Driving Disruptive Innovation: Problem Finding and Strategy Setting in an Uncertain World [Research Technology Management]
(Research Technology Management Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) A 10-step strategic roadmapping method can help companies develop an outside-in view of the future to drive change.
OVERVIEW: Driving innovation-particularly disruptive innovation-demands that companies possess a deep understanding of the nonobvious problems that will need to be solved in the future. Gaining this understanding requires that companies scan their external environment, identify trends, and then envision future problem states from the perspective of end users or customers. Such an outside-in view is difficult for successful incumbent firms that already possess a dominant logic about their markets and competitive drivers. Strategic roadmapping provides the means to help companies develop this outside-in view and challenge their current competitive perspectives. Here we present a 10-step methodology for strategic roadmapping and show how one group at Intel was able to use this process to envision the future of its business in new ways.
KEYWORDS: Disruptive innovation, Strategic roadmapping, Sensing, Sense making, Problem finding
The story of innovation, and particularly disruptive innovation, in the first decade of the 21st century is best understood in hindsight. Looking back, it seems clear that the Internet would drive incredible new business opportunities and, in fact, change the face of all industries. However, conceiving of potential innovations, setting strategies, and executing them require foresight. Seeing what's next requires a vision of the future that others don't yet possess, and it requires a unique view of the problems that will need to be solved in the mid-term or distant future. To develop such a vision of the future, companies must shifttheir innovation focus from an inside-out view of how products and services can be sold into the market to an outside-in view that begins with an understanding of the user experience that is increasingly enabled by a networked world ( Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2003 ; Martin 2010 ; Priem, Li, and Carr 2012 ).
An example from the game development industry demonstrates the differences between inside-out and outside-in approaches to product innovation. For nearly two decades, game developers have been creating complex, consolebased games that give each player a unique experience based on his or her actions at each point in the game. These games are sophisticated forms of entertainment developed in studios by artists who take their craftvery seriously and aimed at twenty-something male gamers. Product innovation in the industry has been driven by incremental improvements in microprocessor speed, graphics capability, and artificial intelligence. All of these developments are concerned with enhancing the performance of the technology-an inside-out view that does not begin with the end user's desire for enhanced performance or the types of user experience that the technology should provide.
Zynga, a 2007 start-up, worked from a different vision of the future, taking a user-focused view of the environment in which games are developed and played. Zynga's strategy was driven by an outside-in view of the future that revealed a number of important trends:
* The increasing importance of social interaction on the Internet,
* The growing importance of Facebook,
* The widening diversity of Facebook users, and
* The increasing viability of the cloud-computing en viron ment.
Mark Pincus, Zynga's founder, looked at these trends and envisioned a very different future for games, one in which games were played by men and women ranging in age from teen to baby boomer and players shared their gaming experiences with their social networks. Pincus envisioned "social gaming" as a new medium where people could interact with one another in a free-to-play environment and monetization occurred not in the sale of a console and game cartridge but in the purchase of virtual goods used in the game.
By the fall of 2009, Pincus's vision had attracted more than 50 million users to its FarmVille, FrontierVille, CitiVille, and CastleVille online games. While Zynga social gaming was flourishing, more than 60 traditional game studios laid offmore than 8,450 employees. An outside-in view enabled Zynga and other social gaming companies to establish an entirely new form of online games that requires new development models, new business models, and new user experiences driven by web-based analytics rather than the creative genius of the traditional game developer.
Zynga's approach represented a radical disruption to the game development industry; it transformed a market space. Similar disruptions are happening with increasing frequency as industries such as publishing, music, entertainment, and even manufacturing face the challenge of trying to anticipate future developments while looking at the world through a traditional, historical lens. Strategic roadmapping can offer a framework to help companies envision unanticipated and unpredictable transformations in their own market spaces, reach new understandings about their future worlds, and imagine the problems that will exist within them. This vision paves the way for elegant solutions that can reshape the market.
