strategy+businessFORTHCOMING IN ISSUE 65 WINTER 2011THE GLOBAL INNOVATION 1000Why Culture Is KeyBooz & Company’s annual study shows that spending more on R&D won’t drive results. The most crucial factors are strategic alignment and a culture that supports BARRY JARUZELSKI, JOHN LOEHR, AND RICHARD HOLMANPREPRINT 11404
1features innovation
THE GLOBAL INNOVATION 1000 Why Culture Is KeyBOOZ & COMPANY’S ANNUAL STUDY SHOWS THAT SPENDING MORE ON R&D WON’T DRIVE RESULTS. THE MOST CRUCIAL FACTORS ARE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT BY AND A CULTURE BARRY JARUZELSKI, THAT SUPPORTS JOHN LOEHR, AND INNOVATION. RICHARD HOLMAN2The elements that make up a truly innovative com-panies with unsupportive cultures and poor strategic pany are many: a focused innovation strategy, a win-alignment significantly underperform their competi-ning overall business strategy, deep customer insight, tors. Moreover, most executives understand what’s at great talent, and the right set of capabilities to achieve stake and what matters, even if their companies don’t successful execution. More important than any of the always seem to get it right. Across the board, for ex-individual elements, however, is the role played by cor-ample, respondents identified “superior product per-porate culture — the organization’s self-sustaining pat-formance” and “superior product quality” as their top terns of behaving, feeling, thinking, and believing — in strategic goals. And they asserted that their two most tying them all together. Yet according to the results of important cultural attributes were “strong identification this year’s Global Innovation 1000 study, only about with the consumer/customer experience” and a “pas-half of all companies say their corporate culture robustly sion/pride in products.” supports their innovation strategy. Moreover, about the These assertions were confirmed by innovation ex-same proportion say their innovation strategy is inad-ecutives we interviewed for the study. Fred Palensky, ex-equately aligned with their overall corporate strategy. ecutive vice president of research and development and This disconnect, as the saying goes, is both a prob-chief technology officer (CTO) at innovation leader 3M lem and an opportunity. Our data shows that com-Company, for example, puts it this way: “Our goal is to Illustration by Leandro Castelao features innovation
Barry Jaruzelski John Loehr Richard Holman Also contributing to this article @ @ @ were s+b contributing editor is a partner with Booz & is a Booz & Company partner is a principal with Booz & Edward H. Baker and Booz Company in Florham Park, based in the firm’s Chicago Company based in Florham & Company senior associate ., and is the global leader office. He specializes in help-Park, . He is a leader of Marc the firm’s innovation prac-ing automotive, industrial, and the firm’s innovation practice, tice and its engineered prod-aerospace companies reach a specializing in fields with ucts and services business. He position of product and market highly engineered products, works with high-tech and leadership through a combina-such as aerospace, industrial, industrial clients on corporate tion of product strategy and and high product strategy, product functional efficiency and effectiveness, and the trans-formation of core innovation the voice of the customer at the basic research the ways R&D managers and corporate decision mak-level and throughout the product development cycle, ers think about their new products and services — and to enable our technical people to actually see how their how they feel about intangibles such as risk, creativity, technologies work in various market conditions.”openness, and collaboration — are critical for success. If more companies could gain traction in closing As part of this year’s study, we surveyed almost 600 in-both the strategic alignment and culture gaps to better novation leaders in companies around the world, large realize these goals and attributes, not only would their and small, in every major industry sector. As noted, al-financial performance improve, but the data suggests most half of the companies reported inadequate strate-that the potential gains might be large enough to im-gic alignment and poor cultural support for their inno-prove the overall growth rate of the global economy. vation strategies. Possibly even more surprising, nearly To that end, we continue to emphasize the key 20 percent of companies said they didn’t have a well-finding that our Global Innovation 1000 study of the defined innovation strategy at all. world’s biggest spenders on research and development Understanding these issues is particularly impor-has reaffirmed in each of the past seven years: There is tant now that innovation spending is on the rise again. no statistically significant relationship between financial After last year’s percent drop in global innovation performance and innovation spending, in terms of either spending, the first-ever decline shown in the data we total R&D dollars or R&D as a percentage of revenues. have tracked for more than a decade, R&D outlays 332Many companies — notably, Apple — consistently un-have recovered. Spending among the Global Innovation derspend their peers on R&D investments while out-1000 surged percent in 2010, thanks in great part to performing them on a broad range of measures of cor-the perception of a worldwide economic recovery. (See porate success, such as revenue growth, profit growth, “Profiling the Global Innovation 1000,” page 5.) margins, and total shareholder return. Meanwhile, en-tire industries, such as pharmaceuticals, continue to de-The Alignment Gapvote relatively large shares of their resources to innova-Issues of culture have long been of great concern to tion, yet end up with much less to show for it than they corporate executives and management theorists alike, — and their shareholders — might hope for. whether they apply to companies as a whole or to se-Last year, we looked at the innovation capability lected areas such as innovation. The reason is obvious: sets companies put together, how they vary by innova-Culture matters, enormously. Studies have shown again tion strategy, and which groups of capabilities can best and again that there may be no more critical source of enable companies to outperform their peers. This year, business success or failure than a company’s culture — we took a different vantage point, analyzing the ways it trumps strategy and leadership. That isn’t to say that that critical organizational systems and cultural attri-strategy doesn’t matter, but rather that the particular butes support those capability sets that are most likely strategy a company employs will succeed only if it is sup-to promote innovation success. The results suggest that ported by the appropriate cultural attributes. So when strategy+business issue 65features innovation
