© 2010 Jean-Louis Swiners. Dernières modifications : 4 décembre 2013
••••

Un Top 100 d'experts
(10 000 heures et +)
pour vous aider à réfléchir à l'innovation

1. A-B-C

1. A-B-C

Le 15 septembre 2010
A
 
Abell (Derek —), Managing with Dual Strategies. Mastering the Present - Preempting the Future (1993)Non traduit
Adair (John —), Leadership for Innovation, How to organize team creativity and harvest Ideas  (1990, 2009) Non traduit.
Amabile (Teresa —), Leading Creative People, Non traduit
Amabile (Teresa —), Non traduit
Ancona & Bresman Non traduit
Anthony (Scott —), Mark Johnson, Joseph Sinfield & Elizabeth Altman, Innovator's Guide to Growth: Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work (2008) Non traduit
Atkins (……), Invention Machine
 
B
Bar-El (Zion —), Ideation International
Baumgartner (Jeffrey —), The Corporate Innovation Machine
Belliveau PDMA
Bennis (Warren —), Organizing Genius. The Secret of Creative Collaboration (1998) Non traduit
Bennis ( Warren —) , Geeks & Geezers Non traduit
Berger (Roland —), Soumitra Dutta, Tobias Raffel & Geofffrey Samuels, Innovating at the Top. How Global CEOs Drive Innnovation For Growth and Profit (2009) Non traduit
Benoit-Cervantes (Géraldine —), La Boîte à outils de l'innovation (2008)
Benyus (Janine —), Biomimicry. Innovation Inspired by Nature (200…) Non traduit
Berkun,The Myths of Innovation (2008) Non traduit
Bettencourt & Ulwick
Blanchard
Brand (Robert —) &…………… The Robert's Rules of Innovation, 2010
Byrd (Jacqueline —), The Innovation Equation, ………
 
C
Cagan (Jonathan —) et Craig Vogel, Creating Breaktrough Products. Innovation From Product Planning To Program Approval (2002) Non traduit
Carroll (Lewis —), De l'Autre côté du miroir
Challamel (Brice —), Le matin du 8e jour. De la créativité individuelle à l'innovation collective (2008)
Charam (
Chesbrough (Henry —), Open Innovation. Researching a New Paradigm (2001) Non traduit
Chesbrough (Henry —), Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (2005) Non traduit
Christensen (Clayton —), The Innovator's Dilemma (1997)Non traduit
Christensen (Clayton —) & Michael Raynor,The Innovator's Solution. Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth, (……) Non traduit
Christensen (Clayton —), Scott Anthony & Erik Roth, Seeing What's Next (2004) Non traduit
CHRISTIANSEN (James A. —), Competitive Innovation Management.Techniques to Improve Innovations Performance (2000) Non traduit
CHRISTIANSEN (James A. —), Building The Innovative Organization. Management Systems That Encourage Innovation (2000) Non traduit
Cooper (Robert —) & Edgett (

A

ABELL (Derek —)
Managing with Dual Strategies.
Mastering the Present - Preempting the Future (
1993)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
•   • •    
Professeur de Marketing et de Stratégies
à l'IMD de Lausanne
  (1993)   Les courbes en S des stratégies duales successives    

ADAIR (John —),
Leadership for Innovation.
How to organize team creativity and harvest Ideas
  (1990, 2009)
             
John AdaIr   • •   250
    (1990)   (2009)    
 
AMABILE (Teresa —)
Creative …………rasion
             
•
250
250
Dans la Harvard Business Review   Creative abrasion (200 …)        
   
AMABILE (Teresa —)
………Leading Creative People………;
             
250
Au MIT   (200 …)   Leading Creative People   Les 3 cercles
   

ANCONA ( Deborah —) & Henrik Bresman
X-teams
How to Build Teams That Lead, Innovate and Succeed
(2007)
 
             
•
•
•
•
        MIT   (2007)
•   •
     

  Date
ANTHONY (Scott —), Mark Johnson, Joseph Sinfield & Elizabeth Altman
Innovator's Guide to Growth.
Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work
(2008)

             
•   •   •   • ••  
Anthony Scott
Mark Johnson
Joseph Sinfield
Elizabeth Altman
                 
Developping Dusruptive Ideas
•
  ••   ••   What's Next
Developing Disruptive Ideas       Template       Pour mémoire
(Voir à Christensen)

Texte

Tag : Innovation de rupture

Pour mémoire (Wikipédia)


   
………  
………
Date  



B
 

  27 mars 2010
BAR-EL (Zion —)
Ideation International

           
••   ••   •••  
Zion Bar-El,
CEO de Ideation International
i-TrIz Map
Un copie d'écran
           
••   ••   •••  
Une copie d'écran
Un copie d'écran
             
••   ••   •••   ••
Terninko, Zusman & Zlotin
Idéation 1
Idéation 2
Tutoriaux
             
••   ••   ••   ••
Coureur sur un tapis roulant
Insecticide
Alcool
                     
••   ••   ••   ••   ••   ••
Pulvérisateur
Abat-Jour
Oeuf
Piquet dans la neige
Bétail


Detroit, France

Tag : TRIZ

Pour mémoire (Wikipédia)

Titre

TRIZ est l'acronyme russe de la théorie de résolution des problèmes inventifs "Teorija Reshenija Izobretateliskih Zadatch".
C'est une approche algorithmique éprouvée pour résoudre les problèmes techniques. Son élaboration débuta en 1946 lorsque l'ingénieur et scientifique russe Genrich Altshuller découvrit que l'évolution des systèmes techniques est régie par des lois objectives. Ces lois peuvent être utilisées pour conduire de façon rigoureuse le développement d'un système tout au long de son évolution technique en déterminant et en implémentant des innovations.

