Discussion Question

discussion 1
In an organization, innovation could be a buzz word following anything to do something new or just following the buzzword around. Most of the organization tries to do more and more considering their business model by following some steps and tried to do everything. Thus, we see innovation is not something straight forward rather it generates the value. Innovation cannot be created by linear thinking else it leads to issues. Hence, Innovation is not the product of logical thought, although the result is tied to logical structure. Organizations execute innovation by clubbing various approaches towards thinking (e.g. design thinking) considering the linearity and set some ground rules to generate value and focus to do something different from other organizations. Most of the time the organization fails too when trying to do more things and operate at a faster pace to remain successful in the competitive market place. For example, any highly innovative organization faces more failures as compared to success, to remain innovative all the time by focusing on failure (the lagging indicator) rather than innovating culture (leading indicators).

http://gcumedia.com/digital-resources/wiley/2013/innovation-engine_driving-execution-for-breakthrough-results_ebook_1e.php

discussion 2

In Einstein’s quote, he was speaking to the fact that everyone can experience thoughts that are innovative but the conclusion doesn’t always follow a logical structure or progression. I think of this like the difference between creative thinking and innovation. Creativity isn’t logical…it looks different for everyone. Thoughts are just….thoughts until they are put into action. Innovation is the process in which you are acting on implementing those creative ideas/thoughts. However, the action of innovation must be logical in structure in order to be effective. This quote affirms the organization I researched because competitors have demonstrated how to execute a logical structure with innovation. I wrote about a business in the massage industry. A second mover in the space, Hand & Stone, has innovated the spa/membership-based service menu to appeal to affordable, spa related services at an affordable price and diverse menu (Franchise Chatter, 2019). The organization that I wrote about has tried multiple things but they haven’t stuck. I attribute a portion of this to structure. And as a result, Hand & Stone has experienced tremendous growth over the past year while the other organization has actually closed locations (Franchise Chatter, 2019).

Reference:

Franchise Chatter. (2019, December 8). 10 Best Massage Franchises of 2020 (UPDATED RANKINGS). Retrieved from https://www.franchisechatter.com/2018/01/03/10-best-massage-service-franchises-2017-2018/

discussion 3

Organizational structures are essential to the companies overall innovative success. In terms of innovation, organizational structures often focus on the protocol on how decision-making authority is distributed and the different work groups among the members (differentiation), as well as how people and functions are coordination (integration) (Desai, 2013). This type of structure can either promote and enhance innovation or hinder innovation from occurring. The structure of an organization also impacts individuals and how they feel empowered to provide creative ideas and implementation of thoughts as well as utilize the resources needed to be innovative; innovation also required continual and effective communication across all platforms and levels within the organization, this emphasizes the importance of a strong innovative structure.

The organization I currently work for has a traditional, or functional, structure. There is a head CEO/president and below him there are vice presidents and Regional Directors and Operations for different areas of the organizations. Below them are managers who then oversee a team of individuals who work more directly with the customers and provide direct service. This has been effective as successful teams have been composed of individuals who work well together, think and work alike, and push boundaries of the possibilities of the organization both individually and collectively. This has increased the organization’s depth of knowledge in the particular area we work for (Desai, 2013). However there has been disadvantages to this structure as when the organization needs to make adjustments or new ideas are brought up, it requires input and approval from many areas of the organization that do not work directly with each other (Desai, 2013). There is a lack of cohesion and collectivity among members of different working groups. At the same time, different groups have different goals and focuses when it comes to their success and the success of the organization, so there can be a lack of collective goals and vision when each team is working towards a different purpose and goal. For our particular organization, this structure has worked effective and relatively efficiently. However, some adjustments to personnel or structure could enhance the possibility and success of innovation.

Desai, J. (2013). Innovation engine: Driving execution for breakthrough results. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ISBN-13: 9781118355039