Berkeley Innovation Index : An Approach for Measuring and...

Berkeley Innovation Index*: An Approach for Measuring and Diagnosing Individuals’ and

Organizations’ Innovation Capabilities

February22,2016

Authors

IkhlaqSidhu,Jean-EtienneGoubet,HilaryWebber,AlexanderFredh-Ojala,CharlottaJohnsson,JanChristopherPries

This paper was created in an open environment as part of a program within the Sutardja Center for Entrepreneurship &TechnologyandledbyProf.IkhlaqSidhuatUCBerkeley.Thereshouldbenoproprietaryinformationcontainedinthispaper.Noinformation contained in thispaper is intended to affect or influencepublic relationswith any firmaffiliatedwith anyof theauthors.TheviewsrepresentedarethoseoftheauthorsaloneanddonotreflectthoseoftheUniversityofCaliforniaBerkeley.

*www.berkeleyinnovationindex.org

SutardjaCenterforEntrepreneurship&TechnologyTechnicalReport

2

2

BerkeleyInnovationIndex:AnApproachforMeasuringandDiagnosingInnovation

AbstractInnovation iswidelyrecognizedasan importantvariable tocreatecompetitiveadvantageanddrive economic growth. Innovation is also a relatively vague concept, but the absence of itresultsinstagnationandlossofcompetitivebehaviors.Innovationcapabilityistheabilitytobeinnovative,andisacharacteristicofindividualsaswellasorganizations.Theissuewithlearningandexecuting“innovation”isthatitisoftenremovedfromactualsituations,tootheoretical,nottime-ordered,andnotholistic.In thisconceptpaper,wecontend that if Innovationcannotbemeasured, then it is inherentlydifficult for any person or organization to improve their ability to be innovative. Most pastmeasures have not been insightful or holistic. For example, the numbers of patents or theamountofmoneyspentonR&Dhavenotshownanycausalitywithorganizations’abilitytobeinnovative.Berkeley Innovation Index (BII) isa conceptandanopenproject tooffer simpleyetpowerfulwaystomeasureinnovationcapabilityinaholisticsense.Thesemeasures,modelsandtoolsarebasedonpreviouslypublishedresearchfindings.Theapproachisalsointendedtocoverlayersof innovation that range from the following fields: 1) Strategy and Leadership, 2) InnovationCulture from an Organization’s Viewpoint, 3) Organizational Operations andMeasures acrossfunctions,4)Mindset:TheInnovationDNAofthePeople,and5)Tacticalmeasures.Whenmeasuredandconsideredacrossall levels,webelievethatthe innovationmeasurementprocesscanbemademoreaccurateanddiagnosable.


3

3


Historical Background and Traditional Indicators forInnovationIn order to characterize the innovation performance of a firm, a broad range ofmetrics havebeen(andstillare)used,suchasthenumberofpatents,laborproductivity,R&Dspending,andrevenuesduetoproductslaunchedinthelast3years.However,thesemeasureslackprecisionand do not take into account the cause and consequences. Moreover, many studies haveproduced results showing that there is no significant relation between R&D expenses andprofits,andtherefore,theyhavenotaccountedforinnovation(Jaffe,1986).Somemetricsanalyzethenumberofpatentsfiledbycompanies,arguingthatoneofthecriteriafor a patent to be granted is that the technology has to be new. But patents are technologyorientedandanewtechnologydoesnotalwaysmakeagreat innovation, thesamewaythatagreat innovation does not necessarily require a major technological breakthrough. Further,manyfirmshavebeguntoadopta“trolling”strategy,filinglargenumbersofpatentsjusttoblockpotentialcompetitors.Consequently,thereisnosubstantivelinkbetweenthenumberofpatentsandinnovationinthesecases.Awiderangeofconsulting-basedapproacheshavealsobeendevelopedtoanalyzeacompany’sstrategy or to assess its performance. For example, from a top-down financial strategyperspective, the BCG matrix has traditionally been used to compare different business unitswithincompaniesaccordingtotheirexpectedmarketgrowthofmarketshare.Attheotherendofthespectrum,evenproductleveldesign-thinkingorientedstrategieshaveemergedandbeenadopted by traditional firms (cf. McKinsey recently bought Lunar, a large design consultingcompany).Overall, the existing variables for innovation analysis mostly use a quantitative approachinheritedfromfinancingmethods.