Roadmapping itself is not a new technique; it has been applied to technology planning for decades. Strategic roadmapping encompasses quite a bit more than technology planning, execution, or coordination across silos. While all of this is important and is, in fact, an outcome of our process, our 10-step strategic roadmapping method begins with the outside-in view. By encouraging participants to adopt this perspective, the method has helped companies reconsider what business models and ecosystems will drive success, what role user experience will play, and what capabilities they will need in the future. 1
The Importance of Sensing and Sense Making
In practice, developing and acting upon an outside-in view can become problematic. Incumbent firms sense changes in their environment from their traditional perspectives and make decisions that support existing processes and capabilities. Additionally, these firms have honed their environmental sensing abilities in times of stability when change follows a predictable path. In times of instability, the external environment cannot be easily characterized and the dominant logic that provided the firm's competitive advantage is often out of sync with these new realities ( Prahalad 2004 ). Moreover, seemingly small or improbable events can have major impacts, and experts, lulled into a sense of comfort by their very knowledge, are almost hard-wired to discount these impacts or to miss the events completely.
Nicholas Taleb (2007) describes this as the "black swan problem." Taleb claims that what you don't know is far more relevant than what you do know. Consider his logic. If we see no black swans, does it mean that none exist If we see only white swans, does it mean that there are no swans of other colors Taleb asserts several causes for the "black swan blindness" that gives experts a false sense of security, citing "the error of confirmation" and "the problem of silent evidence" as two underlying causes. In confirmation errors, confirming evidence leads to a naïve empiricism in which the expert's expectations guide the collection and filtering of incoming information to favor existing beliefs ( Bettis and Prahalad 1995 ). Silent evidence, on the other hand, is even more problematic. How should the lack of information about something be interpreted Does it signal an unknown, or does the phenomenon not exist Combined, these two errors create a situation in which it is "easy to predict what you see and extend to what you do not see" ( Taleb 2007, 36).
Taleb is writing from a philosophical viewpoint, and his explanations are often used to describe prediction errors, particularly in the security field. However, applying his insights to the innovation space has merit. Brown and Eisenhardt (1998) argue that the edge of chaos is where the greatest opportunities for innovation exist. At this edge, the relationship between cause and effect is little understood, prediction is only marginally useful as the past is not necessarily a bellwether for the future, and the number of "unknown unknowns" ( De Meyer, Loch, and Pich 2002 ) and their impact are increasing. Confirmation errors and silent evidence can proliferate and build on each other. The edge of chaos requires strategic sensitivity, the ability to be open to new evidence and to be nimble and flexible in decision making. Strategic sensitivity requires "early and keen awareness of incipient trends and converging forces . . . [and is] fostered by the combination of a strong externally oriented and internally participative strategy process, a high level of tension and attentiveness, and a rich, intense, and open dialogue" ( Doz and Kosonen 2008, 96).
Strategic roadmapping provides a framework for facilitating the right dialogue to illuminate possibilities for the future. This dialogue centers on four primary conversations:
* Conversations about the fundamental strategic challenge facing the firm,
* Conversations about what new opportunities may present themselves in the future,
* Conversations about new possibilities for delighting the market, and
* Conversations about what actions are needed and when.
As a team explores these four key topics, a structure is needed, first to facilitate wide exploration of the environment for trends and opportunities and then to guide the team to converge on the best paths to address strategic challenges.
Putting Strategic Back into Roadmapping
Strategic roadmapping goes beyond the traditional technology planning and execution focus of roadmapping practices. To do this, our method divides the challenge of achieving strategic sensitivity into five stages: sensing, sense making, problem finding, solution development, and solution evaluation ( Figure 1 ). The method begins with a call to action, often driven by an external competitive threat that creates an appetite for change within the company. More rarely, the call to action results from the vision of a key company leader who sees the need for a new strategic direction before the threat emerges. Steve Jobs and Apple weren't simply responding to a competitive threat; their strategic intent was driven by a vision of the user experience at the center of the technology solution. The call to action drives the company to determine its strategic intent as it responds to the threat or the new vision.
