Quick Critiquing and Enhancing the Innovation Frameworks from Harvard Business Review, McKinsey, and Others
Reevaluating Innovation Frameworks: A Critical Review & Enhancement
The innovation landscape is evolving rapidly, and with it, so should our frameworks. After analyzing several thought-provoking articles on innovation, I found recurring themes and gaps that need addressing to create a more robust and scalable innovation engine. Below is a critical analysis of some of the key innovation models and how they can be refined to drive sustainable business growth.
1. The Eight Essentials of Innovation Performance (McKinsey)
Article by: Marc de Jong , Nathan Marston , Erik Roth , Peet van Biljon
?? Strengths: This framework provides a structured approach to innovation with clear steps: Aspire, Choose, Discover, Evolve, Accelerate, Scale, Extend, and Mobilize. The research backing this model is comprehensive, demonstrating that firms that master these essentials significantly outperform competitors.
?? Deficiencies: While the framework is comprehensive, it lacks operational guidance on how to balance long-term strategic innovation with immediate tactical needs. Also, it does not deeply address innovation intensity—how much innovation investment should be prioritized at various stages of the business cycle.
?? Enhancement: Organizations must complement this model with investment-to-innovation return cycles, ensuring a balance between strategic bets and near-term revenue drivers.
2. Build an Innovation Engine in 90 Days (Harvard Business Review)
Article by Scott D. Anthony , David Duncan , Pontus Sirén
?? Strengths: The concept of setting up a Minimum Viable Innovation System (MVIS) is practical and aligns with lean startup principles. The 90-day execution plan is an excellent roadmap for businesses looking to jumpstart their innovation capabilities.
?? Deficiencies: The approach assumes that all organizations can quickly mobilize resources and leadership buy-in. It also does not factor in industry-specific constraints where regulated environments slow down rapid implementation.
?? Enhancement: A multi-speed innovation engine should be considered—where core innovations move through structured, risk-mitigated processes while breakthrough innovations leverage agile, experimental pathways.
3. Outcome-Driven Innovation (Tony Ulwick, Jobs-to-be-Done)
Article by Tony Ulwick
?? Strengths: Ulwick’s framework is a customer-centric approach to innovation, focusing on the desired outcomes that customers seek rather than the traditional feature-driven development.
?? Deficiencies: While the JTBD framework helps uncover unmet needs, it does not inherently address the role of emerging technologies or how internal R&D can complement customer-driven insights.
?? Enhancement: A hybrid innovation model that merges customer-driven innovation (JTBD) with technology-pushed innovation can ensure that organizations do not just follow market needs but also create market shifts.
4. The Quirky Way of Innovating
Article by Joshua Gans
?? Strengths: This article promotes democratized innovation, allowing ideas from diverse sources to shape business strategy.
?? Deficiencies: While open-source innovation is valuable, it lacks a structured funnel to ensure that only commercially viable ideas get developed. Many organizations waste resources on projects with limited market fit.
?? Enhancement: A hybrid approach—leveraging crowd-sourced ideas while using predictive analytics to filter high-potential innovations—would maximize efficiency.
5. Three Stages of Innovation Disruption
Article by Charles O'Reilly , Andrew Binns
Number of Citations: 211
?? Strengths: This model classifies innovation as incremental, architectural, and radical, helping businesses identify where they should focus.
?? Deficiencies: The barriers to transitioning from one stage to another are not well-defined. Many companies struggle to evolve from incremental innovation to disruptive breakthroughs.
?? Enhancement: A structured innovation ladder should be integrated, where organizations gradually shift from small optimizations to full-fledged market transformation efforts through staged investments.
6. The Eight Essentials vs. Investment-to-Innovation Cycle
?? Key Takeaway: McKinsey’s Eight Essentials give a great structural framework, but they need to be coupled with financial models like investment-to-innovation turn time, which ensures innovation remains a profit driver rather than an expense.
?? Solution: Companies must adopt an Innovation Maturity Scorecard that tracks aspiration alignment, execution intensity, and financial return on innovation investments.
Final Thoughts
?? Innovation is not just about frameworks—it’s about execution. Businesses must blend structured methodologies with dynamic adaptation to thrive in a competitive landscape.
?? What are your thoughts on these models? Have you found an innovation framework that truly delivers transformational value? Let's discuss! ??
This LinkedIn post provides a structured critique and enhancement of innovation methodologies, ensuring that frameworks align with both strategic objectives and execution realities. Let me know if you’d like me to refine it further!