ToolsHaveBeenDevelopedtoTakeInnovationintoAccountAs innovation is increasing in importance as an element in companies’ strategies, the time tomarketisgettingshorterandexistingtoolsarenotsufficientlyadaptabletotheserapidchangesduetotheapparitionofnewvariables.Thishasledtothecreationofnewmetricsandstudiesintheareawhichareincreasingtheaccuracyasageneraltrend:Theapproachesusedinmostnewtoolsarederivedfrom:a)Financialanalysis:InnovationPremium,basedonthegapbetweentheexpectedvalueofthecompanyanditsmarketvaluation, isusedtorankthemostinnovativecompanies.Realoptiontheory, which gives an estimated value of a company, is based on the aggregated potentialoutput value of its innovationprojects according to several scenarios. Tools like thebalancedscorecard(fromportfolioanalysis)aredesigned tohelp firms’management teams to improve


4

4


multi-projectmanagementmethods.This approachplaces emphasis onportfoliomanagementtoolsthatpromotesideasharingbetweenunitsinthecompanyandbetweendifferenttypesofprojects.b) Organizational and culture analysis: Some studies have shown how important it is for acompany tobeconsidered innovativenowadays.Oneof thedesiredoutputsofany innovativeproject(evenifitfailed)isthatitimprovestheimageorbrandreputationofthecompany(see“fullvalue”analysis(Maniak,2015)).c)Knowledgereuseand“Learningbydoing”:Moreandmore,the“righttofail”hasfosterednewmanagement habits, putting higher value on the learning experience. But how canwe extractvaluefromfailedprojects?Thesuccessofacurrentinnovativeprojectcanbeexplainedbythefailure of a previous project years ago.Many famous innovationswere bornbecause the firstobjective failed to be reached, but people learned how to usewhat they found; this is calledserendipity.Also,largerindustrialfirmshaveproducedinnovativeresultsbyreusingtechnologyfrom previous projects to use it in different sectors (Chapel, 1997). It is called “multi-projectlineage management” (Midler, 1995). Finally, some researchers have managed to map theknowledgeusedinaprojectanditstrajectorythroughouttime(theConcept-Knowledgetheory,Hatchueletal.,2002).d)OpenInnovation:Innovationoutsourcinghasbecomeakeyvariableintheracetoinnovation(Chesbrough,2003),asitillustratestheabilityofacompanytotapintotechnologythatemergesfrom outside its perimeter, such as startups or universities. In these cases, it shows how thecompanyacceptsthefactthatthebestinnovationdoesnotnecessarilycomefromitsownR&Dfacilities.e)ConsideringCreativity:Anemphasisontheroleofcreativityhasbeguntoemerge.Moreandmorecompaniesrelyoncreativitymanagementtoboosttheir“creativitycapital”.MethodslikeTRIZorSixThinkingHats(deBono,reference)helpteamsandindividualstobemorecreativeandtousetheirnewideasforthebenefitofthebusiness.Othermethodscanhelptomeasurethecreativity of a person, such as the GuilfordMethod (reference),which is based on a person’sdivergent thinking ability. These methods aim at triggering new forms of creativity andtherefore, leadtoanewneedformeasurementofcreativecapacitiesbasedonvariousfactors,e.g.thenumberofideasshared,theireccentricitylevel(seetheTaxonomyofcreativedesign),orthesocialvalueoftheideas(seeCsikszentmihalyi’sSystemsModel).However, even if these tools and studies are slowly taking into account the specificities ofcreativityanditsroleinfosteringinnovation,whichisascomplexasitisunpredictable,wepositthat some variables have been omitted. Indeed, some variables are internally or externallyfocused,somearepastorfuturefocused,andcanprovideagoodinsightonthepreviousactivityof a company. But almost none of them take the individuals’ entrepreneurship skills andmindsetsintoaccount,whichareneededtopursuetherealizationofnewideas.


