Scott, Duncan and Siren (2014, p.1) came up with steps that employees are supposed to implement in order to design the innovation engines which In this case are processes that enhance the development of ideas that are innovative in nature and the contribution of the employees in the same activities (Sobelman, 2018). The steps were short to implement as it requires a timeline of only 90 days. Scott, Duncan and Siren were simply looking at steps which will make innovation a responsibility of every employee in the organization from the top manager to the bottom as it was the best way to guarantee the success of the innovative projects.
When coming up with the steps Scott, Duncan and Siren (2014, p.1) were of the view that in most cases, when the top managers decide to inject innovation through employment innovative minded employees, the very initial step that they need to consider it should be about the changing the structures that are currently existing in the organization, the next phase would be allocating resources which include manpower, tools and machinery. According to Olsen (2016, p.1), this resources would enhance the teamwork and specialization of the process adding innovation in it and finally, on the process, the substantial amount that the organization has generated is supposed to be reinvested back so that it supports the above process.
However, a step by step mechanism was offered by the authors that when utilized it will develop an innovative engine at a lower cost as compared to the above process. This steps takes a considerable amount of time therefore enabling the organization time to relook at the process and rectify it within the shortest time possible.
People Also Read
Fig 1: steps for MVIS retrieved from Scott, Duncan, Anthony and Siren (2018). Build an Innovation Engine in 90 Days. [online] Slideshare.net. Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/InnosightConsulting/build-an-innovation-engine-in-90-days-webinar [Accessed 29 Oct. 2018].
. The steps for the evaluation of minimum variable innovation system are:
Step 1: defining the innovation bucket: the authors were at the point of view that there are two types of attempts that are channelled towards the development of innovative ideas: Olsen (2016, p.1) stated that it’s either that a new dimension is being added to the already existing methods or ideas or a totally brand new idea is being developed. In the case of Manila watercompany regardless of any dimension, the teams that are a task to work on the ideas should be in a position to recognize the correct bucket which their project belongs to (Scott, Duncan &Siren, 2014, p.1).
Step 2. Narrowing down on some of the strategic ideas. According to Scott, Duncan and Siren (2014, p.1) in this step a number of prospective ideas which has a likelihood of being a successful innovation might come in plenty, it’s up to the team that works on the project to ensure they prioritize only a few projects that will have a great impact on the organization.
Step 3: Forming a dedicated team which is small and would be operating on the innovative ideas: having a small dedicated team to take over the projects would be essential not only for helping the organization to conduct a research which is organized but also essential in ensuring the effectiveness of the human resource (Sobelman 2018, p. 1).
Step 4: develop an apparatus is capable of being used to instil a sense of discipline in the organization operation activities of the innovation projects: while it’s a fact that sometimes innovative projects often appear to lead organization into a chaotic situations, it is important to maintain the discipline in any project that the team handles as this would ensure the employees operate in an effective way (Sobelman 2018, p. 1).
Fig 2: 90 days steps for Minimum viable innovation system retrieved from
Scott, Anthony, Duncan, Pontus and Siren (2018). Build an Innovation Engine in 90 Days. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2014/12/build-an-innovation-engine-in-90-days [Accessed 29 Oct. 2018].
- According to Sobelman (2018, p.1) the model just as it is used in Google does not create a scenario whereby only a specialized teamwork at the early stages of the innovative process but it gives employees the freedom to participate in the innovative process and in the long run this would ensure positive energy in the team is maintained mostly towards innovative ideas.
- Melnick(2018, p.1) stated that the model gives employees liberty when working on the innovative project by eliminating the bureaucracy that requires the approvals of managers which can immensely contribute to the tainting of the positive attitude that employees should haveto.
- The model also plays a big role in reducing the stress level of employees, as every employee is given a chance to work on their individual innovative ideas and the employee is at liberty of spending up to 20% of his/her time working on innovative project that they feel comfortable with (Olsen 2016, p.1). According to Melnick(2018, p.1) besides reducing the stress level the same factor encourages efficiency and effectiveness as they work on the projects that they are willing to work and are more comfortable in.