Exhibit 1: The Alignment AdvantageOnly 44 percent of companies surveyed have both highly aligned cultures and highly aligned innovation strategies, and it pays off in performance: They outperform on growth in both profits and enterprise value. Innovation Strategy and Cultural Alignment Matrix9%44%we approached the topic of culture in the context of in-novation for this year’s study, our primary goals were MODERATEHIGHALIGNMENTALIGNMENTto determine which cultural attributes were most criti-cal to underpinning the focused capability sets required for each distinct innovation strategy that we have previ-ously identified. 27%20%The results are clear — and may explain why many companies have difficulty making their substantial LOWMODERATER&D investments pay off. Overall, 36 percent of all re-ALIGNMENTALIGNMENTspondents to our survey admitted that their innovation strategy is not well aligned to their company’s overall LOWAlignment of Business Strategy to Innovation StrategyHIGHstrategy, and 47 percent said their company’s culture does not support their innovation strategy. Not surpris-Gross ProfitEnterprise Valueingly, companies saddled with both poor alignment and Indexed mean of normalizedIndexed mean of normalized5-year CAGR5-year CAGRpoor cultural support perform at a much lower level 56AVERAGE than well-aligned companies. In fact, companies with ACROSS ALLAVERAGE COMPANIES51both highly aligned cultures and highly aligned innova-ACROSS ALL48COMPANIES34349tion strategies have 30 percent higher enterprise value 45growth and 17 percent higher profit growth than com-444342panies with low degrees of alignment. (See Exhibit 1.) On the other hand, companies whose strategic goals are clear, and whose cultures strongly support those goals, possess a huge advantage. 3M is a case in point. Palensky articulates his company’s innovation strategy clearly: “We call it ‘customer-inspired inno-vation.’ Connect with the customer, find out their ar-ticulated and unarticulated needs, and then determine the capability at 3M that can be developed across the company that could solve that customer’s problem in a unique, proprietary, and sustainable way.” Culture plays a critical role in this strategy, says Palensky. “For over 100 years, 3M has had a culture LOWMODERATEHIGHLOWMODERATEHIGHALIGNMENTALIGNMENTALIGNMENTALIGNMENTALIGNMENTALIGNMENTof interdependence, collaboration, even codependence. Source: Booz&CompanyOur businesses are all interdependent and collaborative-LOWCultural Support for Innovation StrategyHIGHffeeaattuurerse s t i tilnen oovf athtieon article
Exhibit A: R&D and Salesincrease in R&D spending in 2010, Profiling the R&D spending rose percent in 2010, especially in certain industries and returning to its long-term trajectory after G2009’s recession-induced decline. lobal Innovation among larger companies, confirms these companies’ continued willing-1997 base year = to invest in new and improved R&D Spendingproducts and services to respond R&D spending to ever more competitive markets the Global Inno-around the world. Fully 68 percent vation 1000 rose at an annual rate of companies increased spending in percent to US$550 billion in 2010, compared with just 41 percent , rebounding strongly from its in 2009. R&D Spendingas a % of Salesrecession-induced decline in 2009 R&D spending grew in all nine — which had been the first fall in the sectors we track, but the comput-more than 10 years of data we have ing and electronics, healthcare, and 2000’10’05studied. This year’s total spend-automotive sectors contributed the Source: Booz&Companying was also percent above the vast majority of the increase — 77 pre-recession total of $521 billion in crease in corporate revenues, but percent, or $ billion — of the 2008, marking a return to the long-this difference was logical, given total increase of $ billion. (See term growth trajectory for innova-that most companies had not cut Exhibit B.) The biggest absolute in-tion spending. (See Exhibit A.) innovation spending in 2009 to the crease in R&D spending was in the The 2010 increase in R&D same extent that they suffered de-computing and electronics sector, spending was less than the Global creases in revenues and cut other which remained the top spender Innovation 1000’s 15 percent in-expense areas that year. Thus, the among all industries, making up 28 ly connected to each other, across geographies, across companies strongly agree on the strategic goals that businesses, and across industries. The key is culture.” matter most in achieving innovation success: “Superior Despite their differences in performance, most product performance” and “superior product quality” were ranked number one or two by a plurality of more than 40 percent of all respondents. Other goals, such as Exhibit 2: Top Innovation Goals“developing low-cost products” and “speed-to-market,” Superior product performance and product quality were seen as the most 354important goals by a plurality of innovators, with much less priority for were given much lower priority. (See Exhibit 2.) other goals, such as the success rate of new products. Similarly, companies agree strongly on the cultural Perceived Importance of Common Innovation Goals/Outcomesattributes that are most prevalent at their companies. More than 60 percent cited “strong identification with Superior product performancethe customer” as among the top two, and 50 percent Superior product qualitychose “passion for and pride in products.” The lowest Products customized to local marketsranked was “tolerance for failure in the innovation pro-and geographiesAdvantaged products and servicescess.” (See Exhibit 3.) This finding, which contradicts some of the academic research on the subject, raises se-Developing low-cost productsrious questions about companies’ real appetite for risk Products developed for multiple marketstaking in their innovation -to-market of product developmentand introductionIn general, companies also continue to show a Number of breakthrough productsrange of significant gaps in how their strategic goals and Success rate of new-product cultural attributes contribute to performance and sup-introductionsport their innovation. Companies that underperform MEAN RANKING OF peers have much to gain if they can close these Source: Booz&Companygaps and achieve much higher degrees of cultural and strategy+business issue 65features innovation
