Business Review Business Model Innovation â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Business Review Business Model Innovation? Answer Introducation We selected Meshack Mathews because he has many outstanding qualities as a serial entrepreneur in various fields including manufacturing. Each attribute has its own abilities, strengths and limitations and is especially gifted for one type of economic activity. The Innovator is an entrepreneur that is a creator par excellence. Creative and dynamic, passionate and intuitive, they have neither patience nor taste for details nor are they usually the best team leaders (Atun and Sheridan, 2007). These are its five most outstanding features that he has: Intuition. Innovators are basically intuitive. The interviewee has a great ability to see and understand the whole panorama at a glance. He gets an idea of what they want or need to solve a problem with relative ease. Meshack as an innovator is more concerned with how things "should be" than how they are at this time. He is idealistic and is constantly looking for ways to improve things and, in general, the world. He is not so much interested in the details or the implementation of his projects, so he depends critically on people who complement him in this sense. Creativity. The entrepreneur is original and prolific. He is a teacher in the art of creating new products, companies or strategies. all the time he spends is trying to make connections between seemingly unrelated fields and creating new ideas that they tend to implement quickly. Passion. Once an innovator identifies his vision he tells us that he is so much into the product that he is able to transmit it with great effectiveness based on their passion and conviction. For this reasons he makes the best person to interview (Goldenberg and Mazursky, 2002). What insights did you gain from talking to them? The entrepreneur / innovator was able to clearly make us understand the whole process of innovation in a business. Having been a serial entrepreneur, Meshack has come up with numerous products and services for the market, thus he was able to share with us the process of innovating. He provided insights into what an entrepreneur is supposed to check in order to come up with a new product in the market. What will you do differently based on your discussion? Based on this discussion, many things will have to change in the company and personal innovation. A companys need for growth is paramount and for there to be growth, there must be innovation. Therefore, I would hire the best expert and consultants to spearhead research and development (RD) in the company (Souza, 2010). A good research and development means that the company innovation will be stronger. I would also ensure that in terms of innovation we are at par or even ahead of our competitors and rivals in the same industry. Based on this it is important to set measurable and smart goals that are attainable and achievable in all aspects. Innovation is simply adding value for maximum productivity. What advice could you offer this entrepreneur? Personal innovation remains a relatively underdeveloped concept, and we very commonly associate it with personal development, or even with "self-help" tools. At other times, we approach the new realities from our little "everyday bubble", and that isolation, that lack of perspective, prevents us from understanding what is happening, and how it will affect us and condition our future (Atun and Sheridan, 2007). What if we could start that journey towards change and innovation starting simply from curiosity and observation of what is happening around u Where does innovation come from? In his book Innovation to the Core, Rowan Gibson, International Innovation Guru, says that "innovation should be a subject of all time everywhere and that it should become a new way of life for the organization." Gibson describes four organizational components that are necessary to create a capacity for innovation in the company. I think that Meshack, the entrepreneur, will have to find better strategies to stay relevant in the manufacturing business through innovation. He will have to strategize on importance of innovation and to develop a team that is qualified and experienced on innovation (Atun and Sheridan, 2007). The interview was done on 12th June the Year 2017. The length of the interview was one and half hours and was conducted on a face to phase basis or what is known as personal interview. I was delighted as it was more of a straight answer question with the management and owner of the company, Meshack. The interview started at around 8AM in the morning because of the busy schedule of the owner. Personal innovation capability audit I am personally of the opinion that in these times of high competitiveness and globalization, a constant and rapid renewal of products, services and processes is required of all market participants, in order to improve the acceptance of their customers, who are increasingly exposed to competition, and at the same time reduce costs. Innovation has become almost all markets, in a mandatory condition, to achieve success and affirmation of the company in the long term. The main reason for failures in innovation projects, found in most studies, is the weakness of companies in the process of selecting ideas. But that is one of the many factors that I will have to determine the development of innovative capacity of companies, it is necessary more than a system of evaluation and selection of ideas (Atun and Sheridan, 2007): Innovative capacity can be defined, as the definition and proactive domain, of the cycle; continuous improvement and renewal (change): As you can see, the first ideas that come to mind or the challenge of personal innovation are, in fact, a lot of questions. And I do not think we can attribute it to chance. We are in a time of change and uncertainty, and perhaps there are no close and conclusive answers but rather, adequate questions; questions that inspire us, that force us to consider our vision of the world, and help us to forge an attitude towards things. A question of attitude We are gradually getting closer to the heart of the matter. And, for me, personal innovation does not consist exclusively of a specific development, a concrete change or a certain improvement. Personal innovation is a "special attitude" that is revealed in all our actions: a commitment to to be better every day in everything we do; the capacity to see us not for what we are today, but for what we