5

5


TherearestilllimitationstotheseapproachesUsingfinancialtoolstoassessinnovationprojectsleadstoincorrectvaluationoftheseprojects.In “Innovation Killers” (Christensen, HBR 2008), author Clayton Christensen describes thevariables that can suffocate innovation projects and calls out an over-emphasis on financialaspects. These variables omit other determinant variables such as creativity, behaviors andmindset,aswellasculture(i.e.howpeopleworkinnovativelywitheachother).Thesevariablesare also difficult to analyze through classical indicators as they are closely linked to thepsychological profiles of stakeholders (employees, intrapreneurs, suppliers and partners,outsourcedentrepreneurs,etc.).Thisiswhyweproposeanewsetofvariablesbasedonthedatacollectedfromassessmentsurveysthatincorporatethepsychologicalprofilesofindividuals.Our study reveals that there exist anotherway ofmeasuring an ability to innovate, based onpsychological profiles of employees.We believe that a psychological analysis of a company’semployeesmaybe a complementary level of analysis to theCulture/Organization,OperationsandStrategylevels.We alsonote thatmetrics derived frompreviousmethods are oftenpast-oriented anddonotgivea correctoverviewof the futureabilitiesof the firm to innovate.Future-orientedmetricsthatarestronglylinkedtotheinnovativecapabilitiesofstartupsandestablishedfirmscouldalsobeutilizedbyventurecapitalistsorinvestmentcompaniesthatarefocusingonthelonger-termoutputoftheirinvestments.

The Berkeley Innovation Index: An Approach based ontheBerkeleyMethodofEntrepreneurshipTheBIIprojectincludessomeofthetraditionalapproachestomeasuringinnovation,howeveritextends theseapproacheswithamachine learning, survey-basedanddata-drivenapproach tomeasureinnovationbasedonpsychologicalprofilesof individualsandtheirperceptionsoftheorganizational culture. The BII provides a quantitative approach to innovation measurementbasedonindividualandworkgroupsurveys.BerkeleyInnovationIndexisbothaconceptandanopenprojecttooffersimplewaystomeasureinnovation,but inaholisticsense. Thesemeasures,modelsandtoolsarebasedonpreviouslypublished research findings. The approach is also intended to cover layers of innovation thatrangefromthefollowing:1)StrategyandLeadership,(suchasBCG)2)InnovationCulturefromanOrganization’sViewpoint,(WorkgroupCulture)3)OrganizationalOperationsandMeasuresacrossfunctions,(WorkgroupCulture)4)Mindset:TheInnovationDNAofthePeople(InnovationMindset)5)Tacticalmeasures(situationbasedmeasures)


6

6


Whenmeasuredandconsideredacrossalllevels,webelievethatinnovationmeasurescanbemademoreaccurateandthattheprocesscannowbeevenmorediagnosable.

TheFirstNewElementsofBIIincludeMindsetandWorkgroupCultureBasedonpreviousstudiesthatresultedinbreakthroughfindingsontheimpactofComfortZoneonEntrepreneurshipPotential,wewanttolookintotheemployee’smindsetandanalyzetheircurrent capacity for creativity. We know that individuals who express entrepreneurial andinnovative behavior aremore likely to be successful at creatingwhen in uncertain and riskyenvironments than the average population. We want to illustrate the strong correlation thatexistsbetween thecreativeandentrepreneurialpsychologicalprofilesof individualsand theirinnovativeoutputs.