percent of the total. With 2010 rev-Exhibit B: Change in R&D Exhibit C: 2010 Spending Spending by Industry, 2009–2010enues up percent, the industry by Industry The strong growth in 2010 R&D spending was Computing and electronics, healthcare, and increased spending on innovation dominated by gains in computing and auto continue to dominate R&D spending — by percent — to $ billion. For electronics, healthcare, and auto. making up 65 percent of the total. the first time in the years we have $US billionsComputing and Electronics 28%studied, however, no high-technolo-Healthcare 22%gy company was among the world’s Computingtop three spenders on R& 1% andElectronics$ healthcare, R&D expendi-tures increased $ billion, or 9 Auto 15%NETpercent. This was the fastest rate TelecomSPENDING2%INCREASEIndustrials 10%among the top three industries in $ and Energy 7%2010, in line with its 9 percent in-3%Software and Internet 8%Healthcare$ in revenues. That kept health-Aerospace and Defense 4%Auto$ in second place among all in-Industrials$ in terms of its share of total R&D spending, at 22 percent. (See Source: Booz&CompanyChemicalsand Energy$ C.) And thanks to that high Software and Internet$ rate, healthcare companies 20. (See Exhibit D, page 7.) For the Telecom$— primarily pharmaceutical firms second year in a row, Roche Hold-Aerospaceand Defense$— captured four of the top five spots ing Ltd. headed the list, spending Consumer–$ the overall list of the Global Inno-$ billion of its $ billion in 2010 Other–$ 1000, and eight out of the top (continued on page 8) Source: Booz&Companystrategic alignment. We believe the way to do so lies in butes that any given company needs to foster, given its gaining a greater understanding of the cultural attri-particular innovation strategy. Soma Somasundaram, executive vice president of the Fluid Management seg-Exhibit 3: Top Cultural Attributesment at the Dover Corporation, describes the challenge Companies agreed strongly on the two most important cultural this way: “Poor innovation performance is usually not attributes. There was less unanimity on the importance of other caused by a lack of ideas or lack of aspirations. What attributes, with very few citing tolerance for failure in innovation 365as essential. some companies lack is the structure needed to effec-Perceived Importance of Cultural Attributestively dedicate resources to innovation. It’s the lack of will to develop a strategy that can balance today’s need Strong identification with the customer andan overall orientation toward the customerversus tomorrow’s.”experiencePassion for and pride in the products andservices offeredThree Strategies Reverence and respect for technical talentAs in previous years, this year we classified the compa- and knowledgenies that responded to our survey into the three core in-Openness to new ideas from customers,suppliers, competitors, and other industriesnovation strategies via our online Innovation Strategy Profiler. The profiler characterizes a company’s innova-Culture of collaboration across functionsand geographiestion strategy based on its approach to incremental versus Sense of personal accountability for any andbreakthrough innovation and the role that end custom-all contributions to the innovation andproduct development processers play in defining future product for failure in the innovation process• Need Seekers actively and directly engage both current and potential customers to help shape new prod-MEAN RANKING OF and services based on superior end-user understand-Source: Booz&Companying. These companies often address unarticulated needs ffeeaattuurerse s t i tilnen oovf athtieon article
Exhibit D: The Innovation Top 20Roche Holding claimed the number one spot among the top 20 spenders for the second year running, and, for the first time, four of the top five slots were held by pharmaceutical &D SpendingHeadquartersIndustryLocation2010, $USChangeAs a %2010 2009Millionsfrom 2009of Sales11Roche Holding$9,646 %%EuropeHealthcare25Pfizer$9,%%North AmericaHealthcare36Novartis$9,%%EuropeHealthcare42Microsoft$8,714–%%North AmericaSoftware and Internet514Merck$8,%%North AmericaHealthcare64Toyota$8,%%AsiaAuto710Samsung$7,%%AsiaComputing and Electronics83Nokia$7,778–%%EuropeComputing and Electronics911General Motors$6,%%North AmericaAuto107Johnson & Johnson$6,844–%%North AmericaHealthcare1113Intel$6,%%North AmericaComputing and Electronics1218Panasonic$6,%%AsiaComputing and Electronics139GlaxoSmithKline$6,%%EuropeHealthcare1415Volkswagen$6,%%EuropeAuto1512IBM$6,%%North AmericaComputing and Electronics168Sanofi-Aventis$5,838–%%EuropeHealthcare1719Honda$5,%%AsiaAuto1822AstraZeneca$5,%%EuropeHealthcare1917Cisco Systems$5,%%North AmericaComputing and Electronics2016Siemens$5,217–%%EuropeIndustrialsTOP 20 TOTAL:$141,%% Avg. Avg. Source: Bloomberg data, Booz&Company376and then work to be first to market with the resulting egy it follows. A closer look at the survey results, how-new products and , does suggest that companies perfecting one strat-• Market Readers closely monitor both their cus-egy — the Need Seekers — are relatively advantaged. tomers and competitors, but they maintain a more cau-They consistently demonstrate better achievement on a tious approach. They focus largely on creating value number of strategic and cultural variables. Additionally, through incremental innovations to their products and Need Seekers are more likely to financially outperform being “fast followers” in the rivals than companies following one of the other • Technology Drivers follow the direction suggested two their technological capabilities, leveraging their sus-Overall, for example, Need Seekers are more than tained investments in R&D to drive both breakthrough three times as likely to report that their innovation innovation and incremental change. They often seek to strategy is strongly aligned with their business strategy solve the unarticulated needs of their customers through as other companies. And Need Seekers perceived their leading-edge new in carrying out the two most critical in-Just as companies following any of these three strat-novation goals — “superior product performance” and egies can succeed, so any company can manifest strong “superior product quality” — to be much higher than strategic and cultural alignment, no matter which strat-did companies using either of the other two strategies. strategy+business issue 65features innovation
