the anatomy of innovation - km institute · page | 4 innovate ©. lesley crane, 2016 1. synopsis...

Page|1INNOVATE©.LesleyCrane,2016

Theanatomyofinnovation

Anoriginalresearchstudyandbookproposal

ByDr.LesleyCrane,KnowingHow

March2016

LesleyCranePhDMABScHonsKnowingHowlesley@knowing-how-comwww.knowing-how.comTel:+44(0)7464835150


AbouttheauthorLesleyCraneisaconsultant,researcherandauthorspecialisinginorganizationalknowledge,learningand innovation. Her publications include research and position papers in international peer-reviewed journals, and her book “Knowledge and Discourse Matters” is published this year by JWiley & Sons. She is also the author of a chapter on the study of discourse in a forthcomingdefinitive text book on market research methods, and is an official reviewer for the Journal ofKnowledgeManagement.In addition, Lesley contributes to conferences as a keynote speaker: in 2016, she is makingpresentationsattheKnowledgeManagementInstitute’sinauguralaccreditedknowledgemanager’scoursesinLondon,andattheUKInstituteofDirectors’conferenceinScotlandlaterthisyear. Hertrackrecordasaconsultantstretchesbackmorethan20years.www.knowing-how.com

She began her career in themedia business during the 1980s, quickly becoming one of the earlypioneers of technology supported learning in both private and public sectors, and an EdTechentrepreneur running a number of niche technology innovator companies. In mid-2000, sheestablishedasuccessfulconsultancybusiness,andconcurrentlyembarkedonwhatturnedouttobea ten-year long learning journey leading to a degree in Psychology followed by a PhD inorganizationalknowledgeandlinguisticbehaviour.Lesley combines scientific discipline and intelligence with diverse experience and expertise inpractice to support organizations in realising their potential through embedding a culture oflearning, knowledge and innovation. Throughout her varied career she has worked with diverseclientsonoftenground-breakingprojects,includingtheUK’sDepartmentforEducation,MinistryofDefence, Environment Agency, severalWater plcs, BP, Amoco and Castrol, Sector Skills Councils,variousuniversitiesandcolleges,CambridgeEnglishandtheEuropeanCommission.


Contents1. Synopsis

2. Introductionandbackground

3. Whyanewapproachtounderstandinginnovationisneeded

4. Arigorousresearchbasedstudy

4.1. Theidea

4.2. Researchquestion–thehypothesis

4.3. Scopeandsubjects

4.4. Researchdesign

4.5. Qualityofresearch

5. Studydeliverables

5.1. TheBook–‘INNOVATE–theanatomyofinnovation’

5.2. Researchpapersandothermedia

5.3. Individualparticipantbriefings

5.4. Conferences,trainingcoursesandworkshops

6. Market

7. Projectedtimescales


1. SynopsisINNOVATEisaboutinnovationinpractice.

INNOVATEisanexcitingandground-breakingsuiteofnewandoriginalresourcesfortopexecutives

inorganizations,comprisingabook,researchpapers,socialmediapublications,trainingcoursesand

workshops,andonlinecoursesandaself-serveonlinecomparativeassessmenttool.Theseproducts

andserviceswillallbebasedonasubstantialnewresearchstudywhichtakesasitsfocusthe

language-in-actionbehavioursandpracticesoftopinnovatorsofleadingbusinessesand

organizationsaroundtheworld.

ThebasicpremiseofINNOVATEisthatmuchofthecontemporarytheories,models,frameworksand

self-helpguidesaimedathelpingleaderstodeveloptheirinnovativeskillsandabilitiesisbasedon

limitingresearchmethods.

TheINNOVATEmethodistostudyhowtopinnovatorsspeak(talkandtext)insocialinteractionwith

others,basedontheconceptualizationofinnovationasafabricationthatisco-constructedbetween

speakers.TheINNOVATEhypothesisisthatinnovatorsroutinelyusedistinctiverhetoricalpractices

insocialinteractionwithothersandthatthestudyofthesepracticeswilluncoverthepsychologyof

innovation-theanatomyofinnovationasalive,dynamicsocialaccomplishmentwithavery

distinctivethesaurusthatisuniquetoinnovators.

2. Introductionandbackground

“Thepurposefulinnovationresultingfromanalysis,system,andhardworkisallthatcanbediscussedandpresentedasthepracticeofinnovation.”