Idée directrice

TRZ part du principe que les problèmes rencontrés durant la conception d'un nouveau produit présentent des analogies, et donc, que des solutions analogues doivent pouvoir s'appliquer. Ce constat vient de l'analyse d'une grande masse de brevets par l'auteur de la théorie. On évite ainsi de réinventer perpétuellement la roue ou le fil à couper le beurre.
Objectifs de TRIZ

L'ambition de TRIZ est de favoriser la créativité, ou stimuler la recherche de concepts innovants en proposant aux ingénieurs et aux inventeurs des outils de déblocage de l'inertie mentale.
À partir de la créativité propre à chacun, TRIZ oriente le concepteur et le guide à chaque étape de la résolution de problème, en proposant systématiquement des solutions génériques et des outils éprouvés. Ceci permet de profiter de l'expérience acquise dans différents domaines d'activité et des principes fondamentaux simples qui en ont été tirés. TRIZ conduit l'utilisateur vers la bonne formulation de son problème. À partir des « fils rouges » de la réflexion donnés par TRIZ, le concepteur a les moyens de réagir et adapte les indications données en solutions concrètes à sa propre recherche. TRIZ repose sur l'analyse de 400 000 brevets internationaux pour présenter ensuite les démarches fonctionnelles de réponses étayées de multiples exemples issus d'une grande variété de domaines et des principes communs d'innovations. Concrétement, TRIZ permet de résoudre les contradictions apparaissant durant une nouvelle conception, comme par exemple, dans le domaine des moteurs, la contradiction poids/puissance, ou en informatique, la contradiction vitesse/empreinte mémoire.
Description de la situation à étudier à l'aide d'un schéma fonctionnel
Modules de résolution ayant pour objectif de structurer et de systématiser la démarche de réflexion (génération d'un maximum d'idées autour d'un problème rencontré)
Répertoire de 7500 connaissances scientifiques et techniques permettant d'affiner les concepts générés et d'en trouver d'autres
Extraction d'informations de bases de brevets publics, proposition d'outils pour en analyser rapidement des résultats
Tri des idées les plus intéressantes et génération de rapport.

 

Some TRIZ is in the public domain.
Some TRIZ resides in knowledge bases held by commercial consulting organizations. A complete and open TRIZ development process is not yet evident. Various camps vie for control of TRIZ and interpretation of its findings and applications.

The effectiveness of TRIZ is in dispute in many Engineering circles. Claims by some inventors that they arrived at their inventions with the help of TRIZ cannot be independently verified. Very often managers try to introduce TRIZ into their organizations in order to not be blamed for failures (a kind of "due diligence" and a means of preventing such accusations as "why have you not used TRIZ ?")
Frequently, TRIZ is also sold to people outside of engineering disciplines as a way to 'produce' creativity in any field of human activity without any grounds for that and ignoring the fact that traditionally TRIZ has grown up in the domain of engineering.

Effectiveness

According to commercial promoters of TRIZ, as a collage of concepts and tools TRIZ has been employed by many Fortune 500 companies in the United States and other countries to solve manufacturing problems and create new products.
These promoters claim that companies such as BAE Systems, CSC, Procter & Gamble, Ford Motor Company, Boeing, Philips Semiconductors, Samsung, LG Electronics, and many others have used TRIZ concepts to systematically solve complex technical and organizational problems. They also claim that the use of TRIZ has been expanding into other areas, and that TRIZ has been used successfully in biomedical research, medicine, computer programming, business management, etc.
These claims have not been independently confirmed.

Date :


Le 19 février 2010
BAUMGARTNER (Jeffrey —)
The Corporate Innovation Machine

             
Jeffrey Baumgartner   Corporate Innovation Machine   Innovation_Machine   ••
Jeffrey Baumgartner, fondateur de JPB
The Corporate Innovation Machine
The Corporate Innovation Machine
             
Innovation_process   ••
Processus de recherche d'idées d'amélioration face à un problème interne
             
Idea Management       ••   ••
Processus d'évaluation d'une idée
Insertion d'un visuel
Insertion d'un visuel

JPB : Près de Bruxelles
Un logiciel de management des idées: Jenni
Voir : JPB, ……… 
Voir
Tag : ……

 


BENNIS (Warren —) & THOMAS (Robert—)
Geeks and Geezers.