(continued from page 6) the rest of the world — continued to Exhibit E: Change in R&D revenues on innovation. That works Spending by Region, 2009–2010boom, albeit from a small base. Af-China and India, although they account for a out to an R&D intensity rate of more ter having increased spending more small share of total R&D spending, had by far than 21 percent, 11 percentage points than 40 percent the year before, In-the fastest growth rate. above the industry average. Automo-dian and Chinese companies almost tive companies were also absent matched that rate again in 2010, %from the top-spender slots: Toyota, ping their investments in R&D more which had been number one in R&D than 38 percent. And companies spending for several years before from other regions around the world the recession, fell to sixth place in increased their spending almost 14 2010, having increased its spend-percent. (See Exhibit E.) AVERAGEing less than 1 percent in 2010, after The downturn in innovation %%%cutting it almost 20 percent in 2009. spending in 2009 was a clear indica-Overall, however, the auto sector tion of just how difficult the %%boosted spending by $ billion, or ic environment had been for many India/Rest ofNorthEuropeJapan8 percent, in 2010, after having cut ChinaWorldAmericacompanies; it was both surprising R&D outlays by 14 percent in 2009. and encouraging that R&D spending Source: Bloomberg data, Booz&CompanyThat kept it in third place among fell as little as it did. Similarly, the all industries in terms of total R&D — all cut back. The turnaround was healthy increase in 2010 shows just spending. Revenues for the automo-cautious in both Europe and Ja-how determined companies are to tive sector in 2010 were up per-pan, which increased spending at keep competing for market share. If cent over 2009. rates significantly below the aver-there is a note of caution in this year’s The geographical distribution of age of percent. North American data, it is an entirely justifiable one, innovation spending tells an equally companies, however, which had cut given the all-too-gradual pace of re-varied story. Every region increased R&D spending by almost 4 percent covery in some regional markets and R&D spending in 2010, a significant in 2009, increased their spending in general uncertainty about the global turnaround from the previous year, 2010 by more than 10 percent. economy, which calls into question when the three regions that make Innovation spending by compa-whether this pace of R&D investment up the lion’s share of innovators — nies headquartered in China and In-growth will continue in America, Europe, and Japan dia — and to a lesser extent those in — ., ., and . 387As for innovation culture, more than 41 percent of formers had an overlapping set of capabilities critical to Need Seekers said theirs strongly supported their inno-success no matter which strategy they followed, those vation strategy, compared with just 7 percent of Market top performers also had developed a unique, focused set Readers and 14 percent of Tech Drivers. (See Exhibit 4, of capabilities essential to their strategy. In this year’s page 9.)study, we viewed those strategic models through a dif-These important distinctions were borne out in ferent lens: which strategic goals and cultural attributes other ways as well. But the most notable was financial led to the greatest success within a given strategy, and performance. Overall, Need Seekers were 30 percent how those goals and attributes contributed to the capa-more likely to report their overall financial performance bilities needed to achieve that success. as being superior to that of their peers than the other Thus, for instance, whereas companies following two models, and, on average, they appear to have a any of the three strategic models have a common set much better chance of outperforming the competition of strategic goals and cultural attributes, Need Seekers than either of the other innovation models. ranked as their highest innovation goal the creation of Our previous studies have consistently shown that “advantaged products and services,” and their num-companies using any one of these strategies can regu-ber one cultural attribute as “openness to ideas from larly outperform their peers, and that, although top per-external sources.” These characteristics clearly lead to ffeeaattuurerse s t i tilnen oovf athtieon article
SUCCESSFUL TECH DRIVERS MUST STRIKE THE PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE PURE R&D THAT IN THE PAST LED TO HIGH-TECH BREAKTHROUGH INNOVATIONS, AND MORE MARKET- ORIENTED 4: Alignment by Strstrategy has been the most frequently employed around ategy Model Companies following the Need Seeker model are more aligned the globe and across industries. And this year it contin-than others, with 30 percent reporting high alignment of ues to be the most common model among the world’s 10 innovation and business strategy, and 41 percent saying their culture strongly supports innovation. largest spenders on innovation. How Closely Is Your InnovationHow Well Does Your CompanySuccessful Tech Drivers can no longer depend solely Strategy Aligned with YourCulture Support Youron the ability of their researchers to develop ingenious Business Strategy?Innovation Strategy?HIGHLYSTRONGLYproducts that consumers are dying to have. Now, in or-8%8%ALIGNED7%14%SUPPORTSder to succeed, Tech Drivers must strike the proper bal-30%41%ance between the pure R&D efforts that in the past led 34%33%31%29%to high-tech breakthrough innovations, and the more market-oriented activities of their less tech-centered brethren. That’s why the most successful Tech Drivers, like Google, have developed both the capabilities shared 51%39%by all outperforming innovators, such as the ability to 35%38%34%34%translate consumer and customer needs into product development and engagement with customers, and the capabilities specific to their own strategy: a deep un-398derstanding of emerging technologies and trends, and 20%17%16%21%18%15%the capacity to manage the life cycle of their products NOTDOES NOT7%6%ALIGNEDSUPPORT4%3%4%4%and projects. NEEDMARKETTECHNEEDMARKETTECHSEEKERREADERDRIVERSEEKERREADERDRIVERFew companies exemplify both the long history of Note: Sums may not total 100 due to innovation and the new, more customer-cen-Source: Booz&Companytric demands better than Hewlett-Packard Company. creating truly differentiated products by leveraging all Famed for its critical role in the founding of Silicon Val-potential sources of good ideas. Each of the other two ley and its long history as a pioneer in a variety of tech-models has its own corresponding distinct innovation nologies, HP has made a conscious effort to integrate its goals and cultural attributes. (See Exhibit 5.) How do innovation efforts more tightly with the business, and to those key goals and attributes aid and abet the efforts ensure that both its strategic goals and the innovation of companies in each strategy to develop the capabilities culture that supports those goals are aligned with that they need to succeed?overall strategy. And although the company’s overall strategy may change as a result of the recent arrival of Driving TechnologyMeg Whitman as chief executive officer, the tight link Over the four years since we began our analysis of the with the innovation culture is likely to models of innovation, the Technology Drivers The close alignment of innovation with the business strategy+business issue 65features innovation