InnovationMindsetAn 18-item short-questionnaire was constructed to survey mindset of an entrepreneur. TheBerkeleyMindsetofanEntrepreneurQuestionnaire(BMEQ-18)wasdesignedforuseinhighereducation and research. The BMEQ-18 operationalizes a game-based method for teachingentrepreneurship and employs psychological questionnaire scales. The development of theBMEQ-18,theoriginoftheunderlyingconcepts,specificscalesandtheprocessofitem-selectionaresummarizedinthisarticle.TheBerkeleyMethodofEntrepreneurshipquestionnaire(BMEQ-18)isconstructedtomeasurementalaspectsthatarerelevanttoentrepreneurs.Thegoalofthequestionnaireistomeasurecertain mental aspects of entrepreneurship in order to give students and teaching staff animpression of the strength anddevelopment fields of the students in the class. TheBMEQ-18operationalizes a game-based method for teaching entrepreneurship, as employed by theSutardjaCenterforEntrepreneurshipandTechnologyattheUniversityofCaliforniainBerkeley.The Berkeley Method of Entrepreneurship trains students to be more entrepreneurial byexposingthemtoentrepreneurialexperiences.Itisaholisticandstudent-centeredteachingandlearning approach. The method is based on the hypothesis that an inductive game-basedteachingapproachisavehicleforintroducingandre-enforcingthecharacteristicsofmindsetofanentrepreneur.Generally, themindset isawayof thinking that influences thewaysomeoneviewsandactsuponasituation;themindsetisreflectedintheperson’sattitudes.TheBerkeleyMethod of Entrepreneurship conceptualizes the dominant characteristics of entrepreneursthrough ten dimensions that describe the typical mindset of successful entrepreneurs. ThedimensionsarebasedonliteraturereviewandextensiveinteractionwithentrepreneursintheSiliconValleyarea.


7

7


AquestionnairefortheBerkeleyMethodofEntrepreneurshipTheBMEQ-18enablesstudentstoexploretheircurrentmindsetandto identifythefieldstheywanttoworkonduringtheentrepreneurshipeducation.ThefirststepinthedevelopmentofthequestionnairewastoselectthemindsetdimensionsoftheBerkeleyMethodofEntrepreneurshipthat can appropriately bemeasuredwith a questionnaire. Dimensions that are better studiedthroughbehavioralobservationorexperimentshavebeenexcludedfromthedevelopmentofthescales. In the second step psychological the mindset dimensions have been matched withpsychologicalconceptsthathavebeenresearchedthatdescribesimilarhavebeentranslatedto.Afirstliteraturereviewhasbeenconductedinthefieldsofsocial-andorganizationalpsychologytoidentifytheconceptsthattranslatetothemindsetdimensions.Oneofthemainfocusesintheselection of the psychological conceptswas towork on the level of traits or attitudes and toavoidstate-likevariables.State-likevariablesarenotsuitablefortheeducationcontextinwhichthequestionnairewillbeprimarilyadministered.ThepsychologicalconceptsthatbestmatchedthemindsetdescriptionoftheBerkeleyMethodofEntrepreneurshipdimensionswerethebasisfortheconstructionofthequestionnaire.Asecondliteraturereviewhasbeenconductedinordertoidentifycarefullyconstructedsetsofsurvey questions that measure the chosen psychological concepts. The research was mainlyfocusedonshortscales.SomeofthescaleshavebeenslightlyadaptedinordertofitwithinthecontextoftheBerkeleyMethodofEntrepreneurship.Table1presentsthemindsetdescriptionsof the Berkeley Method of Entrepreneurship, the selected psychological constructs and thequestionnairescalesthatwereappliedtomeasuretheconcepts.


8

8


Table1SCETMindsetDescriptionandequivalentpsychologicalconstructsMindsetandDescription Psychological

ConstructQuestionnaireScale

FriendorFoeIfyoucan’t tell:Learn to trustotherswithoutexpectinganythinginreturn.

Social cohesion,honestbehaviour(Fukuyama,1995)

Trust

PlantoFailItisnecessarytobewrongsometimes.PlantoExperiment. Plan to Fail (Fail Fast). Analyze,Adapt and repeat. The smarter you think youare,theharderthisisgoingtobe.

Grit,resilience,entrepreneurialfailure(Sarasvathy,2001)

Resilience

DiversifyDiversify your networks. Connect to peopleyou would not normally, then go and listen.OpenUp.Andconnectthemtoothers.