                 
••   ••   Geeks & Geezers   ••   ••
Warren Bennis
Robert Thomas
Insertion d'un visuel
   

Texte

Tag : ……

Pour mémoire (Wikipédia)


o o o
   
………  
………
Date  


 


BENNIS (Warren —)
Organizing Genius.
The Secret of Creative Collaboration
(1998)

             
•   •   •••    
Waren Bennis
Addison-Wesley, 1999
Visuel à insérer
             
••   ••   •••    
McIntosh
U-2
SR_7I
             
••   ••   •••    
A-117
A-117
A-117

Warren Bennis est un expert en leadership
Comment les studios Walt Disney et les Skunk Works de Lockheed-Martin ont des idées et les réalisent grâce à de Grandes Équipes.
Un chapitre est consacré à Ben Rich et au F-117

Tag : ……

Pour mémoire (Wikipédia)


o o o
   
………  
………
Date  



BENOIT-CERVANTES (Géraldine —)
La Boîte à outils de l'innovation
(2008)
 
•   • •
2008   Géraldine
Benoit-Cervantes
  L'entonnoir de l'innovation
             
•
•

Le cycle hype de Gartner   Les quatre grands types d'innovation        
   
             
•
•

Le modèle de l'entonnoir   La matrice de Kano        
BENYUS (Janine —)
Biomimicry. Innovation Inspired by Nature
 
•   • •
200…       GlobalTED, Oxford, juillet 2009

  Jean-Louis Swiners. Revu le 9 octobre 2010.
BERGER (Roland —), DUTTA ( Soumitra —),
RAFFEL (Tobias—) & SAMUELS (Geofffrey —)

Innovating at the Top.
How Global CEOs Drive Innnovation For Growth and Profit
(2009)

                 
Roland Berger   Soumitra Dutta  
Raffel
  Samuels   •
Roland Berger, né à Berlin en 1937,72 ans
Soumitra Dutta, Professeur INSEAD
Tobias Raffel, Roland Berger, Berlin
  Geoffrey Samuels, journaliste économique
(2009)…

Munich en 1967

Roland Berger est un cabinet allemand de consultants
Comment les PDG de quelques-unes des entreprises les plus innovantes du monde entretiennent l'esprit d'innovation de leur entreprise :
– Bosch
– Genentech
  – Infosys
– Nokia
– Reseach In Motion
– SAP
– 3M
– Toyota
– Unilever

Table des matières

• Reality-Based Analysis, First Principles, and Transparent Review to Stimulate Innovation--J. Balsillie
• Innovation Is Not A Process--G. W. Buckley
• Business Strategy and Disciplined Process to Manage Open Network Platforms--P. Cescau
• Strict Attention to Customer Needs--F. Cho
• Innovation Mindset Supported by Processes and Substantial Resources--F. Fehrenbach
• Organize Global Diversity, Partners to Anticipate Change--O. Kallasvuo
• Process and Organization more Important than Invention--H. Kagermann
• Informed Decision-Makers in Collegial, Supportive Environment--A. Levinson
• Culture of Meritocracy, Openness, Youth, New Ideas--N. R. Narayana Murthy

                 
255   255  
255
  255   •
Balsillie
Buckley
Levinson
  Murthy
(2009)…

Dix régles
  • Le numéro un de de l'entreprise doit être le champion de l'innovation
  • Célébrer la culture de l'innovation
  • Savoir utiliser les talents extérieurs
  • Encourager la diversité culturelle grâce à la fertilissation croisée
  • Utiliser le savoir-faire des consommateurs
  • Etc.

Tag : Bosch, Genentech, Infosys, Nokia, Research in Motion, SAP, 3M, Toyota, Unlever.

Pour mémoire (Wikipédia)
Roland Berger
   
Roland Berger (born November 22, 1937, in Berlin) is a German entrepreneur, consultant and philanthropist. He is the founder and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the international strategy consulting firm Roland Berger Strategy Consultants which he established in Munich, Germany, in 1967.
He has been a close advisor of Gerhard Schröder, beginning when Schröder was the Prime Minister of Lower Saxony and continuing through his tenure as Chancellor of Germany. Berger reportedly declined an offer to become Economics Minister in 1998 when Schröder became Chancellor because Berger was also advising the politically conservative Prime Minister of Bavaria Edmund Stoiber.
Roland Berger is also the founder of the Roland Berger Foundation for Human Dignity.
  Furthermore, Roland Berger is a founding partner of Berger Lahnstein Middelhoff & Partners which he formed with Thomas Middelhoff, Florian Lahnstein, Gero Wendenberg and Jason Carley. This appears to be the first time Berger has associated his name with a venture other than Roland Berger Strategy Consultants and the Foundation.
He is also Chairman Germany on the International Advisory Board of Blackstone Group and serves as a member of the Board of Directors of INSEAD.
He is also a member of the supervisory board of the pharmaceuticals and healthcare company Fresenius SE.
Date  février 2010
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants
   

Roland Berger Strategy Consultants a été créé en Allemagne par l'universitaire Roland Berger en 1967, et a connu depuis une croissance continue jusqu'à devenir un des principaux cabinets de conseil en stratégie, le tout premier d’origine non anglo-saxonne.
Avec 35 bureaux dans 24 pays, il opère en Europe, en Asie et en Amérique. En 2007, ses 2000 consultants ont généré un chiffre d'affaires de 600 millions d’euros. Ce cabinet est un partenariat indépendant, possédé seulement par ses 160 associés.

  En 2007, Vault classait Roland Berger Strategy Consultants à la 13e position de son classement des 50 plus grands cabinets mondiaux.
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants conseille des multinationales, mais aussi des organisations à but non lucratif et des établissements publics dans de nombreuses problématiques de gestion – alignement stratégique, introduction de nouveaux modèles organisationnels, stratégie d’implémentation stratégique de systèmes d’information.
Date  2010


BERKUN ( Scott —)
The Myths of Innovation, 2008

 
•   • •   •
2008   Scott Berkun        

BLANCHARD (Ken —) & Terry Waghorn,
Anticiper le Changement.