can be seen clearly at HP Labs, the company’s central agenda is very basic research looking 10 years into the research organization. Prith Banerjee is HP’s senior vice future. Another third is tied to current products, so it president of research and director of HP Labs, which looks maybe six to 18 months into the future. And the has seven locations around the world. In this capacity, remaining third is in the middle — what we call applied he both oversees the company’s researchers and works research — which looks two to five years into the future with its five major business units — each of which has and is tied to some applications, but not products.” its own R&D unit — to ensure the transfer of ideas and That is entirely in keeping with the strategic goals innovations into products and services. “[The] mission of Tech Drivers: to ensure superior product performance of HP Labs,” says Banerjee, “is fourfold. One is to cre-and quality, at the lowest cost possible. And it goes with-ate absolutely breakthrough technologies. The second out saying that the entire effort must be imbued with a one is around creating new business opportunities for stronger spirit of respect for technical talent and knowl-HP. The third one is to advance the state of the art in edge, as well as openness to ideas from external sources, whatever we do. And the fourth one is to engage with including academic researchers from universities around customers and partners.”the world. HP Labs makes a concerted effort to involve To that end, says Banerjee, “We take a portfo-the company’s customers: It invites more than 500 cus-lio approach within HP Labs: A third of our research tomers a year in to see what its researchers are working Exhibit 5: Top Goals and Attributes by StrategyAll companies following any of the three innovation models share some of the most important innovation goals and cultural attributes. Each model, however, also has distinct goals and attributes. Top Innovation Goalsand CulturMARKET READERSal AttributesDistinct innovation goal• Products customized to local markets and geographies3190Distinct cultural attribute• Culture of collaboration across functions and geographiesNEED SEEKERSALL THREE STRATEGIESDistinct innovation goalCommon innovation goals• Advantaged products • Superior product performance• Superior product quality and servicesDistinct cultural attributeCommon cultural attributes• Openness to new ideas from • Strong identification with the customer and customers, suppliers, overall orientation toward the customer experience competitors, and other • Passion for and pride in the products industries and services offeredTECHNOLOGY DRIVERSDistinct innovation goal• Developing low-cost productsDistinct cultural attribute• Reverence and respect for technical talent and knowledgeSource: Booz&Companyffeeaattuurerse s t i tilnen oovf athtieon article
19 percent of respondents includ-Exhibit F: The 10 Most Innovative The 10 Companies ing them among the top three, re-Most Innovative spectively. (See Exhibit F.) This year, Innovation executives we surveyed again chose Apple as most innovative. Facebook edged onto Facebook entered the list for the first the list at number , suggesting the growing power CompanyR&D Spendingof social media as a rich source of 2010as % of Saleshis year, we again asked our $US (intensity) innovation on the Internet. (Because Tsu1Apple$1,%rvey respondents to choose Facebook is still private, however, the companies they thought were the 2Google$3,%reliable financial data is not avail-most innovative. And again, Apple Inc. 33M$1,%able.) Altogether, the 10 most inno-came out on top. Seventy percent of 4GE$3,%vative companies boasted signifi-respondents named it one of the three 5Microsoft$8,%cantly better financial results over the most innovative companies, and more past five years than did the top 10 6IBM$6,%than half voted it number one — no spenders on R&D, especially when 7Samsung$7,%surprise, given the company’s strong results are considered in terms of 8P&G$1,%performance this year. The iPad con-earnings as a percentage of revenues. 9Toyota$8,%NotNottinues to define the market for tablet (See Exhibit G.) 10Facebookn/areportedreportedcomputers, and Apple has been vying This year, we also looked at the Source: Bloomberg data, Booz & Companywith the Exxon Mobil Corporation as innovation strategies followed by the most valuable company in the . by Chairman and CEO Steve Jobs. top innovators. The results are strik-market capitalization — a testament Following Apple, again, were ing, especially in comparison with to the innovative vision of the late Google and 3M, with 44 percent and the results of the top spenders. The on, and works directly with some customers on “cus-world’s leading car manufacturers. Its business depends tomer co-innovation” projects at the farthest reaches of heavily on working with its customers to determine ex-its research what they need and then building those products This structure inevitably causes some tension with as cost-effectively as possible. the business units — indeed, it’s designed that way. “We That puts Visteon squarely in the camp of the are intentionally trying to create trouble for our business Market Readers, those companies that carefully moni-units,” says Banerjee. “The businesses are looking in the tor markets and listen to their customers in order to 4101short term for the next six months, next year. That’s gauge what the market is looking for, and then work why a third of our activity involves assisting them with closely with suppliers and partners to provide it. As Tim their current problems. But two-thirds of our activity is Yerdon, Visteon’s global director of innovation and de-to create disruptive technologies.” Because the business sign, says, “Most people think about innovation as just units continue to benefit from the short-term research, adding technology products. But it’s more than that. and are involved through the lab’s advisory board in What we’re doing is taking a step back, looking at our developing what Banerjee calls “the wacky, crazy industry, and asking ourselves, ‘How do we enhance ideas,” they continue to support those ideas as potential life on board the car?’ A lot of the innovation involved breakthroughs. in that is now being done in collaboration both with our supply base and with our customers.”Reading the MarketThis approach is in line with the innovation goals The automotive supplier sector, hard hit by the recession we have identified among Market Readers, including and the problems plaguing the auto industry in general, customizing products for markets and making sure has only recently begun to recover. Among the compa-those products have a clear advantage in the market, in nies at the center of the upswing is the Visteon Corpora-terms of both quality and cost. That, in turn, is sup-tion, which produces a variety of systems, including cli-ported at top-performing Market Readers by a culture mate electronics, interiors, and lighting solutions, for the that fosters collaboration across functions and geogra-strategy+business issue 65features innovation