Environmental sensing becomes necessary for the company to determine the central challenge around which strategic options will be evaluated. Sensing begins with an environmental assessment that broadly considers events that might happen in the external environment. At the highest level of abstraction, sense making is about uncovering trends in the external environment and understanding which of those trends are most important and which are merely interesting. But it is not the trends themselves that offer guidance to hopeful innovators. Rather, it is the way in which those trends combine and converge to create alternative visions of the future.
As trends combine and converge, alternative plausible views of the future emerge into a set of alternative scenarios. Teams then develop stories around the scenarios, emphasizing the problems that will be faced by end users or customers in this future. These problems must be envisioned from the perspective of the end user or customer, forcing participants to take an outside-in view ( Bund 2006 ).
Problem finding is a critical-and often missing-step in the innovation process, particularly in established companies. Innovation is about creating new solutions. But new solutions for what By first thinking through the problems that will have to be solved in the future scenarios, you identify innovation opportunities that may create future competitive advantage. Problem finding identifies gaps in existing technologies, products, services, and ecosystems. Then, solutions can be envisioned to fill those gaps; these solutions must be compared against one another, taking a portfolio approach that balances potential risk and return. Once solutions are prioritized, strategy can guide the transition to action through product, service, or technology roadmaps that capture common solution needs, capability gaps, and ecosystem partnerships.
The second way that solutions are translated into action is through a careful consideration of the business models that will be required to launch a solution. Here, careful consideration must be given to what value is being created for the customer or end user, how it will be monetized, and how the return will be shared among participants. In our experience, this is where the really difficult thinking comes in for most companies. For successful incumbent firms, the truly exciting solutions often are incompatible with their existing value propositions and business models. Truly disruptive innovations often require an entirely new ecosystem of partners. Thus, the last stage of the strategic roadmapping process focuses on identifying internal and external projects, partnerships, and collaborations needed to create and bring solutions to market.
The feedback loop between the ecosystem execution activity and the call to action is intentional. Breakthrough innovation requires experimentation and learning. It is not inconceivable that the initial beliefs about the solution might need to evolve as the company experiments with prototypes and gains end-user and partner feedback. Lessons learned in the experimentation will inform and be informed by the call to action, to the extent that the call to action may itself change as the company becomes more informed.
The 10-Step Strategic Roadmapping Method
Our method has evolved over the past decade from working with companies and organizations in industries ranging from aerospace to high-tech to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. Broadly, we divide strategic roadmapping into two distinct phases-problem finding and problem solving. This division allows a team to distinguish between possibilities and actions. Problem finding is focused on thinking broadly to develop a set of possible future innovations, while problem solving focuses on converging the team's thinking toward a set of solutions to realize the innovations.
Our method begins with a problem-finding process designed to identify developing trends and the opportunities they may represent ( Table 1 ).
The Call to Action. The problem-finding phase begins with the development of a collective understanding of the primary strategic challenge facing the firm ( Table 1 ). This first step is critical, as it helps frame the discussions and output generated in the following steps. We find that this step is frequently the most difficult, as it is not unusual to have a team of senior leaders and strategic thinkers who each have a different view of the critical strategic challenge. By closing on a singular call to action that creates an appetite for change, the team develops a collective vision, which we call the strategic imperative, to guide new innovation solutions.
The Environmental Scan (E-Scan). The environmental scan, or e-scan, is an information-organizing framework that facilitates brainstorming by a team of experts from across the company. To complete the e-scan, experts are asked to think about events likely to occur 5 to 10 years into the future. We encourage teams to go at least two years beyond their normal strategic planning timeframe to capture events that may shape the future. The events are arranged on a wall-sized chart formatted in "swim lanes," horizontal rows that capture key aspects of the company's external world in the context of its call to action, with vertical columns for various time frames. Typical swim lanes include end users, emerging markets, regulations, and competitors; each company determines the categories that will be most important for its future. Ideas for events are captured on sticky notes that are then placed in the appropriate swim lanes and time frame; this facilitates idea capture, allowing the discussion to evolve rapidly.
