Musing on innovation

Your operations need to be sustainable by design, not as an afterthought, nor as projects with which to score points on award schemes. Indeed, today sustainable value alone is sufficient justification for innovation due to climate scare, and to young people who grew up wanting to change the world now being wage-earners with spending and policy-making power

Introduction

In entrepreneurial contexts, innovation is generally seen as a development team producing a prototype product that offers enhanced value, that manufacturing and marketing teams will take to a market of customers who can perceive and pay for the changed or enhanced proposition, ideally before the competition does. Admitting that there are situations where such simple strategies work, a holistic outlook and the application of novel concepts could help businesses generate winning products within a structured process, with more stakeholders in mind than only the consumer.

Consider a scenario within FMCG industries. A typical face cream is launched in an attractive plastic container with perhaps a glittering label. This container would cost the manufacturer more than the cream it contains. The cream itself may claim to lighten the skin or reduce acne or protect from the sun. It may claim the benefits of medicinal herbs or even promise healing. Yet, the active ingredients may constitute a minute proportion of the cream itself, if at all. The idea of an effective dose may not have occurred, the effectiveness of any dose being questionable where some claims are concerned, considering the mechanism of delivery. The product may not deliver on its claims, but the marketing will provide the user with emotional satisfaction. The packaging will be discarded after use and remain in the environment as garbage. This product may have been launched in the first place, because a competing entity launched a similar product, and company success is measured in terms of market share. A scenario perhaps simplistic, but nevertheless prevalent. Is this how it ought to be?

Provided herein are a few concepts and avenues of thought that could be incorporated into existing innovation processes that would help industries and service organisations to become more creative, more lucrative and benefit their consumers, and perhaps the community and the planet as well. 

Circularity

When one does assess the life cycle of a product, one shows concern for the impacts on stakeholders throughout all stages of the product’s life.  That is, from the beginning that could concern the starting materials, how they are made, who makes them and under what conditions; to the end that could concern what happens to the product, packaging and the jetsam of marketing schemes and how these impact societies and landscapes, oceans and the air. This is a cradle to grave design philosophy sometimes referred to as womb to tomb that in itself is good, indeed better than no assessment and no action at all. However, by definition, there is a grave, and at the grave there is waste, loss and harm.  The question then arises, could we innovate lucratively where there is net gain to organisations and consumer but also no loss to communities and natural ecosystems?

Should we need to minimise the packaging we use so that it would correlate to a minimised impact on the environment? Yes? Take the example of corrugated cartons: Lower the grammage, use recycled paper, reduce to single colour printing, convert to more economical dimensions relative to the rolls; these are the usual options considered. Not bad, but still these boxes will be used once and disposed. Would you consider a plastic box instead, a more substantial box, perhaps of a more expensive material than kraft paper? No? Before rejecting such suggestions outright, we may consider options such as a box that can be returned and re-used many times. Possibly, a bio-degradable plastic. The plastic pellet manufacturer upstream may have incorporated a masterbatch that would trigger decomposition of the eventual plastic product under the ambient conditions of a landfill leaving no residual microplastic, while remaining recyclable under use and processing conditions.  Or maybe a different strategy where after the specified number of uses, it could be treated to decompose in agricultural soil. Perhaps, soil nutrients have been incorporated into its structure during manufacture, for release at this point. Such would be huge shifts from the common practice, but there would be no waste. There is no longer a grave, but closure of a circle, albeit a large circle. Cost to the industry may reduce, and farmers would gain. 

Alternatives may be boxes that could be melted and used as fuel, or light weight foam metal containers. Sounds crazy but the technologies are becoming available and cheaper. It may only be a matter of seeking out, collaborating, doing the numbers, and implementing change - then reaping profit, for all. The change, however, must be first implemented in the design of your business model, and inspired by a far-thinking leadership! Your procurement manager can negotiate with suppliers on yesterday’s ideas only so much.

Sustainability

CSR projects may be good; and complying with regulations is necessary in order to operate legally. However, what is most important is that core operations and products are sustainable. The key word is core, as opposed to peripheral, and sustainability needs to be factored into the National Planning Department protocols and business plans. Your operations need to be sustainable by design, not as an afterthought, nor as projects with which to score points on award schemes. Indeed, today sustainable value alone is sufficient justification for innovation due to climate scare, and to young people who grew up wanting to change the world now being wage-earners with spending and policy-making power.  