Améliorer le présent et façonner l'avenir de votre entreprise
(1997)
             
•
•
•
•
Ken Blanchard  
Terry Waghorn, Forbes
  (1997) (1997)  
En anglais : Mission possible. Becoming a World-Class Organization While There's Still Time
•   Deux équipes :
une pour l'amélioration du présent et une pour façonner l'avenir de votre entreprise
Même recommandation de la part de :
Derek Abell
Andy Grove
Robert Sutton

 

C


CAGAN ( Jonathan —) & VOGEL (Craig —)
Creating Breakthrough Products.
Innovation From Product Planning To Program Approval, 2002
           
Jonathan_Cagan Craig_Vogel  
•
  •
        2002   La matrice de positionnement (la nôtre est à neuf cases et les axes sont intervertis mais la structure profonde est strictemment la même — c'est celle du Bauhaus)
       
  •    
    Les trois grands facteurs généraux d'opportunités (POG)    

 
CARROLL (Lewis —),
De l'Autre côté du miroir

             
Lewis Carroll
De l'Aitre côté du miroir
Alice et la Reine Rouge
Alice et la Reine Rouge
Charles Dogdson   Humpty Dumpty (gros Coco) sur son mur   La reine Rouge entraînant Alice
dans une course folle
   
Tag : ………
     

CHALLAMEL (Brice —)
Le matin du 8e jour.
De la créativité individuelle à l'innovation collective,
2008
 
•   • •   •
2008   BrIce Challamel  
Le lancement de CK One par Calvin Klein, « Un parfum de renouveau », p. 143-156
Le Cirque du Soleil, « Tous les chemins mènent aux centres », p. 157-166

   25 février 2010
CHARAN (RAM —)

             
Ram Charan   Designed to Innovate   The Game Changer   Charan
Ram Charan
Designed to Innovatel
Avec Lafley , The Game-Changer

Texte

Tag : ……

Pour mémoire (Wikipédia)

Titre

………    
 

 

Jean-Louis Swiners. Le 21 février 2010
CHESBROUGH (Henry —)
Open Innovation.
Researching a New Paradigm (
2001)

             
•   •     255
Henry Chesbrough
Le paradigme
2001
Center for Open Innovation, Berkeley
Tag : Entonnoir troué, Open Innovation,


Open Innovation.
The New Imperative for Creating
and Profiting from Technology
(2005)
         
• •   •
2005       Le paradigme
         
•     •
Bonnes pratiques de l'innovation ouverte       Matrice Stratégique de l'Innovation
Texte
Tag : Amélioration incrémentale, Amélioration radicale, Open Innovation

Pour mémoire (Wikipédia)


• Henry Chesbrough
   
Henry Chesbrough coined the term open innovation and is the author of Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (HBS Press, 2003).
He has also written two other books on open innovation:
Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape (HBS Press, 2006)
and Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm (Oxford, 2006), an edited book of academic papers.
Chesbrough is currently an adjunct professor and the executive director of the Center for Open Innovation at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.
  Prior to Haas, he taught at the Harvard Business School as an assistant professor and Class of 1961 Fellow from 1997 - 2003.
Chesbrough holds a BA in Economics from Yale University, an MBA from Stanford Graduate School of Business, and a PhD from the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.
He acts as the chairman of the Open Innovation Center - Brazil. His first appearance in Brazil was in 2008, when he did a presentation in the Open Innovation Seminar 2008. The Seminar will occur again in October, 22 and 23.
Date  

Open Innovation & Open source
   

" Open Innovation " is a term promoted by Henry Chesbrough, a professor and executive director at the Center for Open Innovation at UC Berkeley, in his book Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology.
Theconcept is related to user innovation, cumulative innovation, know-how trading, mass innovation and distributed innovation.

“Open innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology”.

The boundaries between a firm and its environment have become more permeable; innovations can easily transfer inward and outward. The central idea behind open innovation is that in a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but should instead buy or license processes or inventions (e.g. patents) from other companies. In addition, internal inventions not being used in a firm's business should be taken outside the company (e.g., through licensing, joint ventures, spin-offs).
Several companies currently operate as open innovation intermediaries, including:
InnoCentive, Hypios, InnovationXchange, NineSigma, yet2.com and Tekscout in US,
PRESANS in France,
Innoget in Spain,
and Fellowforce among others.
Other companies such as Deutsche Telekom report on using multiple instruments to open up their innovation system. Such instruments include corporate venture capital funds, foresight workshops, executive forums, and spin-outs

Closed Innovation and its erosion
The paradigm of closed innovation says that successful innovation requires control.
A company should control (the generating of) their own ideas, as well as production, marketing, distribution, servicing, financing, and supporting. The main cause behind this idea is that, in the beginning of the twentieth century, universities and government were not involved in the commercial application of science. Some companies therefore decided to do it all on their own. They created their own research and development (R&D) departments to be able to control the whole new product development (NPD) cycle inside the company. There just was not the time to wait for the scientific community to become more involved in the practical application of science. There also was not enough time to wait for other companies to start producing some of the components that were required in their final product. These companies became relatively self-sufficient ‘castles’, with little communication directed outwards to other companies or universities.