- By allowing the employees to participate in the innovative projects, without looking at the employees designation, the employees will have a sense of belonging and will be interested in knowing what the management thinks about the project, in the long run, the model will ensure that employees are prepared and ready to face the failure of the projects with much efficiency if it occurs (Sobelman2018, p. 1).
- According to Sobelman (2018, p.1) if the model is implemented successfully will ensure the organization maintains its competitive edge by continuing to assess what the market needs and offering the exact solution. Olsen (2016, p.1) also emphasized on this point by stating that with the resources and the support that is accorded the project and not forgetting a sense of belonging which in itself acts as an incentive create a tight bond in the teams, reduces the turnover rate in the organization and every individual will focus on the long-term well-being of the projects hence they give 100%.
- The minimal viable innovation model is also cheap to implement considering the organization will not have to hire experts but use the available human resource as well as the budgeted financial resources for the model. Though small firms may find it difficult in terms of cost the model is actually cost-effective for big firms with adequate resources. It is also worth the risk as the returns from the innovative projects inject into the organization another bill of health increasing the rate of sustainability(Olsen 2016, p.1).
- Though the model leads to more upfront work, the risk which is often associated with wasted efforts, as well as high cost, is ultimately reduced. I believe this is the major reason why the model has been tested by various big companies a month them including, Samsung, the Google Inc., Facebook and Apple (Olsen 2016, p.1).
- According to Sobelman (2018, p.1), the model also strengthens the teamwork in an organization. This is due to the fact that every member will feel respected and appreciated, as the model encourages free sharing of innovative ideas which will inspire individuals in the team to feel part of the system and strive to deliver to remain relevant in the team and in return come up with more vibrant innovative ideas.
- The model is also faster to implement. According to Olsen (2016, p.1), the model only takes 90 days to implement, this saves time, as the team will be able to make amends where there might be an error within a short time hence ensuring the innovative projects have more chances of succeeding(Olsen 2016, p.1).
- There is a reduction of risk to the investors when the model is implemented. This is due to the fact that the implementation takes less time, therefore, any innovative product prototype can be tested by the target audience within a short period of time,make additional changes that the target market need before the final release, present the final product to the investors to prove viability before finally releasing it in the market(Sobelman2018, p. 1)..
- It adds flexibility into the innovative projects. This is based on the fact that the projects can be tested before the final release. This gives flexibility as it would be changed or redesigned to meet the target market expectation. For instance, if it’s a new product or an additional feature in an existing product, the fact that the product would be released in the market for testing and getting the customer feedback gives the model flexibility as it adapts through the market needs(Sobelman2018, p. 1).
- The model has more pros than cons. The major con is that it the model minimizes the scope of the individual employee’s innovations (Sobelman2018, p. 1). This is due to the fact that the innovation is customized into a specified path that limits the employee’s mind to think outside the box.
- Another con that comes about with this particular system is that is demands for a significant amount of upfront work to obtain reliable and consistent consumer feedback. Thus demanding for development efforts towards the vast range of product release, thus requiring revisions on the complete basis on feedback.
- Amongst the key objectives of the minimal viable innovation system is the validation in learning. The product however stands not as a proposal; therefore a fit in the productmarket occurs in a situation when the set value proposition is efficiently proven by a significant percentage of the total market transactions which creates business momentum. Therefore, having a product market fit, shows that you have already proven viability of a particular product and therefore there is no longer a requirement or need to be minimal henceforth.
- Another disadvantage of the minimum viable innovations system is the tendency to have minimal to no limit of precautions when it comes to time and funds managements. Thus indulging in time as well as funds wastage.
- The liberty that the innovation team have is usually a blessing in disguise in the sense that. The employees might lose track of the innovation that would be relevant to the vision and mission of the organization due to freedom that the project team is giving.
- The time given for the implementation of the innovative project is less as it might interfere with the productivity or the output of the employees. The time should not be restricted to 90 days considering also the fact that some innovative projects may experience some technicalities which will need a gradual implementation.
- The model tends to work well in bigger firms. Small and medium enterprises might find it difficult to implement the model, due to the limitation in the number of staff and lack of flexibility for the staff.