Socialcapital(DubiniandAldrich,1991)

Diversity

BelieveBelievethatyoucanchangetheworld.

Self-efficacy(Bandura,1977)

Belief

GoodEnoughPerfection is no good but good enough isperfect.

Perfectionism(Kawasaki,2004)

Perfection

CollaborationIndividual vs. team and competitors vs.partners.

Coopetition(Vanaelst&al.,2006)

Collaboration

Our intent is toapplythesefindingstoworkgroups instartupsaswellas in largercompanies.Thecollecteddatawillleadtothedefinitionofthepsychologicaldeterminantsofsuccessamongaworkgroup.Participatingindividualsmaybeableto“compare”theirowninnovationprofilestofamousentrepreneurs’profiles.Themachine-learningalgorithmwearedevelopingallowsustocreateaprecisedefinitionofsuccessthattakesthecontrolgroupintoaccount.

TheWorkgroupCultureAssessment:A second tool data collection instrumenthas alsobeen included in the test suite forBerkeleyInnovationIndex.Thistoolfocusesnotonanindividual,butonthecultureoftheworkgroupasmeasuredbytheperceptionsofindividualsintheworkgroup.Areasofmeasurementthatareincludedinthisassessmentincludethefollowing:

• Whereideasoriginate• Transparencyindecisionmaking


9

9


• Responsestoorganizationalfailures• Culturalunderstandingaboutoperatingmeasures suchasquality,Customerhappiness,

cost,andmarketshare.• Organizationalcomfortwithambiguityandlearning• Cultureofexecutionandaction

AnalysisofResponsesAsweconsidertheprevioussuccesscasesofemployeesinthecompany,wewanttoseeifthenewlyhiredpeoplearemost likely tobe innovative, or if the company is able todevelopandimprove its existing workforce to successfully produce new services, products or implementbetterprocesses.Webelievethatthecompaniesthatwillbemostlikelytobesuccessfularetheoneswhere the psychological profiles of its employees are, or become, closest to the ones ofthosewhopreviouslysucceededinriskyandinnovativeprojects.Moreover, this new approach allows a measure of learning through failure. It additionallybypasses the hard definition of success and its variables. Themore datawe collect, themoreaccurate the definition of success will be. The machine learning process illustrates the linkbetweensuccessandthepsychologicalprofileofemployees,basedonthecharacteristicsoftheirpsychologicalmindsetandorganizationalmindset,notonthecharacteristicsofthecompanyortheprojectitself.

TheBerkeleyInnovationIndexasaProcessThe Berkeley Innovation Index aims at being the reference baseline for current creativitycapacityattheindividualorworkgrouplevel.Weproposeaprocessthatleadstoaninformativeandanalyticreport,featuringtheprofilesoftheindividualsortheworkgroups.Theintendeduseof theBII report is to enable strategic action planning tomaximize existing creativity, and toexposespecificopportunitiestoimprovecreativeabilitieswithinanorganization,whichinturnideallyincreasesoverallinnovation.First, we collect survey data from individuals orworkgroups and analyze their psychologicalprofiles,focusingmainlyonalargershareofknowledgeworkers.Ouralgorithmusesthedatatocreatealinkbetweencurrentcreativitylevelsandsuccessininnovativeprojects.Thedatacollectedformsthebasisofafirstreportofthecreativityprofileoftheindividualsorthe workgroup. It is then possible to combine the data within a company’s perimeter todetermine the “aggregated innovation index” of a company, which offers a new view of thecompany’scurrentabilitytoperformonfutureinnovativeproducts.Moreover, the algorithm sorts and displays the collected data in multiple arrays to give adetailed and descriptive insight of the determiners of success for a company’s future


10

10


innovations. Itwill be possible to produce specific subsets of data in custom reports (e.g. byfunction,teamorotherfactors)toprovideadditionalinsightsasneeded.The BII results represent a current “snapshot” view of a given organization’s capacity forcreativity. Therefore, once actions plans have been determined and undertaken to improvecreativityforthecompany’sindividualsandworkgroups,theBIIcanberetakenatafuturedatetocalibratetheincreaseincreativecapacityandpotentialforinnovationsuccess.TheBerkeleyInnovation Index methodology can be used for firm-level assessment with diagnosticrecommendations. For actionable results, thismust be donewith the help of an independentmoderator,consultant,orwithaninternalprojectmanager.