We encourage experts to brainstorm events in two stages. In the first stage, each expert works individually from his or her own beliefs. In the second stage, participants read others' postings and then consider additional events that might be important. In our work, we have found that focusing participants' attention on events first helps the company compile seemingly random observations without immediately reducing them to patterns. This helps limit the confirmatory evidence problem.
Walking the Wall. Walking the wall is the process of discussing the events identified in the e-scan, lane by lane, and identifying potential trends resulting from the events. While identifying events that might occur in the future is important, the real value comes from thinking about how the events converge to create trends. The output from this process is a set of trends that participants believe likely to emerge.
Walking the wall also includes identifying the underlying assumptions driving how the company does business today. Identifying these base assumptions encourages participants to consider how these assumptions influence their beliefs and how these beliefs may have to change in the future. This is an important factor in addressing the black swan problem.
Another important outcome of walking the wall is the minority report-those beliefs that run counter to the prevailing opinion. Often, it is the minority report that suggests areas of uncertainty around which additional sensing is required. We often like to remind experts participating in this activity that the only difference between a crackpot and a visionary is hindsight.
Trend Filtering. All trends are not equally important in determining future events. We use a crowdsourcing approach to identify the few critical trends, asking participants to vote for the trends they believe most important in the context of filtering criteria derived from the call to action and resulting strategic imperative, such as opportunities, threats, match to capabilities, and impact on user experience. The critical trends are those that accrue the most votes across all filtering criteria. The trends that rise to the top in this process are often the obvious ones that experts would identify naturally, particularly as they are filtered through existing beliefs about the strategic imperative. To develop scenarios and stories that identify opportunities and nonobvious problems, we use what we call the "2+1 approach." From the full list of critical and interesting trends, small groups are assigned two critical trends each and then asked to pick one (sometimes two) additional interesting trends. This subset of trends is then used in the next step.
Storytelling and Problem Finding. In this step, each group uses its unique set of "2+1" trends to create a scenario of the future and develop a story that describes the scenario from an end-user perspective. The end-user perspective forces the teams to approach the scenario from an outside-in perspective. We find that storytelling provides a powerful communication tool, both within the team and as the team shares its ideas with the larger group. We ask that the teams begin by imagining the problems from the perspective of the end user or customer. We have found that with this approach participants are more likely to suspend disbelief and less likely to engage in naïve empiricism. Once problems are identified, the team turns its attention to potential solution concepts. We ask each team to identify solutions to the future problems it has identified, give each solution a name, and draw a picture illustrating it. This helps the group determine what elements are critical to the solution and how those elements fit together. It also enables others to comment more effectively when the ideas are presented.
Here our methodology enters the problem-solving phase.
In the problem-solving phase of the process, the team begins to converge on potential future scenarios, solutions, and actions ( Table 2 ). It is in this second phase that teams begin the difficult process of taking conceptual solutions and reducing them to the building blocks that will be needed to execute each solution. These building blocks are often technologies, but we have found that they frequently also require building or modifying an ecosystem, developing new partners, and deploying new business models to achieve success. Only some members of the problemfinding teams carry over to the problem-solving activities. Generally, a subset of more technically oriented experts participates in problem solving.
Solution Portfolios. The goal of this stage is to develop a high level of detail around the concept solutions that emerged in the problem-finding stage. Team members identify the solution's essence-exactly what user experience is being delivered and how is that experience ultimately achieved Which features are critical and which are merely helpful This clarity informs company investment choices by separating solutions that are compelling from those that are unworkable. Typically, solutions that are culled are great concepts that rely on technology that is too far in the future, interesting concepts that are too far from the company's business interests, or concepts that appear to have been uncovered by another firm that is already far ahead of its competition.