four most innovative companies, and Exhibit H: Need Seekers in Exhibit G: Top 10 Innovators vs. six of the top 10, all follow the Need the Top 10Top 10 R&D SpendersCompanies following the Need Seeker model Seeker strategy (and Apple is the The top 10 innovators outperformed on all accounted for six of the top 10 innovators slots, three performance measures, especially on classic example). In comparison, only but only two of the top 10 spenders. EBITDA as a percentage of revenues. two of the top 10 spenders are Need Proportion of Strategy ModelsSeekers. (See Exhibit H.) We rather Performance of Top 10 Innovators 10 R&D Spenders Compared to Theirexpected these results, given our Need SeekersIndustry Peers in the Global Innovation 1000Othersfindings that companies pursuing a TOP 10HIGHESTTOP 10POSSIBLEINNOVATORSR&D SPENDERSNeed Seeker strategy have a greater SCORE: 100likelihood of success, thanks to their %20%6076advantage at assembling the optimal NORMALIZEDPERFORMANCEset of capabilities and creating the OF INDUSTRYPEERS: 505452culture needed to achieve superior 51performance. 4040Source: Booz&CompanyIt is also worth noting that al-though six of the top 10 spenders are LOWESTpharmaceutical companies, not a POSSIBLERevenueEBITDA Market CapSCORE: 0Growthas % ofGrowthsingle pharmaceutical company was results show, as we have been say-5-Yr. CAGR Revenue,5-Yr. CAGR5-Yr. onto the list of the most inno-ing for years now, that success in vative. Indeed, only three companies innovation isn’t about how much you Source: Booz&Companyappear on both top 10 lists: Microsoft, spend, but rather how you spend it. Toyota, and Samsung. Overall, the — ., ., and , and openness to external ideas. Together, these pability now that the various systems that make up cars goals and cultural elements help sustain the set of capa-have become so integrated. bilities that enable these companies to succeed. These capabilities include not just a willingness to Seeking Needspay attention to the market and work with customers As successful as many Market Readers and Technol-but also to run a very tight product development ship, ogy Drivers are, there is something different about using capabilities such as product platform and resource Need Seekers. It has to do with their strategy — work-4112requirement management. Says Yerdon, “In product ing closely with customers to develop products and get development, we have a phase-gate process that goes them to market first. It has to do with their innovation through four different gates to achieve what we feel is goals — ensuring that those products have a distinct ad-an appropriate level of robustness in products and tech-vantage in the market. And the best Need Seekers have nologies that are developed for sale to a customer. It’s put together a winning set of capabilities, including the very highly governed and metricized.” judicious use of technology, a disciplined approach to But it is the effort to instill a culture of collabora-product development, and the ability to generate deep tion that has most transformed Visteon’s innovation insights directly from regular contact with end-users of efforts. Behind all the company’s innovation efforts their product. — whether they be concept prototypes or new climate But what really sets the best Need Seekers apart is control systems — lies a big increase in the amount of their ability to execute on their strategy — to combine collaboration that takes place, across functions, geogra-all these elements into a coherent whole. As we have phies, and joint-venture partners. It used to be, says Yer-seen, the innovation strategy that Need Seekers follow don, that groups would work in the same building and is significantly more aligned than either of the other never talk to one another. But Visteon teams have been models, on average, and their culture is most likely to working hard to change that aspect of their culture, in support their innovation efforts. Such companies are part because collaboration has become a necessary ca-more profitable and boast higher enterprise value, and a INNOVATORSSPENDERSffeeaattuurerse s t i tilnen oovf athtieon article
ers is almost exactly the same as in Exhibit I: Strategy and Culture The Silicon in Silicon Valleythe overall population. And they are Silicon Valley companies are much more Valley Advantage almost three times as likely to say likely to have strong strategic alignment and cultural innovation strategies are tightly by Barry Jaruzelski and aligned with their overall corporate Matthew Le MerleHow Closely Is YourHow Well Does Yourbusiness strategies — 54 percent, Innovation StrategyCompany CultureAligned with YourSupport Yourcompared with just 14 percent among Business Strategy?Innovation Strategy?ilicon Valley is famous for its all companies. When asked whether HIGHLYSTRONGLYALIGNEDSUPPORTSSlong history of leadership in their corporate cultures supported 14%19%computing, semiconductors, soft-their strategies, 46 percent of Silicon ware, biotech, and other innovation-Valley companies strongly agreed 46%54%based industries. But beyond its tal-that they did, compared with only 19 38%32%ent base and access to capital, what percent of all companies, more than makes Silicon Valley unique? What double the general population. (See exactly is the celebrated “West Coast Exhibit I.)culture of innovation”? In conjunc-It may come as something of a 29%21%29%tion with this year’s Global Innovation surprise that Silicon Valley compa-30%1000, we worked with the Bay Area nies are no more likely to follow a 11%11%Council, a pro-business consortium Technology Driver innovation model 15%of more than 275 companies in the than other companies are. But that, 7%14%14%NOTDOES NOTSan Francisco Bay area, to identify in our view, only strengthens our ar-ALIGNEDSUPPORT5%7%3%ALLALLthe strategic, cultural, and organiza-gument: Like many other top inno-COMPANIESBAYCOMPANIESBAYAREAAREAtional attributes that have led to the vators, Silicon Valley companies not COMPANIESCOMPANIESsustained success of this region. That only have found success in creating Note: Sums may not total 100 due to : Booz&Companyincluded segmenting the survey re-pathbreaking new technologies, but sults we received from Silicon Valley are almost twice as likely as average value propositions