 

 

Throughout the years several factors emerged that eroded the closed innovation paradigm:
• The increasing availability and mobility of skilled workers
• The growth of the venture capital market
• External options for ideas sitting on the shelf
• The increasing capability of external suppliers
These four factors have resulted in a new market of knowledge. Knowledge is not anymore proprietary to the company. It resides in employees, suppliers, customers, competitors, and universities. If companies do not use the knowledge they have inside, someone else will. Innovation has shifted from being closed to being open.
Open source vs. Open Innovation
While open source and open innovation might conflict on patent issues, they are not mutually exclusive, as participating companies can donate their patents to an independent organization, put them in a common pool or grant unlimited license use to anybody. Hence some open source initiatives can merge the two concepts, this is the case for instance for IBM with its Eclipse platform which IBM is advocating as a case of open innovation, where competing companies are invited to co-operate inside an open innovation network.
In 1997, Eric Raymond, writing about the open source software movement, coined the term 'the cathedral and the bazaar'. The cathedral represented the conventional method of employing a group of experts to design and develop software (though it could apply to any large-scale creative or innovative work). The bazaar represented the open source approach. This idea has been amplified by a lot of people, notably Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams in their book Wikinomics. Eric Raymond himself is also quoted as saying that 'one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug, and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode.' In the same vein, Raymond is also quoted as saying, 'The individual wizard is where successful bazaar projects generally start'.
Open Source specialist François Letellier advocates that open source (or free software) is a natural way of innovation in the software industry and that it is an exemplary and very effective form of open innovation - as open-source projects/communities act as innovation intermediaries.

Date  




Dernières modifications : 6 novembre 2013
CHRISTENSEN (Clayton —)
The Innovator's Dilemma
(1997, 2000, 2003)
 
•   • Schéma Christensen
Né en 1952,
61 ans
  1997, 2000, 2003   Introduction de l'expression « disruptive technologies » dans le vocabulaire
Professeur d'administration des affaires à Harvard
Fondateur d'Innosight, Watertown, Boston
Tag : Innovation créatrice de valeur, technologie de rupture

Dernières modifications : 6 novembre 2013
CHRISTENSEN (Clayton —) & RAYNOR (Michael —)
The Innovator's Solution.
Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth
         
•   •
•
  255
         

Dernières modifications : 6 novembre 2013
CHRISTENSEN (Clayton —), ANTHONY (Scott —)
& ROTH ( Erik—)

Seeing What's Next.
Using Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change

(2004)
         
•   Seeing_What_s_Next 255
         
     
•   •

Pour mémoire (Wikipédia)
   
Born April 6, 1952, he is the Robert and Jane Cizik Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School, with a joint appointment in the Technology & Operations Management and General Management faculty groups.
He is best known for his study of innovation in commercial enterprises.
His first book, The Innovator's Dilemma, articulated his theory of disruptive technology.
Early life
Christensen was born in Salt Lake City, Utah, the second of eight children. He holds a B.A. with highest honors in economics from Brigham Young University (1975), an M.Phil. in applied econometrics and the economics of less-developed countries from Oxford University (1977, Rhodes Scholar), an MBA with High Distinction from the Harvard Business School (1979, George F. Baker Scholar), and a DBA from the Harvard Business School (1992).
Career
Before joining the faculty of Harvard Business School (HBS) in 1992, Christensen worked for the Boston Consulting Group and then served as chairman and president of Ceramics Process Systems Corporation (Now CPS Holdings), a firm he co-founded with several MIT professors in 1984.
In 2000, he founded Innosight LLC, a consulting and training firm which describes itself as "focusing on idea generation, strategy development, commercialization, and innovative process development."
In 2005, together with his collegues at Innosight he launched Innosight Ventures, a venture firm focused on investing in India.
In 2007, after incubating the processes for six years, Christensen co-founded Rose Park Advisors LLC (named after the neighborhood of Salt Lake City where he was raised), an investment company which applies his research as an investment strategy.
  He serves on the board of directors of Tata Consultancy Services (NYSE: TCS), Franklin Covey (NYSE: FC), and Vanu, Inc.
He also served as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Republic of Korea (1971 - 1973).[1]
He worked as a consultant and project leader with the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) (1979-1984); instrumental in founding the firm's manufacturing strategy consulting practice. He took a leave of absence from BCG to serve as a White House Fellow (1982-1983) as assistant to U.S. Transportation Secretaries Drew Lewis and Elizabeth Dole
Personal life
Clay Christensen lives in Belmont, Massachusetts with his five children and wife Christine. Matthew attended Duke and played on their 2001 championship basketball team and is an HBS grad. He and his wife, Elizabeth, have three children. Ann, also a Duke and HBS graduate, is a business consultant at a venture capital firm. Michael attended Harvard College and is currently attending HBS. Spencer just returned from serving a Mormon mission in Taiwan and is a college sophomore. Catherine, a high school senior and class president, is the youngest.
Christensen has served in several leadership positions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He has been an Area Authority Seventy since April 2002. Prior to that he served as a counselor in the Massachusetts Boston Mission Presidency. He has also served as a bishop. He speaks fluent Korean.
Date  : février 2010