CompanyandOrganizationLevelAssessmentPotentialExamplesofvisualizationsavailablefromtheBIIdataanalysisarerepresentedhere. Thisfirstillustration is a comparison of two companies on the basis of Industry Position, InnovationCulture,OperationalCulture,andInnovationMindsets(DNA)oftheiremployees.


11

11


Asecondexamplegraphicdatainterpretationbelowshowsthatfunctionallevelswithinafirmcanassesstheinnovationcultureandoperationalprocessculture.

Atacompanylevelandwithinindustrygroups,webelievethatinnovationbenchmarkingwillalsobepossiblebasedonaggregateinnovationscores.


12

12


Wealsoprovideworkgroupreportinginnon-graphicformats.Belowisanexampleoutputofanalgorithm-basedtextreportgeneration:INNOVATIONCULTURESCORE: YourInnovationCultureScoreforyourworkgroupisscoreis8.07outof10.0Thisscoreisbasedontheself-evaluationofyourworkgroup.Differentpeoplewillhavedifferentperceptionsoftheirworkgroupstyle.Anumberlessthan5scoremeansthatsomeinnovationfactorswerelowinyourestimation.Thesefactorsmightincludeanoverlyinternalfocus,lowtransparencyindecision-making,theorganization'sreactiontofailure,thegroupsabilitytoworkinnewareas,orthecommitmentlevelofpeopletodowhattheysay. OPERATIONALCULTURESCORE: YourOperationalCultureScoreforyourworkgroupisscoreis7.19outof10.0TheOperationalCulturescoreisalsobasedonyourselfevaluationandperceptions.Ascorelessthan5inthiscategorymeansthatpeoplearenotgenerallyawareoftheoperatingmeasuresofthefirmorworkgroup.Examplesofmeasuresmightincludemarketshare,happinessmetricsforcustomers,qualitymetrics,andcostmetrics.Thesetypesofissuescanbeaddressedwiththedevelopmentandcommitmenttoprocessesintheworkgroup. Yourperceptionofyourworkgroup'sstyleistoavoidargumentandyetstayindialogduringconflicts.Thisisaveryhealthybehavior.Thisisanimportantcharacteristicsofyourworkgroup'sculture. Idea:Haveafewpeopleinyourworkgrouptakethissurvey.Thencompareanddiscussresultswitheachother.Thinkaboutwhetheryourscoresareagoodmatchfortheobjectivesofyourworkgroup.Doyouwanttoimproveyouroperationsfocusorinnovativeness?Moreadvanceddiagnosticsshouldbedonewithanindependentmoderatororinternalprojectmanager. Remember:Cultureeatsstrategyforbreakfast--PeterDrucker Learnmoreandcheckforupdatesat http://berkeleyinnovationindex.org/


13

13


IndividualMindsetLevelAssessmentPotentialTheseexamplesillustrategraphicrepresentationsofaMindsetforanindividualorinaggregateofagroupofindividuals:

AverageValuesofMindsetComponentsforagroupofIndividuals

ExampleHistogramof“resourceallocation”scores”foragroupofindividualsor

workgroup


14

14


AnexampleofatextreportgeneratedbytheBerkeleyInnovationIndexAlgorithmisprovidedhere:BerkeleyMethodMulti-FacetAlgorithm,AlphaRelease1.3INNOVATIONMINDSET:YourpersonalInnovationMindsetLeveliscurrently7.15outof10Thisisnotafixedlevel,anyonecangrowtheirinnovationmindset.YourlevelhasbeenestimatedusingananalysisbasedontheBerkeleyMethodforEntreprenuership&Innovation,theComfortZoneScale,andfundamentaltestingmethodsinsocialpsychology.Thefollowingfactorsarecomponentsofyourinnovationmindset:TRUSTlevel:6.86of10.Thisisyourabilitytotrustothers.RESILIENCElevel:8.64of10.Thisisyourabilitytoovercomefailure.DIVERSITYlevel:8.45of10.Thisisyourabilitytoovercomesocialbarriers.MENTALSTRENGTHlevel:7.16of10.Thisisameasureofyourconfidenceandbeliefthatyoucansucceed.COLLABORATIONlevel:3.68of10.Thisisyourabilitytoworkwitheveryoneincludingcompetitorswhenneeded.RESOURCEAWARENESSlevel:5.50of10.Thisisyourabilitytobalanceyourresourcesacrossmultipleobjectives.INNOVATIONZONElevel:8.59of10.Thisisameasureofyourabilitytoworkinareasofuncertainty.MINDSETANALYSIS:Basedonyourcomfortwithambiguity,yourMINDSETcoversbothoperationsandinnovation,butLEANStowardsINNOVATION.Ifyouhaveinterestinoperationalinnovationandprecision,youshouldpre-analyzesituationsandfocusmoreonriskmitigation.


15

15


This BII project opens a broader field concerning performancemeasurements for companies.The index datamay also be aggregated with other information from various departments ofcompanies(financialdata,HRdata)andcompanies’environment(countryGDP,publicpolicyforinnovationandentrepreneurship…).

ConclusionMeasuring innovativeness through the analysis of the psychological profiles of individuals orworkgroupsisanapproachthat,ifcombinedwithexistingmethods,canofferaholisticanalysisof a company. It provides a future-oriented approach of valuation that is complementary toexistingmethods.Itisdifficulttomeasuresoftassetsandindirecteffectsofinnovationprojectsas external and unexpected variables may have fostered the success of a handful ofentrepreneurs,sometimesyearsbeforethesuccessismadevisible.Certainly,themoredatawehave, the more likely we will be able to define success and to increase the precision of ourfindings. In any case, theBerkeley Innovation Index represents themissing linkof innovationperformance analysis. We will continue to develop a holistic approach, aimed at having atangible economic impact, that will synthesize the Berkeley Innovation Index with a givencompany’s existing set of tools (project – program– portfolio – strategic), and could possiblyleadtoastudyonamicroeconomiclevel(sector–industry).


16

16


BibliographyChapel, Vincent (1997), La croissance par l’innovation intensive: de la dynamiqued’apprentissage à la revelation d’un modèle industriel – le cas Téfal. Unpublished doctoraldissertation,EcoledesMinesdeParis.Chesbrough,HenryW.(2003).OpenInnovation:Thenewimperativeforcreatingandprofitingfromtechnology.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.ClaytonM.Christensen,StephenP.KaufmanandWillyC.Shih.InnovationKillers:Howfinancialtoolsdestroyyourcapacitytodonewthings.HarvardBusinessReview,Jan2008.Cooper, Robert, Scott Edgett, and Elko Kleinschmidt. 2001. “Portfolio Management for NewProductDevelopment:Resultsofan IndustryPracticesStudy.”R&DManagement31(4):361–80.Florida,R.,Goodnight,J.,ManagingforCreativity,HarvardBusinessReview,August2005.HatchuelA.&WeilB.(2002),C-KTheory:NotionsandApplicationsofaUnifiedDesignTheory,ProceedingsoftheHerbertSimonInternationalConferenceon"DesignSciences".Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms'patents,profitsandmarketvalue(No.w1815).NationalBureauofEconomicResearch.Malte Brettel, René Mauer, Andreas Engelen, Daniel Küpper, Corporate effectuation:Entrepreneurial action and its impact on R&D project performance, Journal of BusinessVenturing,Volume27,Issue2,March2012,Pages167-184.Maniak,Rémi.2015.“8Provenprinciplesformanaginginnovation.”ParisTechReview.January29.Maniak,Rémi,andChristopheMidler.2014.“MultiprojectLineageManagement:BridgingProjectManagement and Design-Based Innovation Strategy.” International Journal of ProjectManagement.Maniak, Rémi, Christophe Midler, Sylvain Lenfle, and Marie Le Pellec-Dairon. 2014. “ValueManagementforExplorationProjects.”ProjectManagementJournal45(4):55–66.RichardM.Walker, JiyaoChen,DeepaAravind,Management innovationandfirmperformance:Anintegrationofresearchfindings,EuropeanManagementJournal,Volume33,Issue5,October2015,Pages407-422