- Finally, there are many factors which might influence the innovative project and the model does not factor the external factors in. this factors might be political or economic and might hinder the proper implementation of the model as desired.
FIG 3: INNOVATION MANAGEMENT retrieved from
Brits, D. (2018). Elements of a Successful Innovation Roadmap | Innovation Management. [online] Innovation Management. Available at: http://www.innovationmanagement.se/2014/11/10/elements-of-a-successful-innovation-roadmap/ [Accessed 18 Oct. 2018].
Innovation management is a model which focusses on the future, and use innovation to ensure that in future the organization maintains its competitive edge by slicing a new niche before the competitors (Leiblein&Ziedonis 2011, p.31). According to Goffin (2016, p. 60)Just like MVIS model innovation management ensures the business has a longevity in terms of a competitive edge as the innovation strategy is meant to create new products and services for new market and in the long run, ensuring it helps the business generate more tangible profits.
Under innovation management, the management or the leaders supports individual or teams as they come up with ideas and innovation that is core to the management of the organization goals and activities which drive innovation (Chen& Wang2005, p.47). In other words, Innovation Management is initiated by the top management and employees in the companies try to come up with ideas. According to Rhodes and Wield (2001, p. 79) this is based on the agenda of the top management this is contrary to MVIS where the employees are free and ideas can come from bottom up in the sense that it’s not driven by the management but the employees are at liberty of coming up with the ideas which can make the organization competitive under innovation management it’s the management initiative to support the innovative teams. It’s upon the management to provide an enabling environment that favours ultimate innovation (Huang 2009, p. 64).
According to Rhodes and Wield (2001, p. 81) by exploiting the tools for innovative management, the management is capable of triggering and deploying the creative proficiencies of the workforce for the continuous development of the business. Both the MVIS and the innovation management use the same tools in order to boost creativity in their projects, the tools include, prototyping, brainstorming, ideation, product line planning among others. Manilla water company should use this tools as it would guarantee the company efficiency in the production process with limited.
Innovation management is significant in promoting institutional innovation as well as technological innovation. One of the major goals of innovation management in the organization is to foster a suitable environment that would encourage innovation. The favourable environment enables the business to get more cooperation projects and give business ventures the platform for take-off. With this in mind Minimum, viable innovation system model also can thrive in the same environment, it also relies on the goodwill and full support of the senior managers for the innovation to be successful. The innovative team needs to get full endorsement and support from the top managers as this would inspire individual to think out of the box and come up with incredible innovative ideas (Leiblein & Ziedonis 2011, p.31).
Both MVIS and Innovation management requires the employees who are talented at all aspects of the organization, the once that understanding the vision and the strategies that the organization has, and are dedicated and focused to ensure their ideas turn into an innovation which would generate more profit for the organization and also accelerate the speed at which the organization moves towards its set vision and objectives (Leiblein&Ziedonis 2011, p. 77).
On considering the liberty of the team that is spearheading innovation both the Innovation management and MVIS allows the team to be independent, to make independent decisions without being influenced by the management, they are allowed to think outside the box. this is further made possible under innovation management due to the fact that the innovative projects are separated from the existing business which allows the innovative team to be flexible and give it all for the sake of coming up with new innovative ideas (Huang2009, p. 66).
According to Scott, Duncan and Siren (2014, p. 1) minimum viable innovation system and innovation management both falls under two buckets. They are either an improvement of the existing business, offering or internal operation or they focus on reaching new segment and customer or even market with their innovation the same applies with Innovation management concept which is categorized into either pushed and pulled which just like in MVIS a pushed process is based on the new invented technology while a pulled is based on finding a new area or new segment or market and come up with innovative projects to satisfy the need of the newly acquired segment (Chen& Wang2005, p.50).
Minimal viable innovation system model has a timeline of 90 days (Scott, Duncan & Siren 2014, p. 1). When the model is accurately followed the project should take a maximum of 90 days this is contrary to innovation management whose time is not actually defined or standardized and as a result some projects might take longer time than others.