Take washing powders. Often more than 90% of it is filler materials. The filler is usually a dust that the housewife gets to inhale at the point of use. The filler is mined and imported into our country and then gets washed into our waterways. The primary purpose is to make the packs appear larger on the shelves, and to feel heavier. With less filler you can manufacture a product that can be sold in a smaller pack (less packing material), for a lower price (since both RM, PM and operational costs will be lower) and the consumer will use a teaspoon of it instead of the usual two scoops. Washes just as well but saves on foreign exchange and reduces the carbonates and silicates going into our drains. This is more logical than marketing a bulked-up product and carrying out a CSR project to clean up a lake.

Or take textile fibres.  Some textiles are marketed using the claim that they are made out of coffee or other agricultural waste.  Coffee-based clothing for you, close to nature, repurposing a waste stream, farmers being paid to sell off their garbage, you suppose.  Closer examination may reveal that the proportion of coffee grounds is miniscule and that these particles are actually embedded in a conventional polyester or nylon fibre.  One needs to assess the relative benefits concerning the impact on the environment, society, consumer and manufacturer in processing the waste material into the polyester manufacturing, against the disposing of it by composting or other conventional means.  Then again there are fibres derived from microorganisms through biotechnologies that could replace polyester altogether.

Process

Innovation needs inspiration but it also requires method. Innovators need freedom to think, explore, synthesise, connect, develop and validate, but innovation will be effective when framed within an overarching and intelligent framework within which these processes run.  Often companies develop processes for all their operations and document it and audit it and cry “NC” when there are violations, but the R&D function remains outside this framework, as does indeed the strategy formulation process at the board. This leads to situations where product prototyping proceeds after it is clear that the business case has failed, products are launched with marketing targeting the wrong consumer group, products are developed that after a series of cost cuttings have nothing unique to offer even though the original concept may have been fantastic.  Or a great idea may not be scalable.  

Innovation needs to be mapped out as a process from the gathering of consumer insights, material, partnership and business model exploration and connection, analysis of insights and product conceptualisation empowered by technology, through to development, validation and customisation processes and up to launch and post-launch evaluations. Cross functional teams and trans-hierarchical alignment and support must contribute throughout the process because it is not just the R&D team that innovates for the organisation. In general, focus tends to be on the middle of the process where the development team rules, but we need to view the back-end and the front-end of innovation as well in order to consistently deliver successfully. Note that having a process does not mean killing creativity or extending launch timelines, it means a comprehensive, more efficient and transparent operation, resulting in easier decision making, superior and comprehensive outcomes and fewer mistakes along the way.

Governance

Processes involving teams with various foci are not automated; they need leadership to synchronise effectively. Right leadership in innovation is crucial. Good innovation governance ensures that there exists a process in the first place.  It ensures all prerequisites at a given stage are satisfied and all relevant facts at that stage have been satisfactorily considered prior to proceeding to consequent stages. It ensures that projects are killed when they need to be killed so that resources can then be fruitfully diverted. It ensures that the end result is meaningfully related to the initial concept. It constructively considers amendment to the concept when applicable and takes risk-assessed decisions when exceptions are to be made to procedures. It ensures that the end consumer is always in mind since the ultimate aim is to delight that consumer with the product that is to come, ideally with value that no one has offered before.  Governance ensures that processes are followed while ensuring that they have the optimal degree of flexibility built in.  Governors take decisions to prioritise projects based on business needs and they define the policies based on which prioritisation decisions may be taken.

Conclusion

Sure, it’s easier to ignore all these factors. “Just get the product to the market, and ensure revenue is accounted for it starting from the month of x’ember” stated an MD of a reputed consumer goods firm. It takes commitment to build business sustainability into your innovation strategy, and creativity to conceptualise business opportunity and economic profitability through the enhancement of value. It takes courage to govern under stress. It takes perseverance to build up your process. Yet, if you do, the benefits would be tremendous for your company and also for all stakeholders including future generations not yet conceived, who would be your consumers of tomorrow in the earth of tomorrow, and they will have grown up imbibing the value of your brand made equitable due to a reputation for sustainability-driven innovation and game-changing products.

(The writer is a Chartered Scientist, Chartered Engineer, Certified Corporate Director and holds a doctorate in Chemical Engineering from the University of Cambridge)