PeterDrucker,PrinciplesofInnovation,2001

Wherever you look, innovation is the buzzword on everyone’s lips. Organizational innovation has

beenaprimarytopicofresearchandtheorisingsincethe1920s.Today,weseeavirtual ‘industry’

aroundinnovation,andnotjustintermsofacademicworks:conferences,workshops,webinarsand

training programmes; self-help books,websites; popular journals, business journals and academic

journals. It has probably become one of themost hotly debated topics of any field or discipline.

Thereisstillmuchtounderstandaboutinnovation.


In stressing the values of ‘purposeful innovation’, Peter Drucker was making the point that the

romanticviewofinnovation-the‘flashofgenius’orthesporadic‘innovativeopportunity’–seldom

leadstoactualinnovations1.Moreover,miraclesofinnovationcannotbereplicated,taughtoreven

learned.WilliamStarbuckoftheSternBusinessSchool,writingin2002,goesevenfurtherinarguing

thattheveryideaofattemptingtocopytheinnovativeattributesandcharacteristicsofanotherfirm

–asmanyorganizationsattempttodo,orareurgedtodobyinnovationgurus–is,frankly,illogical

andunlikelytosucceed2.Firmsthatareseenasbeinginnovativeare,bytheirveryDNA,locatedfar

outsideof thenorm, as so-called ‘outliers’whichbuck trends and receivedwisdom in everyway.

Gary Pisano, in his argument for an innovation strategy3, makes an even simpler case: to copy

someoneelse’sinnovationsystemwon’twork!Innovationis,byanymeasure,somethingofaHoly

Grail.Howhasthiscomeabout?

Innovation iswidely considered as theessential factor not just to a firm’s success, but to its very

survival. VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity), disruption, change, turbulence, the

weightandinfluenceofsocialmedia,opensourceandBigData,ArtificialIntelligence,supermasses

offreeinformation,MassiveOpenOnlineCourses(MOOCs),immediacyofaccess,changingrulesof

governance,chronicskillsshortages,andonandonitgoes.This istheworldthatthemodernfirm

operatesin.It’smessy,ofteninexplicable,andcontrolistoooftendelegatedtorumour.Somefirms

are simply sliding intohistory to endupas a footnote in amanagement textbook.But someare

thriving.Why?How?

3. Whyanewapproachtounderstandinginnovationis

needed

There are lots of studies in the academic and corporate literatures – and a host of ‘how to’ guru

books–whichclaimtoofferinsightsintowhatmakesforaninnovativefirm,aninnovationsuccess

story.Whattheyallhaveincommonisaverycommon-senseconclusion:afirmisonlyasinnovative

as its leader. A firm might have an innovative senior management team, or innovative product

1Drucker,P.(2001).PrinciplesofInnovation.InTheEssentialDrucker.London:Routledge2Starbuck,W.(2002).Keepingabutterflyandanelephantinahouseofcards.InChooandBontis,Eds.TheStrategicManagementofIntellectualCapitalandOrganizationalKnowledge.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress3Pisano,G.(2015).Youneedaninnovationstrategy.HarvardBusinessReview,June2015


developmentteams,orevenclaimafirm-deepinnovationculture,butiftheleaderisnotinnovative,

theninnovationissimplynotsustainable.

To date, studies have largely focused on two principle questions: what makes for an innovative

leader and what do innovative organizations look like? They generally adopt one of two main

approaches as the backbone to their investigations and recommendations: surveys (self-report,

semi-structured, structured, interview and so forth), and observation (ethnomethodology, for

instance).Contextualdatamightalsobedrawnfromfirms’financialperformance,sales,stockvalue,

stated values, discussion forums and chat rooms, even social contribution and corporate

sustainability.

Typically studies in thepopularpressuse these typesof investigations tosupportnewtheoriesor

models/ frameworkswith thepromise that thesewill transformpeopleororganizations,orboth,

into quintessentially innovative paragons. A mountain of popular training and transformation

programs,self-helpguides,androlemodelsarebuiltonsuchapproaches.Thereare,literally,tensof

thousandsofthem.

Itwouldbeeasytobecomeside-trackedinsimplycriticisingtheseresearchpractices,butthiswould

be to pursue a negative and circular argument. Suffice to point to two obvious and common

weaknesses in the traditional approaches, from which models of innovation are produced, as

testamenttowhyanewapproachisneeded.