Finally, there is a thin line between minimal viable innovation system and innovation management. The only notable difference is the fact that in minimal viable innovation system entails steps which when implemented will guarantee success for the success of the innovative project while innovation management has no outline steps to follow but they converge at appoint where every employee has a responsibility of coming up with ideas which will keep the organization afloat in the future and maintain its competitiveness (Chen& Wang2005, p.50).
Innovation management tends to lean on building an innovative culture in the organization. Innovation management model influences the structure of the company in a way that it would dictate the innovative culture that will drive innovation amongst the employees in the organization. This is contrary to MVIS where the organization structures have got less impact on the innovation project as employees are set free and they can come up with their own ways of doing things. The culture in here comes from the teamwork and it is not therefore dictated by the top management (Huang 2009, p. 69).
“Remember, the “S” in MVIS stands for the system. You can’t pick and choose between the four elements described above. Do everything, or do nothing.”
The authors’ first advice was about the system. All the four elements in the initial of MVIS are cemented by the system (Scott, Duncan and Siren 2014, p.1). They all have to work in unison and they cannot be disintegrated. According to this case, the success of the model simply relies on the organization system as a whole, which involves the managers, the resources, other employees and stakeholders. This are different entities that need to work as one, the ‘do everything or do nothing’ statement by the author shows the kind of bond or teamwork that is required for the model to function it signifies the unanimity required where every aspect of the system should be designed to work in a way that it would ensure the success of the model.
In regards to the system, the organization needs to be looked as a whole, any disintegration affects the success of the model and so is the innovation projects the vision of the organization should be the blueprint that would guide the organization on the innovative projects that they need to give priority. Teamwork and resources are paramount and the system does not only involve the innovative project team but every individual who is working towards the organization vision and considering the fact that the Minimal viable innovation system does not limit innovation to the specific team as anyone is allowed to come up with viable ideas, every individual as important as they determine the success of the projects.
“One area that absolutely cannot be shortchanged is personnel. If you have no one fully focused on new growth, you’ve decided not to focus on new growth”
The authors in this statement illustrates the importance of involving the employees at all the stages, the organization should be responsible to instill a sense of belonging to the employees instead of looking at ways of shortchanging them and bringing new ones that would focus on the new projects in the organization (Scott, Duncan and Siren 2014, p.1). It’s upon the organization to ensure the employees are motivated about the new innovative projects, welcome their opinions and ideas and put them into consideration during the implementation of the project. Every personnel should be brought to the table. The statement also touches on the teamwork, in the sense that when you don’t have the confidence of the whole team or when the team does not function as one there is a higher probability that the project is going to fail and it would rather be abandoned.
The growth or the success of the organization is greatly influenced by the level of motivation the employees have. The most successful company like Google and Facebook are successful mostly because they are constantly innovative a contribution which is highly linked to the staff who are motivated. Organization are often affected by the turnover, therefore, replacing employees can never act as a solution for the growth of the organization the solution is with the motivation and sense of belonging in which is achieved through openness, cohesiveness in the team and enabling environment where employees can feel free to share ideas and opinions.
The Minimal viable innovation system model recognizes the need of every employee to contribute to the innovation process. It’s clear that this model does not necessarily approve for the additional employees to drive the innovative projects but just to ensure the existing ones that have walked and worked towards the set goals and vision enjoy their work, get fully motivated to enable them focus fully on innovative projects which would benefit the organization and maintain its competitive edge.
“How you treat failure is more important than how you reward success. Hiding or fearing failure spawns projects that never die and that suck up all your capacity for innovation.”
The organization should be very careful about how they treat the failure of the project (Scott, Duncan and Siren 2014, p.1). If handled in a wrong way it will interfere with the productivity of the employees and even affect their confidence making them scared of making a decision, coming up with ideas, avoiding the risks but promising ideas and in the long run affect the innovative power of the organization making it less competitive in the market.
Failure in the market should be made as a stepping stone, and the employees and managers should take it as a challenge and a lesson rather than look at it as inefficiency. Fear of failure would make organization stagnant as nobody would want to go out of the book and think about ideas as the fear would have overridden any other thing. Innovation is all about risk, and failure is just a step up as rather than a step-down. It’s a lesson that would give the employees experience they would learn from it and avoid the errors made that resulted into a failure.
