Car (Own ill.)

Table 40. Planning Carpet Car Project

Table 41. Implementation process Carpet Car Project

92

C.7.2 Interview Project Leader Carpet Car (Dutch) J: “Hoe is het idee voor de Tapijt Kar ontstaan?”

A: “Idee was er al tijden, maar de bedenker kreeg er geen tijd voor vijrgemaakt, omdat er zoveel mensen

dingen van moeten vinden bij KLM. Nu gaat het gelukkig wel goed. Hij heeft een eigenaar, en dat was

tevens de bedenker er van. Eigenlijk is het project onstaan door wijze van de Moonshine strategie, op

de werkvloer ontstaat een probleem en vervolgens wordt om dat probleem een team heen gebouwd

om het idee daadwerkelijk in elkaar te zetten.”

J: “Wat waren volgens jou de barrieres en succefactoren tijden de implementatie?”

A: “Een barriere was vooral de discrepantie tussen regeltjes en de praktijk, ook werd er weinig tijd voor

vrij gemaakt. Een succesfactor was vooral de bruikbaarheid. Het idee van de tapijtkar is ontstaan in de

Hangar, echt op de werkvloer dus. Dit betekent dat degene die hem heeft bedacht, ook de

daadwerkelijke eindgebruiker is. Zo weet je in ieder geval zeker dat iemand er iets aan heeft.”

C.8.1 Big Data – General information Data from the Boeing 777, was transferred to Maintenix. This was one big transformation game. There

was an option to transfer all this data manually, but there was also an option to create some formulas

in Excel. The work could simply be done smarter. The procedures and WPI’s should therefore be done

more user friendly, to make it all more accessible.

Planning innovation project

Date Phases

2014 -2015 Ideation

April – May 2015 Proof of Concept

May 2015 – 2016 Implementation

Now Confirmation

Implementation process project

Successful: yes/no Yes

Success factors: knowledge exchange, taking initiative teamwork

Barriers: sceptic people

Strategy “Big Data is hartstikke hip. Internet Of Things, dat soort dingen. Doe er iets mee

zou ik zeggen, laat zien hoe iets er uit ziet. Bouw gewoon iets, en vraag om

feedback. Toen zijn we gewoon begonnen met kleine projectjes. Uiteindelijk is

dit een jaar later uitgebouwd. De ruimte was er.. Ik zag er veel potentie in.”

“Het doel was echt kennisuitwisseling, en aan het eind bedenken hoe we alles

aan elkaar kunnen knopen. Je moet wel zelf het inititief nemen.”

Table 43. Implementation process Big Data Project

Table 42. Planning Big Data Project

93

C.8.2 Interview Big Data Project Leader (Dutch) J: “Waar komt het Big Data project vandaan?”

A: “Na het Maintenix Project ben ik bij Project Engineerings begonnen. Procesen op elkaar afstemmen,

op en neer vliegen en praten praten praten. In de tussentijd ben ik gaan nadenken als een soort van

vage opdracht; goh, zouden we niet eens wat meer kunnen doen met data? Toen bestond het besef

van we hebben zoveel data. Ik heb een project gedaan om de oplevertijd van de Boeing 737 gedaan.

Ben veel met mensen gaan praten. Ik verveelde me eigenlijk een beetje. Ik zag onmiddelijk; voor de

hangar is er heel veel data, wel verspreid. Maar als je dit bij elkaar harkt kan je er veel mee doen. Toen

zijn we met een groepje dingen gaan uitwerken, dit voor Predicitve Maintenance. Dus op basis van

vliegtuig data kijken of je daar voorspellingen mee kunt doen. Eigenlijk 1 op 1 over genomen uit de

motorwereld. Op basis van real time Maintenix Data. Toen wilde we een adviesorgaan oprichten. Wel

moet je eerst een goed verhaal brengen, dit in de juiste context en met de juiste mensen. Toen zijn we

gewoon begonnen met kleine projectjes. Uiteindelijk is dit een jaar later uitgebouwd. De ruimte was

er . Ik zag er veel potentie in.

Predicitive Maintenace, daarvan hoorden we dat AFI er ook iets mee aan het doen was. Er is toen

bedacht wat we met alle beschikbare data kunne doen. Gewoon meedoen, gewoon op tafel gaan. Big

Data is meer sales dan inhoud. Het loopt nu 1,5 jaar, Ik heb het initiatief genomen door AFI hier heen

te halen. Heb een dag georganiseerd om iedereen bij elkaar te brengen. Iedereen van wie ik wist dat

zij met Big Data bezig waren heb ik toen uitgenodigd. Iedereen gevraagd om een presentatie te maken

over waar iedereen mee bezig was. Nu zijn we alweer een jaar verder. Het doel was echt

kennisuitwisseling, en aan het eind bedenken hoe we alles aan elkaar kunnen knopen. Je moet wel zelf

het initiatief nemen. Het werd toen een soort van micro symposium. Je moet het gewoon doen.

