Innovation and Risk Management †Free Sample Assignment

Question: Discuss about the Innovation and Risk Management? Answer: Introduction In the following essay, a critical analysis has been conducted on the seven-dimension design of innovation strategy of one of the best innovative British company, Dyson Ltd. Founded by James Dyson in 1993, Dyson Ltd. deals with the manufacture of domestic equipments like bladeless fans, hand dryers, heaters and specially, vacuum cleaners (Rubalcaba et al. 2012). Dysons plan was to spend a large fraction of the profit on research and innovation of even better products rather than on advertising. Dyson understood that, even if products have a brand value, if quality decreases day by day, or some other company develops better quality products, the customers will not buy his products (Waller and Sag 2014). This essay is based on a critical study analyzing the innovation and management policies of Dyson Ltd., which have favored the meteoric rise of the company. This essay also analyzes the basic seven-fold innovation framework that forms the basis of innovation management of every company. Study on Innovation Strategy Framework The meteoric rise of Dyson Ltd. in global market owes to the fact that initially, James Dyson spent most of the profits on research and innovation studies. Although vacuum cleaners were available since 1901, James Dyson made a breakthrough by inventing the Dual Cyclone TM vacuum cleaner (Cassia et al. 2012). This new and efficient model easily attracted customers to buy from Dyson. A large share of the profit gained by the company was used to fund further research work and appointing new engineers. Dyson Ltd. has since kept firm control over the domestic electronics market, owing to its innovative and efficient models and cost-effective products (Rubalcaba et al. 2012). The company continues to research to innovate even better and modernized products and even working on the idea to mix regular domestic equipments with computer software technology (Stilgoe et al. 2013). According to various researchers and marketing analysts, there is a basic seven dimensional innovation framework (Smyth 2013). Every innovative company must follow this framework in order to achieve success in global market (Cassia et al. 2012). This seven-dimension framework is as follows: Strategic Innovation Procedure - According to a research conducted by Kiron et al. (2013), a strategic innovation management process is needed to analyze peoples needs and manufacture products according to them. In addition, planning should be made in order to innovate new products that might be needed by people in the future (Anderson et al. 2014). In order to keep pace with the competitors and changing global markets, this innovation strategy is necessary for any innovative company. This process generally involves both traditional and unconventional elements. It is used to analyze beyond market and consumer trends. It is also a standpoint of providing an important breakthrough including radical ideas, status challenges and advancement in the right path. This also involves a teamwork, which involves exchange of ideas, exploration, creative ideas, mediation and improvement in group-projects (Klionsky et al. 2012). Strategy Alignment - Alignment towards a fixed strategy policy is to be followed by stakeholders and higher authorities of the company (Zott and Amit 2015). This policy mainly involves maintaining the goals and guidelines policy as structured by the company. Another duty of the leaders is to motivate and encourage the workers to work more efficiently and manufacture products of the best possible quality. This will ultimately help the company to grow in international markets (Waller and Sag 2014). Foresight of Market Demands - As opined by Cassia et al. (2012), the most important part of the strategy for companies should be to foresee the future market demands and supply from industries. This will help the company to cope with the changing foreign markets and achieve global success (Smyth 2013). In addition, foreseeing market demands helps the company to undergo suitable changes to meet general needs (Klionsky et al. 2012). Consumer Insight - Consumer insight is necessary for the company to maintain a good customer base and meet the general needs of people. Regular supply of quality products helps the company to increase its customer base (Stilgoe et al. 2013). As opined by Owen et al. (2013), consumer insight is a qualitative approach that converts insights into actions. Generally an imaginative approach, it demands deep understanding of demands and proper innovations to fulfill such demands. Core Technology - This strategy includes utilization of latest technological devices by the company for the production of goods rather than sticking with old methods to maintain a brand value (Davenport 2013). This is needed to compete in a changing market demands and produce futuristic products to encourage customers to buy them. Organized Management - For any company to design a viable and successful marketing and production strategy, an organized management system is important. A suitable management system is also needed to operate the financial and production aspects of the company (Owen et al. 2013). There are three ways to achieve this cultural readiness, structural readiness and process readiness (Stilgoe