A thorough analysis of the failed projects should be shared across the organization, to enable every individual to know why the project failed. This will inspire the employees to make them be persistent and ensuring that most of the new projects are handled with precision it requires to avoid failure. This will minimize the failure rate, employees will be encouraged and still give it all, be efficient and effective in the new projects and in the long run ensure it is successful.
Persistence is gained when the organization stand together on the low moments like a failure in a project, the employees become more determined and focused, they become more knowledgeable, come up with feasible ideas which would result into new successful projects. When an organization makes employees look down upon themselves due to failure in a project that’s a lethal injection that would slowly kill the dreams that the organization had.
In conclusion, there is a clear sign that the minimum viable innovation system model if implemented has a ma ore positive impact in the organization and has a higher chance of being successful than any other previous model. The fact that the leading companies in the world are using it is enough to give it credibility and eliminate any doubt. The central point of convergence in the model is the fact that it guarantees employees satisfaction and motivation a factor which is key to innovation as a motivated employee is usually more creative and has more innovative ideas as compared to unmotivated and unsatisfied one.
The minimum viable innovation system advantages outweighs Rick Eager’s Innovation management concept as it gives more liberty to the project team and the timeline given enables the organization to absorb any negative issues pertaining the project at s shorter time therefore making it more viable as compared to Eager’s concept.
Minimum viable innovation system is employee driven and the management work will only to ensure the employees are motivated enough and create an enabling environment whereby every employee will be encouraged to be innovative. The model works best in a place where employees are fully motivated and are able to work with no supervision nor is incentive, as the innovative projects they handle an equal motivation.
Based on the study it is projected that the minimum viable innovation system concept will be used for quite a long period of time and the companies that need to stay afloat and retain their competitive edge need to adapt the concept. This concept will gradually override the Eager’s concept due to its systematic steps that can be easily implemented in the organization.
BURGELMAN, R. A., CHRISTENSEN, C. M., & WHEELWRIGHT, S. C. (2009). Strategic management of technology and innovation. Boston, McGraw-Hill Irwin.
CHEN, J., & WANG, Z. (2005). Technology innovation and HRM. Bradford, England, Emerald Group Pub. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=254023.
GOFFIN, K. (2016). Innovation management. [Place of publication not identified], Palgrave Macmillan.
Hamel, G. (2018). The Why, What, and How of Management Innovation. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2006/02/the-why-what-and-how-of-management-innovation [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].
HEMMERT, M., & OBERLÄNDER, C. (2003). Technology and innovation in Japan: policy and management for the twenty-first century. London, Routledge. http://www.crcnetbase.com/isbn/9780203194720.
HUANG, L. K. (2009). The Contingent Role of Innovation between IT Management Sophistication and Strategic Alignment. Journal of Global Information Management. 17, 60-92.
LIEBLEIN, M. J., & ZIEDONIS, A. A. (2011). Technology strategy and innovation management. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Pub.
MELNICK, L. (2018). 90-day plan to increase your company’s innovation. [online] The Business of Social Media. Available at: https://lloydmelnick.com/2014/12/04/90-day-plan-to-increase-your-companys-innovation/ [Accessed 8 Oct. 2018].
OLSEN, D. (2016). The lean product playbook (summary): how to innovate with minimum viable products and rapid customer feedback. https://www.overdrive.com/search?q=53ABBCC6-7433-4FBC-A9EB-9D2D60288F40.
RHODES, E., & WIELD, D. (2001). Implementing new technologies: innovation and the management of technology. Oxford, NCC Blackwell.
SCOTT, DUNCAN AND SIREN (2014). Build an Innovation Engine in 90 Days | Innosight. [online] Innosight. Available at: https://www.innosight.com/insight/build-an-innovation-engine-in-90-days/ [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].
SOBELMAN, N. (2018). Build an Innovation Engine in 90 Days – Commentary – Innovation Excellence. [online] Innovationexcellence.com. Available at: https://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2015/03/23/build-an-innovation-engine-in-90-days-commentary/ [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].
TREAT, T. (2011). Technology management. [San Francisco], [Wiley]. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10510449.
With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.