Innovatie is vooral doen. Je hebt niet zoveel te verliezen toch? Kijken hoe je er samen beter van kunt

worden. Ik heb gepoogd mee te doen aan een innovatieproject van het hoofdkantoor.“

J: “Hoe zag het traject van Big Data er precies uit?”

A: “Ideefase heeft een half jaar geduurd. In januari heb ik het eerste proces plan geschreven. De output

van deze fase is dus het project plan geweest. Geen streng project plan, meer de ontwikkeling van

ideeën. Toegepast op verschillende BU’s. Vanaf januari 2015 – 2016 continu bezig geweest om AFI van

me af te schuiven. Daarna begonnen met onderzoekjes. Dit waren de Proof Of Concepts, in april/mei.“

J: “Wat zijn dan in jouw ogen de succesfactoren en barrières tijdens de impelementatiefase?”

A: “Een succesvolle POC is belangrijk. En de barrières: zelf de onderzoeken trekken met beschikbare

middelen. Weerstand, sceptische mensen, die moet je echt meenemen,. We hebben zoveel moeite

gestoken in het meekrijgen van mensen. Het lukt gewoon niet bij een paar mensen. Ik heb ook geen

idee waarom sommige mensen niet meewillen. Mensen willen niet veranderen. Om een of andere

reden zijn zij niet te overtuigen. Waarschijnlijk duurt dit totdat het management een beslissing neemt

dat het anders moet. Dan ben je toch niet aan het samenwerken?

Het is niet alsof ze geen tijd hebben. De hele wereld maakt zo’n beweging, maar zij willen nog

achterblijven. Wat voor oogkleppen heb je op? Als luchtvaartbedrijf heb je niet de positie om achter te

blijven. Het is een nogal competitieve wereld met nogal lage winstmarges, je moet wel. Ik snap dat niet.

94

Eigenlijk vraag ik me over die mensen af wat ze nog doen. Frustratiepuntje. Het erge is dat je ze niet

kan uitsluiten, je moet ze meenemen.

Kennisuitwisseling is ook belangrijk, deelnemen in verschillende intelligentieclubjes en kijken wat er in

andere sectoren gebeurt. Daarnaast zijn we ook met universiteiten bezig. TU Delft, Twente, Tilburg.

Het NLR, TNO, Big Data is hartstikke hip. Internet Of Things, dat soort dingen. Doe er iets mee zou ik

zeggen, laat zien hoe iets er uit ziet. Bouw gewoon iets en vraag om feedback. Het stukje doen laten

we vaak liggen. We hebben genoeg ideeën en zijn hartstikke kritisch.”

95

Appendix D: Innovation Roadmap Manual

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

Appendix E: Interviews Validation

E.1 Interview Project Leader 3D Printer (Dutch) J: “De vorige keer heb ik jou geinteriewd over de implementatiefase van de 3D printer. Deze

resultaten heb ik hierna vertaald naar een manual waarin een Innovation Roadmap staat. Zou je

misschien kunnen kijken of je iets mist aan deze Innovation Roadmap Manual, met in het bijzonder de

Innovation Roadmap?”

A: “Gaaf! Manual is ok.”

J: “En de criteria, staan er criteria tussen waarvan jij denkt dat ze er niet horen, of zou je hier

misschien iets aan toe willen voegen?”

A: “Volgens mij heb je alles wel benoemd”.

E.2 Interview Project Leader 3D Scanner (Dutch) J: “Voor mijn afstuderen focus ik me dus op het implementeren van innovatie projecten, en zoals je

weet is 3D scannen er daar eentje van. Nadat ik jou en nog andere innovation leaders heb

geïnterviewd heb ik een Innovation Roadmap Manual gemaakt waarin ik een advies geef hoe

innovatie projecten geïmplementeerd moeten worden binnen de organisatie. Dat staat dus in deze

manual. De manual begint algemeen, en legt eerst uit voor wie deze manual bestemd is, gevolgd

door wanneer hij gebruikt moet worden. Daarna volgt wat algemene informatie over agile. Een

project management methode die ik adviseer om toe te passen tijdens het implementeren. Hierna

komt het belangrijkste stuk: een stap-voor-stap proces hoe je een innovatie project zou moeten

implementeren. Dit stap-voor-stap proces begint eigenlijk bij de Adoption Gate, waarin de focus ligt

op de medewerkers. Hierin wordt namelijk getoetst of medewerkers in staat zijn om met het

innovatie project te werken, of ze het leuk vinden om mee te werken en of het iets toevoegt aan hun

dagelijkse werkzaamheden.

