The need for a balanced portfolio of innovation sounds simple, after all why wouldn't you want to simultaneously execute multiple types of innovation to manage risk and maximise return, but what does 'balanced' really mean.
There has been a lot of enthusiasm for Google's 70/20/10 innovation model where 70% is core, 20% adjacent and 10% transformational, including applying the model to other business practices. However, there is no silver bullet, trying to fit a model appropriate for Google into a more risk adverse, a less mature, or simply a different sector organisation could be disastrous.
I'd be interested to hear whether your organisation consciously decide what balance to pursue and what factors are considered in doing so?
Comments
Post a Comment