First,thereisthetimefactor.Recallthefamous4-yearstudybyJimCollins4andhiscolleagueswho

investigated the drivers of ‘good-to-great’ transformations. What they found were five levels of

leadership, each with distinctive attributes. To be truly great, and by implication to be truly

innovative, leadershave topossess thequalitiesofeach level,with Level5distinguishedbywhat

theydescribeasa‘paradoxicalcombinationofpersonalhumilityandprofessionalwill.’However,the

leadership consultant, author and academic Robert Allio points out in 2015 that in the years

followingCollins’work,thecompaniessingledoutasbeing‘great’hadinfactdriftedintotherelative

oblivionofthe‘good’orless5.Time,itseems,isnorespecterofsustainableinnovation.

4E.g.,Collins,J.(2001).Level5Leadership:thetriumphofhumilityandfierceresolve.HarvardBusinessReview,January:66-765Allio,R.(2015).Goodstrategymakesgoodleaders.Strategy&Leadership,43,(5):3-9


Asecondweakness,andverymuchrelatedtothetimefactor,issubjectiveinterpretation.Thatis,

theassumptionthatwhenpeopleareaskedaquestion,theygenerallyreporteventsasthey‘really

are’,aswouldhavebeenexactlyexperiencedbyanyotherpersonpresentat thetime; thatwhen

investigators observe the actions, behaviours, processes, systems, protocols and so on, which

collectivelycomprisetheorganizationalcultureinthebroadestsenseofitsmeaning,theyareableto

report their observationsobjectivelywithoutbias in the sameway as a camerawould record the

scene foramovie.Of course, inbothcases,humanscannotavoid siftingwhat they see,hearand

experience through their own complex internal network of subjective filters. That is, in order to

make sense of experience and life in general, we need our own internal knowledge – our tacit

knowing,ifyoulike–tounlockthecodeandallowustomakesenseofitall.Robotsmaybeableto

operatewithout such subjective filters (for now, anyhow), but atmost all humans can do is shift

theirfilters’focusandemphasis–andthatisnoteasy.McCaffreyandPearsonrefertothesefilters

collectively as ‘functional fixedness’, as biases which get in the way of creativity – innovation

thinking6.Whatallthismeansisthatinnovationtheories,frameworks,‘essentials’,‘guideshowto’,

models and all the rest are based on the researcher/writers/research participants’ interpretive,

subjectiveanalysisofwhattheyexperience,filteredthroughtheirownexistinginternalknowing.In

otherwords,theseareconjuredversionsofreality.

Arguably such studies only scratch the surface of what makes for innovative leaders and

organizations.Thereisagreatdealmorethatcouldandcanbediscovered.Accordingly,INNOVATE

takesaverydifferentapproach.

4. Arigorousresearchbasedstudy4.1TheideaThe alternative to the ‘realist’ approach discussed in the previous section is to accept thatwhen

peoplecommunicatewithoneanotherthroughtalkoreventext,whattheyaredoingisconstructing

versionsofevents.Thinkabout it.Howmanytimeshaveyoutoldthesamestorytotwodifferent

people,intwoverydifferentways?That’scalled‘recipientdesign’:peoplegenerallytellstories,give

accounts,makearguments,promises,blamings,predictionsandeverythingelsefromapositionina

waythatisdesignedtomaximisetheresponseofthosethattheaccountisaimedat.Thatcouldbe

to foster agreement, or argument, or friendship and alliance, whatever. The point is that we6McCaffrey,T.andPearson,J.(2015).Findinnovationwhereyouleastexpectit.HarvardBusinessReview,December


unconsciously perform actionswhenwe talk, with purpose and consequence. So, what does this

havetodowithinnovationandleadership?

Leadershipand innovationdonotexist ‘out there’as separateentities tobediscovered.Theyare

created insocial interactionthroughtalkandtext. Imaginethatyousayout loudtoaroomfullof

people(oranemptyroom)‘Iamaleader’or‘IamanauthorityonXYZ’,andno-onerespondstoyou.

Canyoubeconsidereda leader,oranauthority?No,youcannotbeeitheronyourown.Youcan

onlybe a leader in the contextof followerswhoacknowledge youas leader inhow they interact

withandrespondtoyou.Aleaderwhoisconsideredtobeaninnovatoronlyexistsasaninnovator

inthecontext–theversionofreality-thatisco-createdwithspeakersinsocialinteraction.Amongst

a different set of people and circumstances, that individual as leader or innovatormay not exist.

Innovation is, in this sense, the construction or product of social interaction – talk and text. The

objectorservicecreatedbytheinnovatorisonlyinnovativeintheeyesofthosewho‘orient’toitas

such.