A: “Dit is inderdaad belangrijk, want bij 3D scannen was het een barrière dat er te weinig mensen met

de software konden werken.”

J: ”Als aan de drie criteria kan worden voldaan, mag het innovatie project geïmplementeerd worden.

Hierna begint het implementeren zelf, waarbij vooral transparant werken en het definiëren van

ownership belangrijk is. Ook is het belangrijk dat degene die het ownership heeft in staat is om zelf

beslissingen te nemen, zonder daarvoor te hoeven wachten op goedkeuring van anderen.

A: “Bij 3D scannen is het lastig geweest dat veel mensen afkomstig vanuit verschillende lagen van de

organisatie iets over het project te zeggen hebben. Daarnaast moet het geïmplementeerd worden in

verschillende divisies, waardoor je steeds weer met andere mensen te maken krijgt.”

J: “Dat blijft inderdaad lastig. Wel heb ik nu in de manual een stukje toegevoegd over de Innovation

Adoption Curve, die uitlegt dat er binnen een organisatie mensen zijn met allemaal een verschillende

houding tegenover innovatie. De een adopteert een innovatie project sneller dan een ander. Nadat

een innovatieproject geïmplementeerd is, gaat het langs de Diffusion Gate. Hierin wordt getoetst of

het implementatieproces effectief was.

111

Ik vroeg me af of je nog aanmerkingen hebt of dat je iets mist in deze Innovation Roadmap?”

A: “Vooral het ownership en beschikken over genoeg capaciteit is belangrijk. Verder vraag ik me bij de

Diffusion Gate af wanneer een resultaat positief is. Misschien zijn er wel een minimaal aantal

voorwaarden waaraan voldaan moet worden?

J: “Deze opmerking heb ik inderdaad al eerder voorbij horen komen. Dit is inderdaad iets wat ik nog

even verder moet bekijken”.

E.3 Interview Project Leader Virtual Reality (Dutch) J: “Zoals je weet heb ik mij voor mijn afstuderen het implementatieproces van innovatie projecten onderzocht. Uiteindelijk heb ik een manual gemaakt, wat ervoor zou moeten zorgen dat innovatieprojecten tijdens het implementatieproces effectiever geïmplementeerd worden. In de manual staat eerst beschreven voor wie en wanneer hij gebruikt moet worden. Daarna staan er organisational practices en agile principles in uitgelegd, waarvan ik ze adviseer om als organisatie te hanteren. Hierna kom ik eigenlijk bij de kern van mijn onderzoek; de Innovation Roadmap. De Innovation Roadmap begeleidt de innovatieprojecten als het ware door de implementatiefase heen. Die fase begint bij het passeren van de Adoption Gate, waarbij een innovatie project wordt getoetst aan drie criteria; namelijk of medewerkers iets hebben aan het innovatie project, of ze het leuk mee vinden om mee te werken en of ze er mee kunnen werken. Zou jij daar nog iets aan willen toevoegen?” A: “Nee volgens mij niet, het is inderdaad heel belangrijk dat je de medewerkers erbij betrekt. Alleen dan krijg je die commitment van hun ook. Dan zullen medewerkers het ook makkelijker adopteren dan wanneer je het klakkeloos voor hun neus zet, zo van nu ga je het gebruiken. Als een medewerker tegen bepaalde dingen aanloopt waarvan hij aangeeft dat iets niet fijn is, dan kan je dit gelijk aanpassen in het project. Zorg er dan bijvoorbeeld voor dat het wel gebruiksvriendelijk wordt. Je haalt heel veel informatie uit de doelgroep, en dat is belangrijk.” J: vervolgens al het werk wat nog gedaan moet worden gevisualiseerd worden. Later splits je dit op in drie categorieën: dingen die nog gedaan moeten worden, dingen die op dit moment gedaan worden en dingen die al gedaan zijn. A: “Ja op het moment dat je het gaat uitvoeren, is zoiets zeker belangrijk. Trello zorgt er bijvoorbeeld voor dat je onafhankelijk van elkaar kan zien wat er allemaal nog moet gebeuren. Ik vind dit een hele makkelijke methode en er is makkelijk mee te communiceren.” J: “Ja, je houdt inderdaad overzichtelijk wat er allemaal nog moet gebeuren. Als laatste stap van het proces kom je aan bij de Diffusion Gate, die toetst of een innovatie project een positief resultaat heeft laten zien tijdens de implementatie, zowel voor de organisatie als voor de medewerkers. Ook wordt hier de vraag gesteld of het innovatie project nog steeds bij het bedrijf past. A: “Wanneer laat een bepaald project een positief resultaat zien? Ik denk dat dit nog een goeie is om over na te denken. Wordt een innovatie project als positief ervaren als het geld oplevert, of als medewerkers het prettig vinden om mee te werken?” J: “Dit is inderdaad een goed punt om nog verder uit te werken.”

