Managing Change and Innovation - Essay Example

? Managing Change and Innovation Introduction In today’s global economic setting, it appears that capital and technical knowledge are not enough to survive the increasingly competitive market. The diversity of pressures to which modern enterprises are subjected to promote a cutthroat corporate environment (Mayle 2006). Fastidious entrepreneurs employ not only skilled and educated individuals to man their firm so as to attain the highest advantage against their competitors but likewise devise means to acquire the best and most ingenious salesmen to promote their business. But then again, are these measures sufficient? True enough, money, skilled workers, viable product and an aggressive marketing campaign will make a business (Henry & Mayle 2002). Combined with healthy competition, the result is a thriving conglomerate. Mixing this recipe a thousand times over results in several thriving conglomerates each vying for the top. What then is the missing ingredient that may bolster any business into longevity and resilience when pitted against several others like it? One businessman may claim that for a company to be able to keep abreast of the fast change in the market, it is important that the company keep close to the customer by creating a culture of openness and adopting a mindset of flexibility and inquiry (Brynteson 2010). Another argument is that technology must be taken full advantage of as it plays a key role in enabling radical new options and the implementation of bright new ideas (Tidd & Bessant 2009). “The only thing that does not change is change itself.” This phrase is true and that as a matter of fact, change is the only event not marred by its predilection to either occur or not. It is certain to ensue. By itself, one must then be vigilant and though complete preparation cannot be undertaken, it must still be carried on. Utmost diligence and keen foresight may be the only weapons that could hold off the crippling effects of constant evolution. Innovation as Catalyst for Corporate Dominance In business, this evolution is referred to as development or advancement or what is more commonly called “progress.” This is characterized as the continued instigation of ideas translated into product, process or theory. Often, this development is manipulated and taken advantage of by venture capitalists such that these inventions become their ticket in entering the global trading pool. Corporate officers use management tools to dramatically increase the payoff from innovation investments (Davila, Epstein, & Shelton 2005). But in order to stay in the game, entrepreneurs cannot rely solely on the initial stance of their offer. It must be reinvented, upgraded and further developed so as to maximize its full potential. An outline of the guiding techniques for planning and implementation must be performed by enterprises to ascertain their performance vis-a-vis their goals (Carnall 2007). But then again, a particular object can only take on so much and time will come when it would eventually bow down to a more novel concept. As such, businessmen must employ any and all means necessary to make the most out of their offer. This is where marketing strategies and advertising campaign come to play. But a new advent in business management has emerged, such that promotional tactics and selling techniques have seemingly taken an abrupt exit, in the guise of innovation management (Trott 2008). Innovation Defined Innovation, from a business perspective, is defined by Mayle (2006) as a vehicle of growth. Innovation is the strategy necessary to remain an active player in the global market by continually revolutionizing the economic structure, creating new products and enhancing current business processes. Schumpeter (1943), in his work, has maintained that in order to stay in the economic playing field, entrepreneurs must constantly search for better ways to satisfy their patrons by offering the best quality in the lowest cost possible. In another, it is claimed that the primal objective of a corporate entity must be to merge all aspects of the enterprise so as to bring about a comprehensive change and innovation management and eventually lead to economic success (Andriopoulos & Dawson 2009). To state, innovation then appears to be one of the most challenging aspects of management to comprehend and put into practice (Goffin & Mitchell 2010). Today's businesses operate in a world that is shifting faster than can be foreseen. As an answer then to the swift changing of the corporate tide, corporate officers then have to advocate policies which must adeptly acclimatize with the transformation. Innovation management then became indispensable (Trott 2008). Innovation management, as defined in the same platform is that discipline which deals with the management of processes in innovation. It pertains to that aspect of management that focuses on the response of the company as triggered by the constancy of change and development. It may refer to a procedure of undertaking an evolutionary incorporation of business administration, technological advancement and marketing schematics by implementing a series of regulations on perpetual corporate rehabilitation (Mayle 2006). The Four Models of Change The lifecycle model of change treat the latter as an initiative that is followed with logic and procedure. The activities involved are sequentially carried out and are planned about at the outset. The outcomes of this change model depend on the clarity by which goals are defined; spelling out accountability; the availability of funding; and monitoring and control. Moreover it assumes that the individuals involved with the change are keen about accurate time management and are equipped with planning and monitoring competencies. However, the model falls short once lack of flexibility and problematic issues arise because of unforeseen circumstances that may affect the change initiative (Henry & Mayle 2002). The emergent model of change places focus on the idea that ambivalent events influence the change process and that planning has little implication on its results. Thus, its assumptions include the idea that plans are highly dynamic, and that current circumstances must be comprehended profoundly before any change effort. The key feature of the model is being able to address ambivalnce amidst a dynamic environment and that planning does not effectually have impact on the outcomes of the change effort (Mayle 2006). The positive results from this model relies on the degree of learning culled during the change process; being flexible with the new factors that affect one’s change effort; and collaborating with all parties involved with the change (Mayle 2006). The third model of change is the participative model, which places premium on the idea of ownership. It assumes that individuals are more open to change if they have explicitly expressed openness and willingness to undertake it. The positive outcomes of this change model are dependent on instilling ownership and encouraging engagement among stakeholders of the change; consultation and collaboration; and ensuring that there is agreement in change directions (Henry & Mayle 2002). Finally, the political model of change puts forth the premise that organisations consist of distinct groups which uphold their own objectives and interests. Thus, they are bound to react differently to the change effort. Be that as it may, establishing sources of influence; management of groups and information; and implementing a planned political agenda may ensure success under this change model (Hayes 2010). Sources of Change Resistance There are various sources of resistance to change. People, for