Thisapproach,whichisgroundedinmorethan50years’ofacademicscientificstudyandresearch7,

and which has a substantial body of literature (albeit not quite as substantial as that around

‘innovation’!) opens a whole new horizon for investigating and understanding the anatomy of

innovation. The idea, then, is to explore, uncover and seek understanding of innovation as it is

broughtintoexistencethroughthediscoursesofpeopleinsocialinteraction.

4.2Researchquestion–thehypothesisINNOVATEbuilds on the existing knowledge around the innovation phenomenon by investigating

how top leaders pitch themselves as innovative and innovators in their everyday talk and text in

interactionwithothers.Inthissense,talkisapproachedasconstructive(utterancesareconsciously

orotherwiseconstructedwithpurpose),functional(wordsaccomplishaction),consequential(words

haveconsequences for thespeakerandrecipient– theyevokeresponses,emotions),andvariable

(words are recipient-designed – that is, the speaker constructs versions of events to suit the co-

speakerandthecontextwithinwhichtheyspeak).

7Seeforexample,Crane,L.(2016).KnowledgeandDiscourseMatters:relocatingknowledgemanagement'ssphereofinterestontolanguage.NewYork:JWiley&Sons;Edwards,D.andPotter,J.(1992).DiscursivePsychology.London:Sage;Gergen,K(2009).RelationalBeing:beyondselfandcommunity.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress;Clifton,J.(2012b).Adiscursiveapproachtoleadership:assessmentsandmanagingorganizationalmeanings.JournalofBusinessCommunication,49,(2):148-168


INNOVATE is based on the idea that the innovative attributes of individuals are fabricated and

brought into being in the bi-directional talk (and text) interaction between persons. Innovators

emergeasafabricationofveryparticulartypesofspeechasasociallyconstructedaccomplishment

intheeverydayconversationsbetweenpeopleinorganizations.Thatis,whenaninnovatorspeaks,

they perform very particular actions with their words which have equally specific consequences.

Moreover, how is it that those around the innovator not only understand this ‘language of

innovation’,althoughtheymaynotspeakitthemselves,buttheyalsoactivelyconstructandorient

totheinnovatorasbeinginnovativeintheirowntalkandtext?

The hypothesis is: people who are considered to be innovative are constructed as innovative

throughhowtheyspeak,thelinguisticactionsandpatternstheyweave,andtheconsequencesthat

these have both on the speaker and co-speaker(s). Thus, the study has a far deeper focus than

simplywhatpeoplesay:ratherthefocusisonthepsychologicalactionsthatareconstructedthrough

interactionalcommunications,withthehypothesisproposingthat it isat this level that innovation

existsasapsychologicalconstruct.

Throughgaininganunderstandinganduniqueinsightintohowinnovationcomesintobeingthrough

talkandtext insocial interaction,wecandevelopa fargreaterknowledgeandcapabilitytofoster

andgrowinnovationtalent.Wecanexploreinnovationaslanguage-actionwithconsequenceswith

thepotentialtocreatealinguisticthesaurus–theanatomy–ofinnovationinaction.

4.3 ScopeandsubjectsForthepresentproject,theonlypracticallimitationisthatthesubjectswhoarethefocusofstudy

havetobefluentEnglishspeakers.Ofcourse,theideaandtheorybehindINNOVATEcanbereadily

appliedtoanycultureandlanguage,butthepresentresearcherisunfortunatelyonlyconversantin

English!Otherwise,ourscopeiswithoutborder.

Thesubjectsfortheresearcharethosemenandwomenwhoare internationallyacknowledgedto

bemastersofinnovation.Thesearethepeoplewholeadtheworld’smostsuccessfulandinnovative

businesses,whatever their size,wherever located, andwhatever theirbusiness. Therearevarious

sourcesthatcanbeusedtoidentifysuchindividuals.Herearejustafew:


• TheForbeslistoftheWorld’sMostInnovativeCompanies

• Bloomberg’slistoftheWorld’sMostInnovativeCompanies

• TheBloombergInnovationIndex

• INSEADKnowledge’sreviewoftheWorld’sMostInnovativeCompanies(2013)

• USTotday’s‘world’smostinnovativecompanies’

• ThomsonReuters’Top100GlobalInnovators

• BusinessInsider’s‘The50mostinnovativecompanies’intheworld

• TheFortune500’slistofWorld’s50GreatestLeaders

• BCGPerspectives’listoftheMostInnovativeCompanies2015

Theplan is to select20 individualswhocollectively representagoodmixof industry, size, culture

andsoon.Infactthemorediversitywehavebetweentheorganizations,thebetter.Thehypothesis

suggeststhatthenatureoftheorganizationisinfactirrelevant.Whatisrelevantistheactionsthat

peopleaccomplishthroughwhich innovation ismade live:will theseactionsbeconstantacrossall

participants,nomatterwhichorganizationtheylead?