112

E.4 Interview Project Leader Paperbit (Dutch) J: “Dit is dus de Manual waarin staat hoe je een innovatie project zou moeten implementeren. In het begin staat uitgelegd wanneer je de manual moet gebruiken, gevolgd door een aantal definities die gebruikt worden in de manual. Daarna de agile philosophy en de practices. Het gaat dus om het creëren van een bepaalde cultuur en mindset binnen een organisatie. In de Manual draait het om de Innovation Roadmap, waarin 7 stappen beschreven zijn. Je begint bij de adoptie gate, waarin je evaluaeert of een innovatie project voldoet aan 3 criteria: vinden ze het leuk om mee te werken, kunnen ze er iets uithalen en kunnen medewerkers ermee werken? Ook moet ervoor gezorgd worden dat iemand verantwoordelijk is voor het ownership van het innovatie project. Dit kwam mede voort uit het Paperbit project, omdat jij aangaf dat ownership een van de barrieres was tijdens het implementatie proces.” A: “Ja dit klopt.” J: “Wel moet je hierbij benadrukken dat niet een individueel persoon verantwoordelijk is voor de implementatie, maar een team. Daarna moet het in kaart gebracht worden wat er voor de implementatie allemaal moet gebeuren. Dit kan je bijvoorbeeld doen op een whiteboard of op Trello. Eigenlijk moet iedereen weten wat er allemaal nog moet gebeuren. Inzichtelijk maken wat al gedaan is motiveert anderen ook om de slag te gaan.” A: “Dat is een goeie, eigenlijk hebben we dat niet gedaan bij Paperbit: inzichtelijk maken wat we allemaal al gedaan hebben. We kijken alleen maar naar de punten die we nog moeten doen.” J: “Laten zien wat er al allemaal gedaan is kan inderdaad motiverend werken! Als alle taken eenmaal gedaan worden kom je bij de Diffusion Gate uit, waar wordt geëvalueerd of het innovatie project positieve resultaten heeft laten zien tijdens de implementatie, en heeft het een positief resultaat laten zien op het werk van een werknemer, en of het project nog bij het bedrijf past.” A: “Inderdaad, het niet bij een persoon laten en het team verantwoordelijk maken vind ik erg goed.” J: “Ik wilde eigenlijk weten of je nog iets mist? Of dat er iets in staat waar jij niet achter staat? Terugkijkend op je ervaringen met het Paperbit project.” A: “Nee hoor als ik het zo zie heb je alle punten te pakken. Ownership is inderdaad heel belangrijk. Dit had ik verteld toen, het was goedgekeurd, en daarna werd er niks meer mee gedaan. Dan wordt het trekken aan een dood paard. Dus inderdaad, dit vind ik een hele belangrijke. Ook spreekt het mij aan om terug te kijken naar wat er allemaal al is gedaan. Ik kan er niks aan toevoegen.”

E.5 Interview Project Leader High Enthalpy Plasma Gun (Dutch) J: “Een tijdje geleden heb ik jou wat vragen gesteld over de High Enthalpy Plasma Gun, op basis van die uitkomsten en de uitkomsten van andere interviews heb ik een implementatie manual gemaakt, waarin mijn advies staat over hoe innovatie projecten het beste geïmplementeerd kunnen worden. Zou je hem misschien een keer kunnen doorlezen, en kijken of er iets in staat wat misschien niet helemaal duidelijk is? A: “Ja hoor. Hij ziet er netjes uit en volgens mij is hij redelijk compleet. Alleen voor de proof of concept list heb ik een paar opmerkingen. Als ik jou was zou ik overwegen om ze criteria in een andere volgorde te zetten. Is het misschien een idee om de criteria te baseren op de formule: effect = kwaliteit x acceptatie? In dat geval zou ik de volgorde van de criteria veranderen. Het komt dan neer op het volgende: het implementeren van een innovatie project heeft effect op de Hangar Punctuality en de Fleet Availability. Vervolgens wordt iets alleen geaccepteerd als: het veilig is, er capaciteit beschikbaar is, als er het een redelijke time to impact and success rate tegenover staat. De kwaliteit zou je