that will win those companies in hopes of better under-companies to have developed capa-customers’ business. standing what cultural and organiza-bilities that provide a superior under-tional elements make them different. standing of the stated and unstated Matthew Le Merle Silicon Valley companies do in-needs of their end customers. It isn’t @ deed stand out. We determined that just about how many transistors you is a partner with Booz & Company 4123they are almost twice as likely to fol-can fit on a chip, but also about how based in San Francisco. He works low a Need Seeker innovation model, such advances can lead to products with leading technology, media, and compared to the general population and services that gain unprecedented consumer companies, focusing on of companies in our global survey traction in the marketplace through strategy, corporate development, — 46 percent versus 28 percent — superior insight into customers, as marketing and sales, organization, whereas the proportion of Tech Driv-well as the development of practical operations, and number of these highly aligned com-as the function with the most influence in their com-panies are following the Need Seeker model. pany’s power structure. And Need Seekers even outper-Need Seekers are different in other ways as well. formed in terms of the management of the innovation Our study shows that significantly more of the techni-process: They rated their portfolio management pro-cal leads at companies classified as Need Seekers report cesses highest for both consistency and to the CEO, and that their innovation agendas The advantage of the Need Seeker model is evident are much more likely to be developed and clearly com-when the biggest R&D spenders are compared with municated from the top down. In the survey, they were the most innovative companies. Just two of the top 10 nearly twice as likely to point to product development spenders are Need Seekers, whereas six of the 10 most strategy+business issue 65features innovation
ALTHOUGH THEIR INNOVATION STRATEGIES MAY DIFFER, COMPANIES LIKE AGILENT, HP, AND VISTEON UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TAKES TO EXCEL AT DEVELOPING NEW PRODUCTS THAT WILL SUCCEED IN THE are: Apple, Facebook, 3M, GE, IBM, and is evident in how the company gathers insights from Procter & Gamble. (See “The 10 Most Innovative customers and outside innovators alike. Researchers at Companies,” page 11.) Moreover, Silicon Valley com-the lab reach out regularly not just to academics, but panies are often viewed as Technology Drivers, but in also to customers like government labs, to help acquire fact almost half of the companies we surveyed that hail a better understanding of the future of technology and from the Bay Area are actually Need Seekers. (See “The its customers’ needs. Meanwhile, capturing insights on Silicon Valley Advantage,” page 13.)what customers need now is the responsibility of not Agilent Technologies Inc. is one of those Silicon just business unit researchers but all customer-facing Valley Need Seekers. Formed as a spin-off from HP in employees. 1999, the company concentrates on instrumentation When asked what holds all this activity together, and measurement solutions for the communications, Solomon turns the discussion to culture. “There’s a electronics, life sciences, and chemical industries. CTO very strong innovation culture throughout the com-Darlene Solomon puts the distinction this way: “Agi-pany, and a culture of teamwork. Agilent really encour-lent definitely has the technology focus in our roots, ages that. Innovation is not just R&D in Agilent,” she and we want to continue to be a technology leader, not says. “We’ve really tried to make clear that it’s about ev-a follower. But to succeed, you need to be balanced in erybody questioning the status quo and looking to do terms of focusing on the customer and understanding something better than what’s been done before. Each 4134the market. There is a lot of great technology we can year, we recognize and reward innovation through the work on, and no shortage of technical challenges. But Agilent Innovates program, with innovation categories we need to choose the areas where, if we make a contri-ranging from customer satisfaction to employee- and bution, the customer and business value that can result market-centered contributions.” is clear.”In many ways, Agilent’s innovation culture stems The trick for Agilent, as for many other compa-from its history as part of HP, but Solomon notes that nies, is to balance short-term R&D with long-term the company has defined its own values. Now, she says, thinking about the kinds of things that will need to “the cultural areas we’ve really tried to strengthen are be measured in five or 10 years. Says Solomon: “It’s re-speed to opportunity, customer focus, and accountabil-ally about making sure that we’re at the leading edge ity. Innovation itself has always been a strength; but to of where our customers are going in the near term, and really address customer needs more swiftly and to focus more than 90 percent of that work takes place in the on the things that matter most are where the culture of businesses. In Agilent’s research laboratories, we have this company is today.”to make sure that we are placing the right bets now so that we have the right technologies in the future, at the The Cultural Imperativeright time, when they’re needed.”Although their innovation strategies, and their rela-This is a balancing act at which Agilent excels. It tive performance, may differ, companies like Agilent, ffeeaattuurerse s t i tilnen oovf athtieon article
THE MOST SUCCESSFUL INNOVATORS ENSURE THAT THEIR CULTURE NOT ONLY SUPPORTS INNOVATION, BUT ACTUALLY ACCELERATES ITS & Company Global Innovation 1000: MethodologyAs has been the case in the past nine industry sectors (or “other”) Each company was classified six editions of the Global Innova-according to Bloomberg’s indus-into one of our three innovation tion 1000, this year Booz & Com-try designations, and into one of strategy models — Need Seeker, pany identified the 1,000 public five regional designations, as de-Market Reader, or Technology companies around the world that termined by their reported head-Driver — based on survey respon-spent the most on research and quarters locations. dents’ answers to four profiling development in 2010. To be includ- To enable meaningful com-questions. We then asked respon-ed, a company’s data on its R&D parisons within industries, we dents to rank their company’s spending had to be public; all data indexed the R&D spending levels most important innovation goals, is based on the most recent fis-and financial performance met-cultural attributes, and organiza-cal year, as of June 30, 2011. Sub-rics