Ontheissueofparticipantprivacyandconfidentiality,theapproachistonamethecontributorsand

their organizations as contributors and participants to the study, but to anonymise individual

contributions.Bythis,itismeantthatwhereextractsofdialogueareusedinsupportofthestudy’s

findingsorreferencesaremadetospecificbehavioursandactions,suchextractsandbehaviourswill

notbeattributedtospecificnamedindividuals.

4.4 ResearchdesignTheproposedstudyadoptsaqualitativemethodsdesignfocusingonthehypothesisdiscussedinan

earlier section. Data will be gathered through two principle methods: observation and audio

recordingofeverydaymeetingtalk,conversationandformal/informalwrittencommunications(e.g.,

emails, postings to chat rooms and/or forums etc.). This will essentially involve ‘shadowing’ the

participantoveraperiodofseveraldays(whichcouldbespreadoverweeks).Theobjectiveofthe

researcher is to be as unobtrusive as possible – so, in recording meetings for instance, the

researcherwillnotbephysicallypresentinthemeetingroom.Thestudywillproducethreetypesof

data: audio, textual and observational notes. For each participant, all three types of datawill be

plottedonatimelinetomakeanybetweendataconnectionsorrelationstransparent.


TheaudioandtextualdatawillbeanalysedusingaformofdiscourseanalysisdrawingonDiscourse

Psychology(anestablishedtheoryandresearchparadigm)8.Theanalysishastheaimof identifying

patterns, rhetorical practices, construction, evaluation and function as speakers’ actions. Thiswill

involve the transcription, anduseof transcription conventions (such that selectedextracts canbe

presentedasrepresentingtheactualspokenwordsincludingtone,volumeandsoforthascloselyas

possible),ofselectedextractsofinterestfromtheaudiodata.Thetextualdatadoesnotrequiresuch

treatment. This is an iterative process through which patterns and deviations emerge through

analysis, andwhich can be compared and triangulatedwith the observational notes. This type of

research analysis is best served through adherence to a four-point validation procedure,which is

discussedinthefollowingsub-section.

The study is predicted to uncover the language of innovation – the anatomy of innovation as an

accomplishmentof linguistic social interaction. In thisway, the studywill beable touncoverhow

innovationactionworksatafardeeperlevelthanpreviousconventionalstudieswhoseboundaries

havestartedandendedatwhatpeoplesay–thecontentsoftheirtalk.Consequently,theoutcome

of the study is not confined to a vocabulary – a list of commonly used words and phrases, for

instance–sharedbythoseidentifiedasbeinginnovative.Thatwouldbetosuggestthatindividuals

may ‘become innovative’ by simply copying how acknowledged innovators speak (a potentially

flawedenterpriseforallofthesamereasonsthatPisanoandStarbuckhavealreadystatedinrespect

ofone company copyinganother).Rather, the study’soutcome is adetailedand forensic analysis

anddescriptionofthepsychologicalactionswhichunderpintheemergenceofinnovation.

4.5 QualityofresearchArguably, the most obvious and problematic issue concerning qualitative research in general

concerns the question of how to measure the quality of qualitative research methodologies.

Drawing on noted British scholar Jonathan Potter’s 19989 work, the research attends to four

procedures:

1. Analyst’sclaimsaregroundedinthespeakers’ownunderstandingasdisplayedinwhatthey

say,andinthatofco-speakers(knownasthe‘nextturnproof’procedure);

8Seeforinstance:Edwards,D.andPotter,J.(1992).DiscursivePsychology.London:Sage9Potter,J.(1998a).Discursivesocialpsychology:fromattitudestoevaluativepractices.InStroebe,W.andHewstone,M.(Eds).EuropeanReviewofSocialPsychology.


2. Particularattentionispaidtodeviantcases–instancesoftalkwhichappeartobreakthe

patternsidentifiedthroughanalysis–todetermineifthesestrengthenorweakenthe

analyticclaim;

3. Analysisisgroundedinexistingresearch;

4. Extractsofverbatimspeakertalkareincludedintheresearchreportinsupportofanalytical

claims.