et al. 2013). These refer to the readiness of the company by fixing a complete mindset regarding cultural, organizational and operational activities. Disciplined Approach - According to Kahn et al. (2012), the success of innovations and application strategies depend on the approach followed by a company. Success is only gained when the innovations are applied in a disciplined and strategic way in the international markets (Zott and Amit 2015). When a company has completed its quota of innovations roster, a new white and blank space is to be designed to pursue new directions in innovations and inventions (Tidd 2014). Every company should properly understand the differences between innovation and invention. Innovation is finding new possibilities to upgrade an existing product to increase its efficiency, quality and viability. On the other hand, invention refers to creating an entirely new product that was not available before (Cassia et al. 2012). A successful invention is the design of a new product that will be useful and cost efficient. In other words, invention is the formulation of a new product, while innovation is the application of a new idea to upgrade an existing product. Furthermore, innovation is necessary to present a product in an attractive package to attract customers (Kiron et al. 2013). Dyson Ltd. generally follows this seven-fold framework structure in addition to their own marketing and operational policies. The company, after gaining massive success worldwide, the company aims to execute a very risky and bold expansion plan for increasing brand value even more (Stilgoe et al. 2013). The company also aims to appoint more than 3000 new engineers and experienced designers at its services to promote growth. In addition, the company has already taken initiative by buying several hardware and software analysts, which has increased the size of the engineering team of the company (Tidd 2014). Dyson Ltd. have also set up a new robotic research lab as a part of its innovation development program (Rubalcaba et al. 2012). Dyson also bought rights of a LED lighting company that acted separately even if it was a subsidiary to Dyson Ltd (Klionsky et al. 2012). All these activities are indications that Dyson Ltd. had everlasting plans for innovations and growth, and in addition to it, gain even more share in the global market. Unlike other multinational successful companies, Dyson did not have a particular and unique product to start with, rather, it started by upgrading an already existing product. For this reason, the life span of the company initially depended on the success of their innovative ideas (Cassia et al. 2012). While some companies emphasize on designs only for the sake of it, Dyson emphasizes on designs of products only if they increase the quality and efficiency of the product (Stilgoe et al. 2013). Currently, the company has decided to add a touch of software design and computerized programming to the general domestic products like vacuum cleaner and others (Davenport 2013). One example of its successful application is the new 360 Eye Vacuum Cleaner, which is termed as a robotic vacuum cleaner by some researchers. This 360 Eye is a giant leap by Dyson in the field of innovation (Owen et al. 2013). In general, the innovation policies of companies are driven by several factors. These are discussed as follows: Market regulations regarding unique products are to be reduced. This helps in expansion of business and provides opportunity to supply more incentives for innovation research. In addition, more foreign investments can be implemented, increasing funds for research and an opportunity to reach a foreign market (Davenport 2013). There should be a stable macro economy in addition to low rates of interest. This accelerates the growth of innovation research, since this creates a stable and cost-friendly environment for adequate investment (Kahn et al. 2012). External and internal finances should be kept available for successful operation of research (Cassia et al. 2012). An expansion should be supported for public research. This is important to support business in sector research, although this will involve employment of a huge work force (Kiron et al. 2013). In any case, the key strategy question remains how to strike a proper harmony between giving motivations and prizes to workers and giving access of new information to clients. Over the later part, the equation has been moving more for right holders, in any event, mostly in response to changing conditions additionally as a planned move towards "genius IPR approaches". (Klionsky et al. 2012) These approaches have brought about specific accomplishments, for example, the advancement of innovation moves in colleges that have advanced protection policy of open examination (Newman et al. 2013). Here comes the point of development of the biotech division, which would have been not conceivable without licenses on hereditary creations and the augmentation of funding based new companies, which generally depend on intellectual properties of individuals working for a company (Owen et al. 2013). James Dyson's story is mythical in entrepreneurship itself. According to Smyth (2013), the company strictly follows the policy of never say die. Certainly, this policy has been the recipe for success for Dyson, but might also be a good recipe for failure (if not