 



ca. dec. 2009
CHRISTIANSEN (James A. —)
Competitive Innovation Management.
Techniques to Improve Innovations Performance
(2000)

             
Competive Innovation Management
•••
•••
Pas de photo à ce jour   2000        
Tag : Innovation créatrice de valeur



ca. dec. 2009


CHRISTIANSEN (James A. —)
Building The Innovative Organization.
Management Systems That Encourage Innovation
(2000)

             
Building Innovative Organization
•••
•••
Pas de photo à ce jour   2000        
Tag : Innovation créatrice de valeur

 
COOPER (Robert —) & Scott EDGETT
Generating Breakthrough New Product Ideas.
Feeding the Innovation Funnel
(2009)

             
Cooper   Wining at New Products   Product_leadership   Mega Bloks Process
Robert Cooper
Winning at New Products (1986)
Mega Bloks
             
Processus Stage-gate
Stage-Gate Model
             
Edgett     Portfolio Management   ……   Lean
Scott J. Edgett
   
Etc.
Livre 1
Livre 2

Texte

Tag : ……

Pour mémoire (Wikipédia)


STAGE GATE MODEL
   

A stage-gate model is a technique in which a (product, process, system) development process is divided into stages separated by gates.
At each gate, the continuation of the development process is decided by (typically) a manager or a steering committee.
The decision is based on the information available at the time, including e.g. business case, risk analysis, availability of necessary resources (money, people with correct competencies) etc.
The stage-gate model may also be known as stage-limited commitment or creeping commitment.

History
The stage-gate model was developed and first suggested by Robert G. Cooper in his book Winning at New Products, published in 1986.
The stage gate model refers to the use of funnel tools in decision making when dealing with new product development.
« Gates » or decision points are placed at places in the product development process that are most beneficial to making decisions regarding continuance of product development. These production areas between the gates are : idea generation, establishment of feasibility, development of capability, testing and validation and product launch.
At the conclusion of each of these areas of development of a new product, it is the manager’s responsibility to make a decision as to whether or not the product should continue to be developed. The passing of gate to gate can be accomplished either formally, with some sort of documentation, or informally, decided upon based on the preferences and culture of the organization.
Stages

A common model is composed of the following stages: ideation, preliminary analysis, business case, development, testing, launch.
A stage-gate model is a conceptual and operational road map for moving a new project from idea to launch -a blueprint for managing the new-product process to improve effectiveness and efficiency.
The creator of Stage-Gate process was professor Robert G. Cooper, from McMaster University.
The traditional Stage-Gate process has five stages and five gates.The stages are:
Scoping
Build Business Case
Development
Testing and Validation
Launch
Conventionally, the gates between stages have the same number as the stage following them.
In the front of process, there is a preliminary or ideation phase,called Discovery, and after the 5-th stage the process ends with the Post-Launch review.Major new product projects go through the full five-stage process.Moderate risk projects,including extensions,modification & improvements,use the short XPress version. Very minor changes (e.g. Sales-force& Marketing requests) may be executed using a lighter process (Stage-Gate Lite).Each stage consists of a set of prescribed,cross-functional,and parallel activities undertaken by a team of people from different functional areas.
Stages have a common structure and consist of three main elements :
a)Activities;
b)Integrated Analysis;
c)Deliverables.
Activities consist mainly in information gathering by the project team to reduce key project uncertainties and risks. An integrated analysis of the results of the activities is undertaken by the project team. Deliverables of stages are the results of integrated analysis-and these are the input to the next Gate.
Gates

Gates provide various points during the process where an assessment of the quality of an idea is undertaken. It includes three main issues:
Quality of execution: Checks whether the previous step is executed in a quality fashion.
Business rationale: Does the project continue to look like an attractive idea from an economic and business perspective.
Action plan: The proposed action plan and the requested resources reasonable and sound.
A gate meeting can lead to four results: go, kill, hold, recycle.
Gates have a common structure and consist of three main elements: Deliverables, Criteria and Outputs.
Deliverables: What the project manager and team deliver to the decision point.These deliverables are decided at the output of the previous gate,and are based on a standard menu of deliverables for each gate.
Criteria: Questions or metrics on which the project is judged in order to make the Go/Kill/Hold/Recycle and prioritization decision.
Outputs: Results of the gate review -a decision (Go/Kill/Hold/Recycle),along with an approved action plan for the next gate, and a list of deliverables and date for the next gate.