5. Studydeliverables

5.1TheBook–‘INNOVATE–theanatomyofinnovation’The most significant tangible deliverable from the study will be an original book based on the

researchand its findings.Thepresentauthoralreadyhasanestablishedreputationasapublished

author:herfirstwork,‘KnowledgeandDiscourseMatters’ispublishedthisyearbyJWiley&Sons,

andshehascontributedachapteronDiscourseAnalysis toabookonadvancedmethodologies in

marketresearch,duetobepublishedthisspringbyRoutledge,London.

Itisenvisagedthatthebookwillbeapproximately150,000wordsinlength,andcomprisearound10

chapters. Includedwill bea comprehensive introduction to the topicof innovation, anda chapter

devoted to contemporary practices, theories and approaches. The majority of the book will be

devoted to presenting and discussing the findings of the study, alongwith their implications and

application to innovation practice. A final chapter will translate the findings into an ‘anatomy of

innovation’:athesaurusoflinguisticbehavioursandactionsfoundtobeconsistentthroughoutthe

individualsmakingupthestudy’scohortofparticipants.Theintentionistocreateadefinitivebook

onthetopicoforganizationalinnovation,butonewhichtakesaradicallydifferentyetscientifically

robustperspectiveandapproach.

As anestablishedauthor, identifying a goodpublisher –most likely aUSbasedpublisher – is not

consideredtobeaparticularchallenge.

5.2ResearchpapersandothermediaInadditiontothebook,theplanistowriteandpublishanumberofauthoritativeresearchpapersin

leading international journals – both academic and popular – during the lifetime of the project.

Thesewillbeusedtoaddgravitasandinfluencetotheprojectasawhole.


Othermediathatwillbeusedtodisseminate,publiciseandpromotetheprojectincludesocialmedia

suchasonlineblogs–thesecanbetargetedatbothpublicopenforumssuchasLinkedIn,aswellas

articles as a guest blogger for forums including the Drucker Society Forum and the Knowledge

ManagementInstitute.Othersimilaropportunitiescanbeidentified.

5.3 IndividualparticipantbriefingsAnimportantpartoftheproject’sdeliverables,andanincentivetoprospectiveparticipants,isthat

individual‘earlybird’briefingswillbeofferedtoparticipatingorganizations.Theintentionistogive

allparticipantstheopportunitytoengagewiththestudy’sfindingspriortotheirformalpublication

inbookform.

5.4 Conferences,trainingcoursesandworkshopsFinally,weseeconsiderablemileageandopportunity inusingtheprojectasanexperience,andits

findings to form the basis of compelling and original contributions to international conferences

focusing on the topic of organizational innovation. Extending from this, there are beyond doubt

opportunitiestogeneratemarketableservicesincludingtrainingcoursesandworkshopsdrawingon

thestudy’sfindings.Tomakethemostoftheseparticularopportunities,theaimwouldbetowork

with an established provider of similar services to ‘train the trainers’ and to develop a suit of

programmesfollowingthestrategyof‘developonce,delivermanytimes’.

It is also possible that online courses could be developed and marketed based on the study’s

findings.

Wealsoplanthedevelopmentofanonlinepersonalcomparativeassessmenttoolwhichexecutives

wouldbeabletousetodeterminehowtheycomparewiththeinnovationperformancebenchmarks

demonstratedinthefindings.

6. TheMarketThemarketforthesedeliverables,giventheircoresubjectmatter, issubstantialand international.

Oneonlyhastolookathowmanybooks,journals,websites,andtraininganddevelopmentservices

thatareavailabletogainanimpressionofthemulti$billionsizeofthisparticularmarket.


With the book and conferences, training courses and workshops the target market is C-Suite

executives and technology start-ups. Engaging with the academic community through the

publicationof researchpapers,whilstnot realisingany financial revenues, is intended togenerate

scientificcredibilityandrecognitionforthestudyanditsfindings.

7. ProjectedtimescalesItisestimatedthattheproject,asitiscurrentlyenvisaged,willtakearound18monthsfromstartup

todeliveryofthefinalprojectoutputs.However,becauseitisproposedtogenerateprojectoutputs

fromtheoutset–suchasblogcontributionsandresearchpapers–thevisibilityofthestudywillnot

besolelydependentonitsfinaldeliverables.


Forfurtherinformationaboutthisprojectandhowtobecomeinvolvedpleasecontact:

DrLesleyCrane

[email protected]

Tel:+44(0)7464835150

EricWeidner

VPofBusinessDevelopment

KMInstitute

O:703-327-7096

C:703-899-2286

[email protected]

the anatomy of innovation - km institute · page | 4 innovate ©. lesley crane, 2016 1. synopsis...

Documents