113

vervolgens kunnen laten bepalen door de toegevoegde waarde van de medewerkers en de toegevoegde waarde voor het imago van een bedrijf. J: “Bedankt voor de tip! Ik ga hiermee aan de slag. En zie je verder nog iets waarvan je denkt dat het niet klopt?” A: “Nee op dit moment niet. Volgens mij heb je alle barrières meegenomen die je tegen zou kunnen tegenkomen tijdens een implementatie.

E.6 Interview Project Leader Laser Cladder (Dutch) A: “Leuk format, het spreekt wel!” J: “In het begin van de manual wordt uitgelegd waar de manual voor bedoelt is en hoe en wanneer je de manual moet gebruiken. Daarna worden in het eerste deel van de manual begrippen toegelicht. Ook staat er meer informatie in over de agile project management methode; de agile organizational practices en daarna de agile principles. De manual draait eigenlijk om de Innovation Roadmap. Ik ben van mening dat een innovatieproject eerst geëvalueerd moet worden voordat je het daadwerkelijk kan implementeren. Hiermee kwam ik uit op drie criteria: medewerkers moeten het leuk vinden om mee te werken, medewerkers moeten met het innovatieproject kunnen werken en medewerker moeten iets aan het innovatie project hebben.” A: “Wat bedoel je precies met; ze moeten er zelf iets aan hebben?” J: “Ik bedoel dat een bepaald innovatie project hun eigen werk bijvoorbeeld efficiënter maakt.” A: “Oke, want je hebt natuurlijk ook ideeën die bij je opkomen, maar waar je zelf misschien helemaal niks mee te maken krijgt.” J: ”Dat klopt, een medewerker kan wel met een idee komen wat van toepassing is op het werk van iemand anders. Alleen gaat het hierbij om innovatie projecten die moeten worden geïmplementeerd binnen de organisatie. Dus ik probeer hiermee aan te karaten dat er geen innovatie projecten geïmplementeerd moeten waar niemand iets aan heeft.” Na de Adoption Gate gaat het implementatieproces van start. In de Roadmap wordt er benadrukt dat een implementatie team wat toezicht houdt op het implementatie proces het meest ideale zou zijn. Dit zodat zij verantwoordelijk kunnen zijn voor het ownership van een innovatie project. Tijdens dit implementatieproces wil je in kaart brengen wat er allemaal nog moet gebeuren. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan het aanvragen van een vergunning, het gaat dus om alle taken die te maken hebben met de implementatiefase die je in beeld zou willen brengen. Je zou ervoor kunnen kiezen om het op te splitsen in : to do, doing en done. Je visualiseert hier dus de work flow. Het implementatie team moet er op toe zien dat de workflow up to date gehouden worden. Wanneer alle taken volbracht zijn, wordt het implementatieproces geëvalueerd in de Diffusion Gate. Het gaat hierbij om de volgende drie criteria: heeft het innovatie project positieve resultaten aan de organisatie laten zien, heeft het innovatie project een positieve invloed gehad op het werk van werknemers en past het innovatie project bij de organizatinal values van het bedrijf? Omdat jij project leader bent geweest van het implementeren van de Laser Cladder, vroeg ik me af of je misschien nog toevoegingen hebt aan deze manual of aan de Roadmap? Of dat je dingen ziet waar je het niet mee eens bent?” A: “Ik denk wel dat het verschilt per innovatie project, maar in feite zou je ook criteria willen hebben voorafgaand de implementatie fase. Een innovatie project moet bijvoorbeeld sowieso veilig zijn voor het geïmplementeerd mag worden. Ik vind het lastig, veiligheid kan ook ervaren worden als een bottle neck. Als je bijvoorbeeld een check list hebt, dan zou je eigenlijk precies kunnen aangeven waar een

114

innovatie project aan moet voldoen voor het geïmplementeerd kan worden. Het benoemen van een aantal criteria is meestal genoeg, je wilt eigenlijk alleen zorgen dat mensen weten dat ze er niet moeten vergeten om naar te kijken. Dan heb je echt overal aan gedacht. Verder denk ik dat het er goed uitziet.”