can become; a way of approaching the future with all our potential; the curiosity and the opening of the necessary sights to interact with the o utside world, without fear of being mistaken, aware that we learn from our mistakes and that only by exploring the unknown can we find new perspectives and discover new realities that will help us achieve a profound change in ourselves and in our lives. It is, therefore, to innovate to live a richer life; a life that will allow us to develop our full potential as people (Botten and Sims, 2005). Personal innovation thus understood is a perpetual process of renewal and self-transformation. And this is precisely what I propose for innovation. Managing the uncertainty To understand the current reality - so complex and changing - the first thing to do is to divide it into three planes: Predictable environment Start by identifying your "predictable environment," which is the best known, closest to you. It is on this level that we can still continue to apply, to a greater or lesser extent, the tools that have allowed us to anticipate events. Your current map of reality is, without doubt, very valid to move in this environment, as you have done so far (Gibbert et al., 2006). New trends. Then there is the "new trends environment". In it live familiar variables - those with which we are accustomed to work, and we can predict - with other discontinuous variables, which are not strange to us, but which we cannot control at all, because they vary according to the context, and can be associated to create something different. Your current map will also serve to identify those new trends that you had already intuited and have begun to question your reality; that is, they have questioned the reliability of the tools you used to address the problems, or the way you interact with others (for example, when you discover that information can no longer be treated as it once did, because is so much and so changeable that memorizing it is a ridiculous pretension, or that the youngest of your family and your organization are very different from you, who are driving at full speed with digital devices, which have different fun, looking different things in the work and in the free time, etc.) Dimension of rupture. Finally, it is possible to speak of the "dimension of rupture", possibly the most characteristic of the new era. This is a very open and unstable area, diffuse, difficult to interpret (Rajagopal, 2007). We know that it can have a great final impact on our lives, but we are not able to measure which. This dimension of rupture - which does not figure on your current map - is the area where Professor Taleb's black swans abound; namely: unpredictable and high impact phenomena that are beyond statistics, and, in general, all our predictive tools; events that you cannot anticipate, that suddenly break into your life and are able to determine your decisions and, most likely, your future. This zone of rupture - unknown and unpredictable by definition - is the one that most resembles what awaits us, that is to say, to the future, of which if we know something is that it will be anything but a repetition of the past. This implies that what we have learned so far w ill not serve us to manage the future, and, ultimately, what we do not know about the future is much more than what we do know. So that what is said is not a mere declaration of intentions, in the next conversation I will propose a map with three very simple steps for you to make this your year of personal innovation; a kind of practical and inspiring guide that will serve you to explore reality,that will allow you to make the most of your experiences in the path of your continuous personal transformation; and that, in short, will help you to reinvent yourself as a person (Rajagopal, 2007). I had, however, to address the personal dimension of innovation. And that is precisely what I intend to do in this and the next conversation. My idea is to help you build a map of personal innovation; a guide map that you can use to deal with the uncertainty and volatility of this complex and changing environment in which we are living. The need to innovate The starting point is this: at a time like this, marked by the accelerated changes, you cannot drive looking through the rearview mirror. That is, you cannot rely on getting ahead using those tools that have worked for you before, because what awaits us is completely different from what we have known so far (Foss and Saebi, n.d.). Strategic Innovation Capacity In the strategic aspect, the decisions to be taken on the following are especially important: I think I must innovate, and in the managerial aspect; 1. Ideas and projects 2. Resources and especially time 3. Introduction to the market of results Key factors of innovation management: Innovative capacity needs to be a strategic value of the organization, fully supported by the leadership of the organization. This is because the ability of the company to detect the opportunities and needs for change depends on how effective the implementation of available resources (external and internal) is. Through the use of innovation management methods, it will be easier to control processes, as well as their effectiveness and efficiency (Foss and Saebi, n.d.). There are perceived strengths and areas for development that I will highlight in Each of the 5 factors mentioned contains a number of success factors, which influence one another, and whose overall effect is difficult to measure. The interaction of this quantity of success factors, quantitative and qualitative factors is not easy. Under this need, methods and applications have been developed for their evaluation and analysis. It is an area of innovation management in full development, where the availability of computer applications is starting and represents a challenge for companies to implement and exploit (Harvard business review on business model innovation, 2010). In short, it is clear that developing an "innovative" organization does not happen by chance, or finding "a genius" within your human resources. Genius is the system, which must provide; motivation, analysis of opportunities, necessary resources and methods, which is available to organizations of any size. Like it or not, the world is changing, and you need to change the old ways of working, that only made sense in the past and that came up to solve problems that are no longer relevant in the achievement of your goals. Transforming companies, transforming people As you will