executed properly). Dyson's early success can be attributed to its severe perseverance, but also to the commitment of funding for innovation and development programs (Estampe et al. 2013). James Dyson sometimes thinks of himself as an artist, and seemingly, that this is integral to his planning and strategies (Davenport 2013). According to James Dyson himself, if a regular customer buys a Dyson vacuum cleaner, according to regular statistics, more customers will be encouraged to buy similar product if the product works perfectly (Klionsky et al. 2012). This is the basic radical level of innovation, which is followed by Dyson Ltd. Dysons long-term investment plan continues even after a particular product has been sold to a regular customer (Smyth 2013). This includes an excellent and prompt customer care service, which is ready to help anytime if a customer faces some problems regarding the companys products (Kahn et al. 2012). The basic philosophy of Dyson Ltd. is to treat their customers in a good and prompt manner. Most of the electrical appliances companies hire external electrical service agents to address problems faced by customers (Owen et al. 2013). However, that is not the case for Dyson. They always ensure best help and advice for the customers. All these factors, which include marketing policies, strategies, innovation plans, funding for innovation research program for manufacture of modern and quality products, have led to the massive growth of the company (Kiron et al. 2013). Dyson Ltd. has established itself as one of the standout innovative companies in the whole world. Conclusion In spite of experiencing massive global success, several controversies arose regarding Dyson Ltd. and its chairperson Sir James Dyson. Although Dyson Ltd. had its own innovation strategy framework, the advertising campaigns conducted by the company was interpreted to be directly criticizing one of its rival companies. According to Dyson, teaching foreign students is like preparing the rivals to compete against themselves. For the growth and development of a multinational company like Dyson Ltd., the company officials and the chairperson himself should avoid these kinds of controversies, else these will enrage common people, and that would be a huge blow to the business of Dyson Ltd. in the global market. These activities of Dyson are thought to be secret marketing strategies of Dyson in order to gain success, compete against the rival companies and keep a strong control over global market without disclosing any strategy to anyone. References Anderson, N., Potocenik, K. and Zhou, J., 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework.Journal of Management,40(5), pp.1297-1333. Cassia, L., De Massis, A. and Pizzurno, E., 2012. Strategic innovation and new product development in family firms: An empirically grounded theoretical framework.International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior Research,18(2), pp.198-232. Davenport, T.H., 2013.Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business Press. Estampe, D., Lamouri, S., Paris, J.L. and Brahim-Djelloul, S., 2013. A framework for analysing supply chain performance evaluation models.International Journal of Production Economics,142(2), pp.247-258. Kahn, K.B., Barczak, G., Nicholas, J., Ledwith, A. and Perks, H., 2012. An examination of new product development best practice.Journal of Product Innovation Management,29(2), pp.180-192. Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M. and Goh, E., 2013. The innovation bottom line.MIT Sloan Management Review,54(3), p.1. Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M. and Goh, E., 2013. The benefits of sustainability-driven innovation.MIT Sloan Management Review,54(2), p.69. Klionsky, D.J., Abdalla, F.C., Abeliovich, H., Abraham, R.T., Acevedo-Arozena, A., Adeli, K., Agholme, L., Agnello, M., Agostinis, P., Aguirre-Ghiso, J.A. and Ahn, H.J., 2012. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.Autophagy,8(4), pp.445-544. Newman, T.J., Agarwal, A., Dowling, A.P., Desvard, L. and Stimpson, R., 2013, June. A six sensor method for measuring acoustic properties in ducts. InProceedings of Meetings on Acoustics(Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 015085). Acoustical Society of America. Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E. and Guston, D., 2013. A framework for responsible innovation.Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, pp.27-50. Rubalcaba, L., Michel, S., Sundbo, J., Brown, S.W. and Reynoso, J., 2012. Shaping, organizing, and rethinking service innovation: a multidimensional framework.Journal of Service Management,23(5), pp.696-715. Smyth, D., 2013. How is the scope of protection of a registered Community design to be determined?.Journal of Intellectual Property Law Practice, p.jpt004. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. and Macnaghten, P., 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation.Research Policy,42(9), pp.1568-1580. Tidd, J., 2014. Conjoint innovation: Building a bridge between innovation and entrepreneurship.International Journal of Innovation Management,18(01), p.1450001. Waller, S.W. and Sag, M., 2014. Promoting innovation.Iowa L. Rev.,100, p.2223. Zott, C. and Amit, R., 2015. Business Model Innovation: Toward a Process Perspective.The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, p.395.