In addition to determining the strategic fit of the concept solution with the company's strategic imperative, group discussions at this stage help identify solutions that are related to one another, often suggesting a timing or staging between them that has implications for resource deployment. The result is a prioritized portfolio of detailed solutions.
Business Model Evaluation. We have observed on numerous occasions that many of the solutions devised are inconsistent with the company's current capabilities, business models, and ecosystem partnerships. Most of the breakthrough innovations that we have helped to launch were only possible once the larger group (and eventually the company) devised a business model, monetization strategy, and path to market that fit the innovation. The business model map forces the team to consider each solution in the context of the market segments it might serve, the value propositions it might deliver, the market channels that will deliver these value propositions, and ultimately the way that the company and the ecosystem will make money. Only after the team has determined delivery and monetization mechanisms can it consider the resources that must be brought to bear to develop and deliver the solution, including key technologies and potential cocreators and partners. It is also at this stage that teams uncover flaws in their assumptions about what aspects of the solution add value and how money will actually flow.
Technology Gaps and Needs Identification. In this step, participants identify technology gaps associated with each solution by asking three simple questions:
* What are the key vectors that will drive success of the solution
* What is the end state we need to achieve in each of these vectors
* What is our current state with respect to this vector
The gap between the desired end state and the current capabilities is a "strategic delta" that helps the company determine what technology projects to initiate, what new capabilities to acquire (either through acquisitions or new hires), and what resources to (re)deploy. Strategic deltas are expressed across key technology and other performance drivers. Generally, companies express these strategic deltas in a technology roadmap that captures each critical vector and the relationships between the vectors.
Ecosystem Mapping. Another aspect of the new reality of networked systems is the importance of the ecosystem in the creation, development, and delivery of the end-user experience. Companies that have dominated their traditional markets often lack essential pathways to enter new markets. Additionally, companies often realize they are not capable of providing the entire solution needed and must forge new cocreation partnerships. These new roles often suggest new collaboration needs. As the team maps the ecosystem and its interdependencies, it identifies critical cocreators, potential licensing needs, and potential paths to market.
The Execution Roadmap. In this final stage, the team has one or more detailed solutions. Each is fully articulated in terms of its technology needs, required external partnerships, and key internal resources that must be coordinated across the life of the development. Strategy execution roadmaps translate these solutions into action by providing guidance for each functional group to balance new initiatives with ongoing activities. To develop the execution roadmap, the team identifies all of the internal and external groups that must work in harmony to develop the solution and bring it to market. Typical internal groups include marketing, engineering, R&D, manufacturing, and sales. Typical external groups that might need to be linked with internal efforts include delivery channels and cocreators.
Strategic Roadmapping at Intel's Workstation Product Group
A workstation is a high-end computer used mainly for technical and scientific computing. Workstations offer higher computing power than traditional personal computers, especially related to CPU, graphics, and multitasking capabilities as well as memory capacity. Traditional workstation users include automotive and aerospace designers, petroleum and natural gas scientists, and financial traders, among others. The Workstation Group at Intel occupies a strong position; it has dominant market share in a multibilliondollar business. When its managing director was charged to increase revenues, the challenge for the team was not to grow revenues by increasing market share (growing the box); instead, the team's mandate was to increase total available market-in other words, sell workstations to customers who had not previously been workstation users (redrawing the box). This was the call to action for the strategic roadmapping process.
As part of the environmental scan, the team identified trends around user demographics, emerging markets, current ecosystem partners, other Intel groups, and emerging technologies. Some of the obvious trends they identified included the increasing complexity of computer modeling, the rise of cloud computing, and the effect of limited bandwidth as a limiting factor for workstation use. They also identified a number of nonobvious trends, including among others:
* 3D becoming commercially viable in entertainment,
* The prosumer-a consumer who is also a producer of media-becoming a force in the marketplace,
* Streaming video and rich content overtaking text in network traffic volumes,
* Limited bandwidth presenting an opportunity for expanded workstation use (the minority report at the time), and
* 3D manufacturing attaining commercial viability.