discover as you progress in the conversation, there are interesting similarities between personal innovation and business innovation. The following is a framework of business perceived strengths in innovation. I will make it a SMART framework S= Specific Since the innovation is a business project, I propose it to be an IT innovation application enhancement program. It is meant to ease the process of cost management by the management and staff of a leading company using a computer and mobile generated application. M= Measurable I think that a good innovation project should be measurable and satisfy the requirements of the business. Business innovation transforms industries. And, in an analogous way, personal innovation transforms people, and allows them to improve their capacities to interact with the new reality (Gibbert et al., 2006). A=Aligned They are, in a sense, two sides of the same coin. It is not enough that companies innovate. Also people should do it. After all, people who are unable to change will share the same fate as those companies anchored in the past: they will no longer be competitive and relevant in the new context. R= Realistic Many times, when i reflect on our personal goals and the changes needed to achieve them, i do it under pressure, blinded by immediacy, by the urgency of everyday life, by obligations, social pressures, fear and insecurity; that is, we focus our reflection on the risks and obstacles that stand in our way. T= Time bound Think that this time it is time for you to leave your "comfort zone", to leave the cave to analyze trends, clues to what is to come; to explore the future; to try to understand and internalize the new reality, and be able to learn and develop the new skills you need to address the future (Gibbert et al., 2006).What if we could explore the new territories without fear, liberated from the prejudices of the past, ready to create new realities, new opportunities for development. if, instead of hiding in our shelter, we could interact with the new reality, or what is the same, we could participate in the new conversations, to share and create value in the new global networks, as so many people are already doing. Models of Innovation The research and development process can be the origin of a multitude of subsequent process of innovationes. Some of the innovations may succeed and others may not. The problem is that it is not known how much time they need to generate these innovations. Linear model on the other hand does not suggest that innovations come from direct research and development. In many cases, non radical and continuous innovations may arise from an observation, there can also be a market analysis or proposal for improvement or analysis of the market without the need for proper technological development. There are several criticisms that arise from this model which are; first, it considers the process of innovation as a success of different stages. Second, this model places great importance on Research and development as a trigger for innovation. Third, the model does not represent the economic reality and fourth impulse or push model of technology. These models are usually referred to as First and Se cond Generation models respectively and both are characterized by their linear conception of the process of innovation (Gassmann, Frankenberger and Sauer, 2016). Chronologically, in the first instance the Technology Push or Push-Up Model emerges, the influence of this model started in the 1960s. it is through causality that this model contemplates the development of the process of innovation that goes from science to technology and is represented by an orderly and sequential process that is based on the knowledge of science. and after various stages or stages, commercializes a product or process that may be economically viable.Its main characteristic is its linearity, which entails a gradual, sequential and orderly staggering from scientific discovery (source of innovation), to applied research, technological development, manufacturing and launching novelty. Demand Pull Model From the 1960s onwards, there was more attention that was paid to the market in terms of the role it played in the process of innovation which led to the materialization of a new technological innovation model , which is also linear of the demand or the market pull. This period led to greater participation in the market by big corporations with an emphasis to increase strategic marketing. As a consequence of this, the perception of the process of innovation began to be altered, leading to a greater intensification of demand factors. The linear model is extremely useful for a simplified and rational understanding of the process of innovation. However, this model has serious shortcomings. The first is related to the sequential and orderly nature that it establishes for the process of innovation. In certain cases certain phases of the process are not necessary and in others, the sequence may be different. Although there are certain priorities and logical sequences, numerous variations occur in the intended sequence (Gassmann, Frankenberger and Sauer, 2016). On the other hand, in the process of innovation, there are so many processes of feedback, cycles of information exchange back and forth and so many unforeseen and surprises arise that the notion of phases or stages could almost be rejected. It makes more sense to think about an extremely interactive process. Therefore, it is concluded that the process of innovation is characterized, on the one hand, by the overlapping of the different activities (which complicates the identification of each of them with precision and, more, its delimitation in independent parts) and , on the other, by the frequent feedbacks between the different stages (Gassmann, Frankenberger and Sauer, 2016). Finally, the view that innovation emerges either by technology or by the pull of demand, is not without its extreme. Later models incorporate both aspects, recognizing the importance of both sources of innovation. The inclusion of elements of both the push of technology and the pull of demand, makes the models more representative of the process of innovation and that the analogy with scissors is illuminating: "without both edges, it is difficult to cut" Business Model One of the biggest challenges after having "that" innovative idea is how to develop and materialize it and not only is it enough to define the entrepreneurial idea, it must also be chosen, developed and also innovate in the business model