Innovate your Innovation!
In entrepreneurial contexts, innovation is generally seen as a development team producing a prototype that manufacturing and marketing teams will take to the market, ideally before the competition does. Admitting that there are situations where such simple strategies work, a holistic outlook and the application of novel concepts can help businesses generate winning products within a structured process – with more stakeholders in mind than only the targeted consumer group.
Consider a scenario within FMCG industries. A typical face cream is made available in an attractive plastic container with perhaps a glittering label. This container will cost the manufacturer more than the cream it will contain. 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. Yet, the active ingredients may constitute a minute proportion of the cream itself, if at all. 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 will help industries become more creative, more lucrative and benefit their consumers as well as the community and the planet.
Womb to Tomb
When one does assess the life cycle of a product, one shows concern about the impacts on stakeholders throughout all stages of the product’s life – from the beginning to the end. This is a cradle to grave design philosophy, which in itself is good, indeed better than no assessment and no action at all. However, there is a grave – and at the grave there is waste.
Do you think we need to minimise the packaging we use so that it will 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 which can be returned and re-used many times. Perhaps a bio-degradable plastic. 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. 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 has to be first implemented in the design of your business model.
Sustainability
CSR projects may be good and complying with regulations is necessary in order to operate legally. However, in my view, what is most important is that core operations and products are sustainable. Sustainability needs to be factored into the NPD protocols. Your operations need to be sustainable by design, not as an afterthought, nor as projects with which to score points on award schemes.
Take washing powders. Often more than 90 per cent of it is filler materials. The filler is often a dust that the housewife gets to inhale at 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.
Innovation process
Innovation needs inspiration but it also requires method. 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. 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.
Innovation needs to be mapped out as a process from the gathering of consumer insights, analysis of insights and product conceptualisation through development processes and up to launch and post-launch evaluations. Cross functional teams have to contribute throughout the process because it is not just the R&D team who has a role to play. In general, focus tends to be on the middle of the process, but we need to view the back-end and the front-end of innovation as well – in order to consistently deliver successful products. Note that having a process does not mean killing creativity or extending launch timelines – it means a 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 proceed correctly. The right leadership in innovation is crucial. Good innovation governance ensures that 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.
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 ‘x’ month”. It takes commitment to build in sustainability into your innovation strategy. It takes courage to govern under stress. It takes perseverance to build up your process. Yet, if you do, the benefits will be tremendous for your company and also for all stakeholders including future generations not yet conceived – who will 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 leading industrialist experienced in sectors as diverse as chemicals, agriculture, food, cosmetics, advanced materials, apparel, and personal and home care. He holds a doctorate in Chemical Engineering from the University of Cambridge. You can be contacted at Dias@Cantab.net).