of each company against the tional factors, as well as their per-sidiaries that were more than 50 median values in its industry. ception of their company’s perfor-percent owned by a single corpo-Global expenditures on research mance on each. We analyzed their rate parent were excluded if their and development were estimated responses using a variety of sta-financial results were included in using data from the World Bank, tistical methods that allowed us to the parent company’s reporting. the Organisation for Economic Co-distinguish the cultural and orga-4145 For each of the top 1,000 com-operation and Development, the nizational attributes most preva-panies, we obtained the key fi-International Monetary Fund, and lent among companies, depending nancial metrics for 2001 through government research which of the three innovation 2010, including sales, gross profit, To understand how innovation strategy models they followed. operating profit, net profit, histori-strategy, culture, and organization Company names and responses cal R&D expenditures, and market affect performance, we conducted were kept confidential (unless capitalization. All sales in for- a Web-based survey of nearly 600 permission to use them was ex-eign currencies and R&D expen-senior managers and R&D pro-plicitly granted), but respondents diture figures prior to 2010 were fessionals from more than 400 were asked to identify themselves translated into . dollars ac-companies around the globe. The to allow the association of survey cording to the average exchange companies participating repre-answers with financial metrics. rate in 2010. In addition, figures sented more than US$182 billion We then conducted interviews with for total shareholder return were in R&D spending, or one-third of a subset of respondents, in order gathered and adjusted to reflect the Global Innovation 1000’s total to gain a deeper understanding of each company’s total sharehold-R&D spending for 2010, all nine of the links among strategy, culture, er return in its local market. All the industry sectors, and all five and were coded into one of geographic regions. strategy+business issue 65features innovation
in converting innovation spending into marketplace re-HP, and Visteon understand what it takes to excel at sults and superior long-term financial performance. +developing new products that will succeed in the mar-Reprint No. 11404ket: an innovation strategy that’s tightly aligned with their overall strategy, a prioritized set of capabilities that match the strategy, and a supportive culture. Our analysis shows that a well-executed Need Seeker model, Online Innovation Strategy Profileralthough it may be the hardest model to create, is also For an assessment tool from Booz & Company designed to the most likely to deliver superior differentiation, profit-help evaluate your company’s R&D strategy and the capa-ability, and growth in enterprise value. That’s because it bilities required, visit: is the model most able to get to market first with prod-ucts that address unarticulated customer needs through superior customer understanding, and the most likely to have the cultural attributes and cross-organizational Resourcesalignment that can sustain its success. Soumitra Dutta, “The Global Innovation Index 2011: Accelerating Yet even the most successful companies concede Growth and Development,” INSEAD, 2011, the difficulty of maintaining the cultures that led to A report on the conditions and their success. Palensky of 3M, certainly one of the most qualities that allow innovation to thrive, and the role it can play in a nation’s economic and social innovative companies ever to exist, de-Barry Jaruzelski and Kevin Dehoff, “The Global Innovation 1000: scribes the challenge: “That’s the thing about cultures How the Top Innovators Keep Winning,” s+b, Winter 2010, www — they’re built up a brick at a time, a point at a time, . Last year’s study showed how over decades. You need consistency; you need persis-highly innovative companies outperform by focusing on critical capabilities and aligning them with their overall business strategy. tence; and you need gentle, behind-the-scenes encour-agement in addition to top-down support. And you can Barry Jaruzelski and Kevin Dehoff, “The Customer Connection: The Global Innovation 1000,” s+b, Winter 2007, it very quickly.” article/07407: This study identified the three distinct innovation The larger lesson for companies that struggle to strategies: Need Seekers, Market Readers, and Technology their R&D expenditures into successful prod-Barry Jaruzelski and Richard Holman, “Casting a Wide Net: Building 4156ucts, solid financial returns, and unassailable market the Capabilities for Open Innovation,” Ivey Business Journal, March/April 2011: Why many organizations are unable to make open innovation positions is that it may not just be traditional factors like work, and what they need to do to innovation pipeline that need rethinking. Instead, Zia Khan and Jon Katzenbach, “Are You Killing Enough Ideas?” s+b, companies should follow the lead of the most successful Autumn 2009, How innovators in ensuring that the company’s culture not companies can improve their innovation performance by getting their formal and informal organizations in supports innovation, but actually accelerates its ex-ecution. First, make sure that the innovation strategy is Paul Leinwand and Cesare Mainardi, The Essential Advantage: How to Win with a Capabilities-Driven Strategy (Harvard Business Review Press, clearly articulated, and communicated throughout the 2011): How to construct a strategically coherent company in which the organization from the top all the way down to the lab pieces reinforce one another instead of working at . Second, align the technical community with top Randall Stross, “The Auteur vs. the Committee,” New York Times, July management, and give the technical leaders a real seat 23, 2011: Why Apple’s leadership structure, with decisions reflecting the sensibility of Steve Jobs, is more conducive to innovation than the at the executive table. Third, ensure that the innovation conventional approach of companies like translates into a tangible action plan, clearly Booz & Company’s Product and Service Innovation practice: linked to a short, focused list of capabilities that will you to stand out in the marketplace. The tighter For more thought leadership on this topic, see the s+b website at: the connections between strategy, culture, and the more leverage your company will bring to bear ffeeaattuurerse s t i tilnen oovf athtieon article
strategy+business magazineis published by Booz & Company subscribe, visit or call more information about Booz & Company, visit Park Ave., 18th Floor, New York, NY 10178© 2011 Booz & Company Inc.