THE STAGES IN MORE DETAILS

Discovery (stage 0)
The discovery stage is the first part of any product development, whether or not the stage gate model is being utilized. During this basic stage the development team is simply deciding what projects the company wants and is capable to pursue. During this stage it is common for companies to take part in idea generation activities such as brainstorming or other group thinking exercises. Once the idea generation team has selected a project that they would like to go forward with, it must be passed on to the first gate and therefore screened by the organization’s decision makers. When searching for new product ideas it is beneficial for an organization to look to the outside world to suggest business opportunities. Using methods such as those found in empathic design can be quite helpful. Communicating with customers to understand how and why they use products can produce great strides in idea generation. Specifically, communicating with lead users can provide great feedback to the developers, as these customers are most likely to feel most passionately about the product. In addition to communication with lead users, it may be helpful for developers to communicate with suppliers. By understanding all of the types of business that their materials are being used for, developers may be able to act upon previously untapped possibilities.
Scoping (stage 1)
The second stage of the product development process is scoping. During this step the main goal is to evaluate the product and its corresponding market. The researchers must recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the product and what it is going to offer to the potential consumer. The competition must also be evaluated during this stage. It is important for the researchers to understand who and what is already in the market as well as what can potentially be developed. By determining the relative level of threat from competitors, the management team will be able to recognize whether or not they should go forward with the production of the product, whether or not they should pass the product onto the next stage.
[edit]Building the Business Case and Plan (stage 2)
Once the new product passes through gate one after the scoping phase, the next phase in the stage-gate model is building the business case and plan. This stage is the last stage of concept development where it is crucial for companies to perform a solid analysis before they begin developing the product. In comparison to the other stages in the stage-gate model this phase is generally difficult, complex, and resource-intensive. However, companies must put forth a strong effort in this stage for it is directly related to the success and development of a new product. There are four main steps that comprise this stage: Product Definition and Analysis, Building the Business Case, Building the Project Plan, and Feasibility Review.
Product Definition and Analysis
The first step, Product Definition and Analysis, is composed of a series of activities that will give you the information to define and justify the development of a new product. One of the first of these activities is the user needs and wants study where you will try to determine what creates value for the consumer. This addresses questions about the product such as what benefits does the product provide and what features should the product have. During this time the company should conduct surveys and interviews with existing and potential customers, along with staff members. Next, the company must conduct a market analysis. They must determine the market size and segmentation, rate of growth, buyer trend and behavior, and what channels to reach these buyers. Once the market analysis is complete the company must then conduct a competitive analysis. It is important to know how your competitors operate in addition to their strengths and weaknesses. This will not only help you build a great product, but will also help in determining how and where to launch your new product. Together these activities will help define the product and provide a foundation for the marketing strategy. Next, the company must build a technically feasible product concept, which includes the substance and methods needed to produce the new product. Once this is completed the company can then produce a production and operations cost analysis along with a market and launch costs analysis. Next, the company can begin to test the concept they have developed. This is when early prototypes are developed then presented to staff and consumers to gain feedback and gauge customer reaction. From this the company can make the necessary changes and see the sales potential of the product. This feedback will also help the company build a solid product definition. Lastly, the company will then conduct the business analysis, risk analysis, and financial analysis of the new product. These activities collectively make up the Product Definition and Analysis, the first of four steps.

 

 