instance, may uphold their own agenda over that espoused by the change effort. Moreover, they may misinterpret the objective s of the change initiative and end up not supporting or owning it. The lack of credence in management also serves as an obstacle to change (Hayes 2010). Moreover, the structures which support the change effort must be firmly established to support the values and behaviours desirable for change to be effective and long-lasting (Mayle 2006). For change to lead to positive outcomes, the individuals involved must be willing to function amidst ambivalence and be open to new ideas, risk, and disagreement with other groups. Additionally, there should be emphasis on the final goals rather than process (Henry & Mayle 2002). Innovative organisations actively promote the training and development of their members so that their knowledge remains current offer job security to overcome the fear of making mistakes and to encourage people to become ideas of champion of change (Mayle 2006). Innovation Management Innovation management may also be seen as the aptitude to perceive connections, opportunities, market and design. Tidd and Bessant (2009) have categorised innovation in business into four (4) categories: (1) product; (2) process; (3) position; and, (4) paradigm. Product innovation pertains to development of new products or an upgrade of an existing line up of goods. Process innovation relates to changes in the manner by which the goods are being manufactured. Oftentimes, this refers to the computerization of the system or the adaptation of machineries in factories. Position innovation is defined as the modification in the framework of the offer such as the utilization of a different facility or medium in the submission of the product or service. The changes in the organisational structure of the business and its realignment of its business objectives are dealt with when an enterprise has opted to adapt a paradigm innovation. To illustrate further, Pepsi-Cola has conducted a product innovation when they launched two new beverages in 2006, the Dole Sparklers and the Sierra Mist Cranberry Splash, in their line-up. Marriot International, on the other hand, opted to engage in process innovation when they teamed up with Accenture in providing a more sophisticated and globally conscious tele-sales pursuit in reservations and other hotel-related services. Position innovation was undertaken by the University of Phoenix by their usage of the internet in providing educational service to the public. Paradigm innovation was undertaken by Unocal when they merged with Chevron Corporation and became a wholly owned subsidiary of the former (Mayle 2006). Case Study on Position Innovation – University of Phoenix Relatively speaking, in the case of the University of Phoenix, as an educational institution, it need not affirm its standing on the international economic sphere. Oftentimes, entities of such nature partake of only a fractional representation of the battle for corporate economic dominance. Typically, schools and universities only employ the conventional methods of promoting its business. They are customarily limited to newspaper advertisement, co-branding through sponsorship and corporate endorsements and word-of-mouth activities. However, with the onslaught of many similar institutions offering the same sort of service, educational institutions have been forced to come with ways so as to keep their establishment thriving (Tidd & Bessant 2009). The University of Phoenix (UOPX) is a for-profit institution of higher learning that was primarily established in 1976 as a school catering mostly working students. UOPX offers degrees in over a hundred degree programs at the associate, bachelor, master and doctoral levels. Initially, the University undertook a horizontal approach to development by opening campuses in thirty-nine (39) states of the US. It has likewise started the operation of learning centres in different areas of the metro. However, expansion such as this would ultimately run to its maximum utility and as a result of that, UOPX decided to introduce a position innovation. That is, in 1989, UOPX launched the online program where enrolled students to the course were given access to class-specific online resources, which include an electronic library, textbooks, and other ancillary material necessary to their program. In this manner, the school was able to reach students world-wide and that resulted to a remarkable increase to their consumer margin (Tidd & Bessant 2009). Innovation Management as Essential Corporate Feature All things considered, it appears necessary then to look at innovation as a necessary element of corporate survival (Brynteson 2010). That is, as a constant factor in the life of a corporation, change must be taken as a separate facet that may make or break such entity. It must be regarded as a condition relevant in policy-making and administrative conduct of the business. However, the success of innovation management largely rests on the officers. Corporate entities must look for leaders with attributes of leadership which are consistent with the successful management of innovation and change (Mayle 2006) and that to survive the battle for economic supremacy, an examination of the key theories on change is in order (Hayes 2010). The adaptation of strong marketing skills to endorse a solid offer is not enough. Constant re-invention of the product, re-alignment of the organisational hierarchy, shifting of the business platform from time to time and the launching of contemporary offerings are the steps in making an entity perpetual and resilient to change. Conclusion The paper has discussed the concepts and principles related to change and innovation management. Management of change and innovation is encouraged in having an organic structure. People must also be willing to collaborate cross-functionally and be openness to share their knowledge beyond what is required of their jobs. Manaagement must ensure the availability of funding and regular feedback across departments. The choice of the change model depends on the nuances of the organisation within which change needs to be implemented. References Accenture.com 2011, Marriott International: Achieving high performance with superior process innovation capability [Online] Available at: Accessed 18 July 2011. Andriopoulos, C & Dawson, P 2009, Managing change, creativity and innovation. Sage Publications LTD, London. Bevnet, The Beverage Industry’s Source 2006 [Online] Available at: Accessed 18 July 2011. Brynteson, R 2010, The manager’s pocket guide to innovation. HRD Press, Inc, New York. Carnall, C 2007, Managing change in organzations. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Davila, T, Epstein, M & Shelton, R 2005, Making innovation work: how to manage it, measure it, and profit from it. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Goffin, K & Mitchell, R 2010, Innovation management: Strategy and implementation using the pentathlon framework. Palgrave Macmillan, UK. Hayes, J 2010, The theory and practice of change management. 3rd Edition. Palgrave Macmillan, UK. Henry, J & Mayle, D 2002, Managing innovation and change. Sage Publications, London. Mayle, D 2006, Managing innovation and change. Sage Publications Ltd, UK. Schumpeter, J 1943, Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Routledge, London. Tidd, J & Bessant, J 2009, Managing innovation: Intergrating technological, market and organisational change (4th edn). Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated, New Jersey. Trott, P 2008, Innovation management and new product development (4th edn). Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Read More