As part of our facilitation, small teams in the workstation product group were assigned two critical trends and encouraged to pick one or two additional trends from the full list around which to build scenarios and engage in problem finding. From these efforts, the group began to envision different versions of the future. Interestingly, in thinking about these trends and their impact on the future, the team could not agree whether bandwidth as a limiting factor was a threat (the majority view) or an opportunity (the minority view). The team is now monitoring details related to this issue to better understand the effect of bandwidth as the future unfolds.
Several stories emerged from the storytelling exercise. In the myFactory scenario, bandwidth limitations restrict the transmission of very large data sets, forcing more users to rely on computing power in a resident device. As 3D printers achieve a price point and tolerance level that makes their output quality good enough, people want to make things for themselves. Sophisticated prosumers use high-powered 3D modeling and production software typically seen in CAD/ CAM designs in industry today. Existing personal computers will not have the power to drive these models, and prosumers will turn to workstations, which offer higher power at a much faster speed. The Hollywood@home scenario envisions an opportunity to grow the market as increasingly sophisticated digital content is both streamed into the home and developed by prosumers who demand the higher level of computing power provided by a workstation. The primary problem to be solved in this scenario is the ability to produce a workstation product that is both attractive and affordable as an in-home device. The Bollywood Goes High-Tech scenario sees another opportunity to grow the market in the use of workstations in India's digital media content development industry, particularly around film animation. This scenario offers an opportunity to take an existing workstation usage (animated movie generation) and open a new market in India's filmmaking industry.
As a result of the strategic roadmapping work, the workstation group made several significant changes in its investment and resource strategies to investigate these strategic opportunities. First, a program was funded to develop stronger relationships with the leading software vendors involved in 3D manufacturing. Second, a market and end-user research program was launched to understand the needs and opportunities of the Bollywood film industry. Finally, new home computing design concepts are being explored for the in-home media prosumer. Additional work focused on further problem solving and execution roadmapping of the various strategies will continue.
The team has also continued to use our strategic roadmapping process to explore new opportunities. It updates its e-scan semiannually and continues to monitor trends, create new combinations of trends, and develop scenarios with associated future problems. According to its general manager,
Strategic roadmapping has been critical to creating a framework for my team to look beyond the immediate needs of today and think much more broadly about the future. By understanding how the evolving economic environment, new user needs, and emerging technologies may shape the opportunity space, the Workstations Group can be proactive in our innovation strategy. It has had a real impact on our investment priorities.
Factors for Success
Every strategic roadmapping experience is unique, as every company we work with is unique. A number of key factors, however, have consistently separated the most successful efforts from the less successful.
Strong leadership is critical. Strategic roadmapping requires a strong leader who is committed to driving the process. Especially in firms that are not in crisis, the leader must create an impetus for change, redirect resources, and continually remind participants to suspend disbelief. It takes a strong leader to get participants to appreciate the importance of redrawing the box rather than just fitting future opportunities and their associated problems into the existing box of current capabilities.
Embrace the outside-in view. Experts, particularly if they are part of a successful incumbent company, gravitate to what they know and believe and seek evidence that confirms those beliefs. Redrawing the box requires a different viewpoint. Emphasizing problem finding from the end-user or customer perspective helps participants escape their worldviews and consider alternative approaches. It also helps the participant envision where the end user or customer will find value and understand which features of the product or service create a meaningful user experience.
Disruptive solutions require new business models. One of the biggest challenges we have faced is convincing companies to think about the delivery of the innovation as critically as they think about the technology that underpins it. Assuming you can reach new markets through old channels is a recipe for disaster. Getting experts to think through the complexities of the technology and the market space to identify key partners and their roles is a critical ingredient for creating and delivering disruptive innovation.