to achieve the desired success. Thinking about how difficult it is to generate a business model, of the business model, a practical form for the generation of business models. The canvas consists of the schematic connection of nine modules that reflects the logic of a company to reach its revenues, covering the four main areas: Customer, supply, infrastructure and economic viability.business2 Chain Link Model The R D I process, based on Kline's modified chain link model (adopted in the UNE 166002 standard on R D I Management), attempts to represent the complexity and uncertainty involved in an R D I process, and the relationship between innovation and research and development activities. R D I activities are difficult to measure and constant coordination between technical know-how requirements and the needs of the market, to simultaneously solve the economic, technological and other obligations imposed by the R + D + i process. This model is considered as a set of activities related to each other and whose results are frequently uncertain. Because of this uncertainty there is no linear progression between the activities of the process and there is feedback at all stages of development as well as possible sources of improvement between each stage and research. With this we can conclude that: R D is not a source of inventions but a tool that is used to solve the problems that appear at any stage of the process. The research addresses problems that can not be solved with existing knowledge, so expand the knowledge base. The company has a knowledge base to solve problems that arise when innovating. This model promotes a culture of innovation throughout the company, and serves for companies of any activity and size (Gassmann, Frankenberger and Sauer, 2016). The Innovation Management Framework Companies are not faced with the management of innovation by acting directly on their management elements, because they are immersed in a very specific series of business processes, so that monitoring and targeting become part of the process strategic, oriented to the planning of innovation in the company in the long term. The former prepares the organization to deal with the changes that are likely to affect it and the latter provides it with the rational ability to predict innovation results before they are implemented. The Innovation Management Framework Training as a supplier of knowledge (generation or acquisition) and the implementation of innovation through the development of processes, products and services are more connected with innovation as a result, with its execution. They are, therefore, elements of the operational process and, most of the time, their success is conditioned to that of the strategic process. For example, it is easy to find companies that do not adequately define their innovation strategy and as a consequence decide to implement innovations that often do not lead to improvements in competitiveness (Kaplan, 2012). It is also easy to see that most companies try to improve their development processes and yet, despite the fact that in most cases this requires the acquisition of technology, we realize that with assiduity is the production engineering department who performs this acquisition as if it were a routine problem, forgetting important aspects to take into account in this process. Learning is the only element that does not have a clear identification within the business processes, so that each process must learn to reflect on their experiences and introduce improvements around their own development. The advantage of this "learning organization" approach is that previous results and experiences are harnessed in such a way that, in the face of similar situations in the future, the company is better prepared and able to recognize and anticipate problems (Stampfl, 2016). Clearly, innovation management cannot be the responsibility of a single department. Neither can we think that it is the exclusive role of the director of technology or research, but must take advantage of marketing resources, production, purchasing, engineering, quality and even outside the company - the chain of suppliers, technology networks . That is why the activities or processes on which their management elements rest must work together to achieve efficient development (Kaplan, 2012). Coined by Chris Anderson in 2004, it is one of the most innovative business models that have emerged in recent times. The innovation of the long tail business model is characterized by offering a wide range of low demand items, but which can become profitable businesses and generate profits due to a large volume of small sales. In the traditional model, which is governed by the Pareto Principle, 80% of the population bought 20% of the articles. This fact made low-cost products less profitable because of the high costs of development, storage, distribution and marketing (Kaplan, 2012). The companies to save costs, limited their production and marketing, only, to the articles sold, that is to say 20%.But with the advent of the Internet, new innovative business models have been generated, which consist of having a huge range of products that are in short supply, but which turn into profitable businesses for being able to sell worldwide. References Atun, R. and Sheridan, D. (2007). Innovation in the biopharmaceutical industry. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific. Botten, N. and Sims, A. (2005). Management accounting - business strategy. Burlington, MA: CIMA Publishing. Foss, N. and Saebi, T. (n.d.). Business model innovation. Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K. and Sauer, R. (2016). Exploring the Field of Business Model Innovation. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Gibbert, M., Durand, T., Gibbert, M. and Durand, T. (2006). Strategic Networks. Blackwell Publishing. Goldenberg, J. and Mazursky, D. (2002). Creativity in product innovation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Harvard business review on business model innovation. (2010). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Pub. Kaplan, S. (2012). Business model innovation factory. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley Sons. Lipczynski, J. (2008). Business. Chicago: Chicago Review Press. Rajagopal (2007). Marketing dynamics. New Delhi: New Age International. Souza, P. (2010). Innovation in industrial research. Collingwood, Vic.: CSIRO Pub. Stampfl, G. (2016). Process of business model innovation. [Place of publication not identified]: Gabl