Building the Business Case (Step 2)
Now one can move on to the second step, Building the Business Case. The business case is a document that defines the product and provides the rationale for developing it. This document will vary in format amongst companies, but the primary components are the following: results of the activities of Product Definition and Analysis; legal and regulatory requirements; safety, health, and environmental considerations; assumptions made to draw the conclusions you have, and why you believe they are valid and reasonable; and out-of-bounds criteria that indicate certain changes/events which will mandate an emergency business case review. This document will be referred to throughout the development process and edited when necessary.
Building the Project Plan (Step 3)
The third of the four steps is Building the Project Plan. This includes a scheduled list of tasks and events along with timelines for milestones throughout the development process. Also included in the project plan are the personnel, time, and financial resources needed to complete the project. The project plan includes an expected launch date for the release of the new product.
Feasibility Review
The last step of building the business case and plan is the Feasibility Review. This is when management, along with other departments of the company, reviews the rationale for pursuing the product. They analyze the information provided by the previous steps in this process to decide whether or not the product should move forward. If it is decided to be pursued then it passes through gate two and moves on to the Product Development stage.
Development (stage 3)
During the development phase of the stage-gate process, plans from previous steps are actually executed. The product’s design and development is carried out, including some early, simple tests of the product and perhaps some early customer testing. The product's marketing and production plans are also developed during this stage. It is important that the company adheres to their overall goal of the project, which is reflected in these production and marketing plans. Doing this will allow them to definitively decide who they will market their product to and how they will get the product to that target audience. The development team maps out a realistic timeline with specific milestones that are described as SMART: Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, and Time bound. The timeline is frequently reviewed and updated, helping the team stay on task and giving management information about the product's progress. The development stage is when the product truly builds momentum as the company commits more resources to the project and makes full use of cross-functional teamwork as the marketing, technical, manufacturing, and sales departments all come together to offer their expert opinions. Having a diverse development ensures that the product continues to meet the company's technical and financial goals. A diverse team also allows specific roles and leadership positions to develop as team members make contributions using their strongest attributes. With members having clearly defined roles, tasks can be performed concurrently ensuring a much more efficient development process. The ultimate deliverable of the development stage is the prototype, which will undergo extensive testing and evaluation in the next stage of the stage-gate process.
Testing and Validation (stage 4)
The fourth step in Stage-Gate processing is the testing and validation period. The purpose of this stage is to provide validation for the entire project. The areas that will be evaluated include: the product itself, the production/manufacturing process, customer acceptance, and the financial merit of the project. Testing and Validation is broken up into 3 phases of testing: Near Testing, Field Testing, and Market Testing. Again, the main point of these tests is to validate your product.
Near Testing
The main objective in the first phase, near testing, is to find any bugs or issues with a product. The key point to remember here is that the product is no longer a prototype anymore and that it has almost all the features of the commercial model. Testing will be done initially by in-house staff, customers, and partners who are close to the firm. It is important to remember those testing have an understanding of how the product should perform, so they know what it should or shouldn’t be doing. Members of the research development team are usually present to observe the participants using the product and take any notes or data that may be useful.
Field Testing
Field Testing, or beta testing, is done by those who can provide valuable feedback on the product. This usually lasts a long period of time and the participants can include customers, partners, or anyone who is not familiar with the producing company. At this juncture the product fully resembles its planned launch model in all aspects; therefore the participant’s interaction rate will be higher because they know all the features and benefits. During this segment there are three primary objectives to be achieved. The first objective is to see how much the participant is interested. It is also worthwhile to note which individual attribute they prefer and, obviously, if they would buy the product. Next, figure out how the customer uses the product and look at its durability. Take a look at what environment the customers will be using the item in. Recording and analyzing the feedback received will be the final step in the field testing stage. The feedback can be used as a tool to help adjust any minor design improvements that need to be made. The Sales and Marketing team will also be a beneficiary of this feedback. They can use the information to help with their sales presentation and make it easier when they are trying to market the product.
Market Testing
The last phase in the Testing and Validation stage is the market testing. Unlike the other two, this is completely optional. It all boils down to this: A solid marketing plan and launch plan along with a confidence in the products ability to sell: go to the launching stage. If there is a doubt in any of these plans there are two options to proceed with. One option is a simulated market test. Customers will be exposed to new products in a staged advertising and purchasing situation. The goal of this test is to obtain an early forecast of sales from the observations and making any necessary adjustments. The second option involves trial sells. This test is done through specific channels, regions, or consumer demographics.
Product Launch (stage 5)
The product launch is the fifth and final stage of the stage- gate process and is the culmination of the product having met the proper requirements of the previous stage-gates. The product launch stage is one of the most important, if not the most important stage of product development. Development teams must come up with a marketing strategy to generate customer demand for the product. The company must also have to decide how large scale they anticipate the market for a new product to be and thus determine the size of their starting volume production. In addition part of the launch stage is training sales personnel and support personnel who are very familiar with the product and that can assist in market sales of this product. Having a smooth launch process is an important part in the stage-gate process because it translates to faster time to profit, but if done thoroughly and well step by step, a smooth launch process should also result in more effective marketing, a knowledgeable and prepared sales force, and ideally early customer acceptance. Another aspect which companies often misjudge during the launch process is the topic of setting a product price. Companies must dedicate sufficient time to price setting during the launch process to avoid either undershooting or overpricing the potential market. Finally, distribution is a major decision making part of the launch process. Selecting a distributor or vender for a product must be done with careful though and potential sales in mind. Taking all of these factors of the launch process into consideration is key to a successful product launch and in general a successful product.
AVANTADGES AND DISAVANTAGES

There are many benefits to using the stage-gate model.
The organization of a firm’s innovation process can provide competitive advantage for a company, in that other companies will not be able to come up with products at the same quickness and quality level. Poor projects are quickly rejected by the model, resulting in a fast paced track for those products which are going to prove to be more successful for a firm. When using the stage gate model in a larger company, the model can help to make what could potentially be a large and limiting innovation process into a simple, guideline lead approach which allows an organization to demonstrate prioritization and focus into their development process. When a stage gate model uses cost and fiscal analysis tools such as net present value, the company can potentially be provided with quantitative information regarding the feasibility of going forth with potential products. Finally, the stage-gate model is a great opportunity to validate the updated business case by project’s executive sponsors.
The main problem with the stage-gate process is the potential for structural organization to interfere with creativity. Some experts believe that overkill of structure can cause creativity and customization to be put on the back burner of importance in an organization.
The process needs to be modified to include a top-down link to the business strategy if applied to IT and other non-product development projects.

Date  : fev. 2010


  Date
COYNE (Kevin —), GORMAN-CLIFFORD (Patricia —) & DYE (Renee —)
Breakthrough Thinking from Inside the Box (2007)


             
Cioyne   HBR   •••   255
Kevin Coyne
Harvard Business Review
Insertion d'un visuel

Kevin Coyne, Fondateur et CEO de Coyne Partnership, Atlanta
Patricia Gorman Clifford & Renee Dye : McKinsey

Tag : Brainstorming, Haagen-Dasz, Outside-the-box, Rollerblade

Pour mémoire (Harvard Business Review)
………  
………
The secret to getting your organization to regularly generate lots of good ideas, and occasionally some great ones, is deceptively simple.
First, create new boxes for people to think within so that they don't get lost in the cosmos and they have a basis for offering ideas and knowing whether they're making progress in the brainstorming session.
Second, redesign ideation processes to remove obstacles that interfere with the flow of ideas — such as most people's aversion to speaking in groups larger than ten.

This article offers a tested approach that poses concrete questions. For example, what do Rollerblades, Haagen-Dazs ice cream, and Spider-Man movies have in common?
The answer: Each is something that adults loved as children and that was reproduced in an expensive form for grown-ups.
Asking brainstorming participants to ponder how their childhood passions could be recast as adult offerings might generate some fabulous ideas for new products or services.


980px
©2004, 2013 Jean–Louis Swiners et INNOVATION-CREATIVE.COM