Keep the process evergreen. The 10-step method can give a false sense of start and finish. In reality, problem finding and problem solving need to be ongoing activities. The plans developed as the result of this process are only as good as the fit between the trends and assumptions identified and the way that the world unfolds. Our experience has been that teams are accurate in sensing what future events will occur, but they consistently predict that the events will occur further in the future than they actually do. By implementing strategic roadmapping as an evergreen process, teams have been able to adjust their actions when it becomes evident that environmental trends are occurring more rapidly than anticipated. Critical changes to the e-scan should always provoke renewed discussions about strategy execution and timing.
For companies desiring to initiate disruptive innovation, past success can be a major barrier to envisioning and executing future opportunities. Working from what's known can lead companies to overlook exciting possibilities beyond the box of their current markets. The 10-step strategic roadmapping method that we have developed takes companies through a series of activities that reduce the influence of inherent biases, encourage an outside-in view, and help participants identify critical needs before exploring alternative paths to meet those needs. Strategic roadmapping works particularly well for successful incumbent companies in established markets who desire to embark on a nonincremental path, weakening the stranglehold of their dominant logic. Ultimately, this framework promotes conversations to create a shared vision for future opportunities.
Strategic roadmapping can help companies reach new understandings about their future worlds, paving the way for elegant solutions that can reshape the market.
Problem finding identifies gaps in existing technologies, products, services, and ecosystems.
Problem solving focuses on converging the team's thinking toward a set of solutions to realize the innovations.
As a result of the strategic roadmapping work, the group made significant changes in its investment and resource strategies to investigate strategic opportunities.
1 This paper was created as a companion to "Gaining Innovation Leadership through Market and User Insights," a presentation given at the Industrial Research Institute's 2012 Annual Meeting, Indian Wells, CA, by Irene Petrick and Russ Martinelli.
Bettis, R. A., and Prahalad, C. K. 1995. The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal 16 : 5 - 14.
Brown, S. L., and Eisenhardt, K. M. 1998. Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Business School Press.
Bund, B. E. 2006. The Outside-in Corporation: How to Build a Customercentric Organization for Breakthrough Results. New York, NY : McGraw Hill.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., and Pich, M. T. 2002. From variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Management Review 42 ( 2 ): 60 - 67.
Doz, Y., and Kosonen, M. 2008. The dynamics of strategic agility: Nokia's rollercoaster experience. California Management Review 50 ( 3 ): 95 - 118.
Martin, R. 2010. The age of customer capitalism. Harvard Business Review 88 ( 1 ): 58 - 66.
Prahalad, C. K., and Ramaswamy, V. 2003. The new frontier of experience innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review 44 ( 4 ): 12 - 18.
Prahalad, C. K. 2004. The blinders of dominant logic. Long Range Planning 37 ( 2 ): 171 - 179.
Priem, R. L., Li, L., and Carr, J. C. 2012. Insights and new directions from demand-side approaches to technology innovation, entrepreneurship and strategic management research. Journal of Management 38 ( 1 ): 346 - 374.
Taleb, N. N. 2007. The Black Swan. New York, NY : Random House.
Irene J. Petrick, managing director of TrendScape Innovation Group and Penn State University professor, is an internationally recognized expert in strategic roadmapping. She is actively engaged with companies in their innovation and technology strategy activities, including work with 12 Fortune 100 companies, the U.S. military, and a wide variety of small- to mediumsized enterprises. She has over 25 years of experience in technology planning, management, and product development in both academic and industrial settings. Irene is author or coauthor on more than 125 publications and presentations. firstname.lastname@example.org
Russ Martinelli, managing director of TrendScape Innovation Group and senior manager at Intel, is engaged with companies in the areas of business strategy development, business model evaluation, ecosystem development, and technology roadmapping. He has over 20 years of experience in strategy development; portfolio management; new-product development program management; and engineering in the high-tech, aerospace, defense, medical, and nonprofit industries. Russ is the coauthor of two books, Program Management for Improved Business Results and Leading Global Project Teams, and over 60 articles and publications. email@example.com
(c) 2012 Industrial Research Institute, Inc
[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]