17

17


Sidhu,Del’Etraz,EffectofComfortZoneonEntrepreneurshipPotential,InnovationCulture,andCareerSatisfaction.2015IkhlaqSidhu,KenSinger,MariSuoranta,CharlottaJohnsson,“IntroducingBerkeleyMethodofEntrepreneurship-agame-basedteachingapproach”,2014.


18

18


AppendixA:ProtocolExamples

FullAssessment–RequiresCustomizedProjectDevelopment

1. CollectGeneralCompanyInformation.Thisinformationwillbecollectedthroughan

electronicform.

2. Forvarioussizedcompanies,identifythetestdatapointsforInnovationculture,operations,andcompanypeopledatacollection.*Size<10:5Keyemployeesincludingfounders,possibleall.*Size10-49:5-10sampleinterviewsacrossallfunctionalgroups*Size51-99:10-15sampleinterviewsacrossallfunctionalgroups*Size100-199:20sampleinterviewsacrossallfunctionalgroups*Size:200-500:35sampleinterviewsacrossallfunctionalgroups*Multiplesof500:multiplesof40interviewsorsubsetbasedonpartnerrecommendations

Notethatpercentagesofemployeesaretypicallyrepresentativeofinformationworkers,antargetmixwouldbe8%ofinformation/knowledgeworkers.0.1%ofnon-knowledgeworkers.Example:10,000people,1Kknowledge,9Knon-Knowledgeresultsin80+10interviews.

3. Collectdataviainterviewfromeachperson.Thisisaninterview.Askthequestionstoinputintotheelectronic.UseInnovationMindsetandWorkgroupCultureAssessment

4. CollectproductandmarketshareinformationthatcanbeusedtocreateaBCGMcKinseystylestrategicrecommendation.

5. Collectanyinformationbasedoncustomizedrequestifrequired.


19

19


MediumAssessment:HybridInpersonpluswebbased,andPeople/Org/Process,RequiresCustomProposal.DoesnotuseMcKinsey/BCGStyleReport

1. BI2createsaSPECIALCODEforCompany.

2. Forvarioussizedcompanies,identifythetestdatapointsforInnovationculture,operations,andcompanypeopledatacollection.*Size<10:5Keyemployeesincludingfounders,possibleall.*Size10-49:5-10sampleinterviewsacrossallfunctionalgroups*Size51-99:10-15sampleinterviewsacrossallfunctionalgroups*Size100-199:20sampleinterviewsacrossallfunctionalgroups*Size:200-500:35sampleinterviewsacrossallfunctionalgroups*Multiplesof500:multiplesof40interviewsorsubsetbasedonpartnerrecommendations

Notethatpercentagesofemployeesaretypicallyrepresentativeofinformationworkers,antargetmixwouldbe8%ofinformation/knowledgeworkers.0.1%ofnon-knowledgeworkers.Example:10,000people,1Kknowledge,9Knon-Knowledgeresultsin80+10interviews.

3. Collectdataviainterviewfromeachperson.Hybridofelectronicandinpersondata.UseInnovationMindsetandWorkgroupCultureAssessment

MiniAssessment–PeopleDNAOnly1. BI2createsaSPECIALCODEforCompany.2. CEO/HRinstructedtosendemailtesttoallemployees’organization.UseInnovation

MindsetTestOnly.3. Codespecifiesfirmandconsultingpartner.ReportdeliveredtoHRorconsultingpartner

forinternalevaluationofresultsanddiscussionofremedies.

Berkeley Innovation Index : An Approach for Measuring and...

Documents

Transcript of Berkeley Innovation Index : An Approach for Measuring and...