And so the blog comes to an end...

In conclusion, this blog has illustrated the importance of innovation, its many aspects and relevance in today’s word. Innovation is our past present and future. The aim of this blog was to inform and explain some of the aspects of innovation, however, due to the wide scope of this topic it is difficult to cover every area.

My blog has described and studied definitions, competitive advantage, innovative companies, creativity, relevant theories and models, types of innovation, marketing, supply chain management, globalisation, the differences between inventing and innovating, open innovation amongst numerous others. The concept of innovation was also applied to various people and businesses throughout my posts. One post, for example, was dedicated to the work and life of Steve Jobs; illustrating his path to success and innovative attitude working at Apple whilst CEO of the company. Various businesses have also been explored such as M&S, NASA, IBM and Nurofen in a range of industries; innovation occurs everywhere! A selection of posts were also used to describe the Apprentice, its candidates, the tasks involved and experiences.

Schraeder and Jordan (2011:8) explain how “employees can offer insight regarding minor shifts in environmental contingencies that may serve as signs of larger shifts that are looming in the not-so-distant future”. As discussed previously, competitive advantage can be achieved through an organisation’s human assets by providing ideas for innovative products and services, however, managers must be willing to accept certain amount of risk and uncertainty allowing employees to make mistakes.

Adair (1996:256) puts forward the idea of suggestion schemes for employers to adopt as a way of engaging with employees to increase a sense of involvement and therefore motivation and innovative ideas as a result. Employees need to be made aware that all ideas are welcome, will be listened to and can be put forward by anyone. Some ideas will clearly not work, however, every idea should be taken into consideration (possibly creating a forum for ideas). Despite this, these methods are often more successful in smaller companies due to the nature and size of the organisation. It can be achieved with little organisation and can become highly beneficial regarding managers give encouragement, opportunity, listen to employees and any ideas put forward; potentially rewarding them.

Pareto Principle

The Pareto Principle is a well known business concept that was developed by Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist, explaining the ratio of effects to causes (80:20). The principle states that “80 percent of the ‘effects’ comes from 20 percent of the ‘causes”’(Open Source Innovation, Accessed 10/01/12). When applied to innovation, this could arguably mean 80% of innovations are planned (improved/new products and radical/revolutionary changes) compared to 20% of emergent innovations (incremental/evolutionary changes that are reactive and flexible to respond to any changes).

Simon Sinek: Golden Circle

A talk presented by Simon Sinek in September 2009 (TED, Accessed 10/01/12) aimed to explain how great leaders inspire action using his concept; a ‘Golden Circle’. Upon making this concept discovery, his view of the world changed; uncovering a pattern between great and inspiring leaders and organisations. They all think, act and communicate in the same way; the complete opposite to everyone else.

The Golden Circle consists of three elements: what, how and why.

• What - 100% of businesses and leaders know what they do
• How – Some know how they do it
• Why – Very few know why they do what they do (their purpose, cause, belief, reason for existence)

Many think from the outside in (what, how, why) whereas inspired leaders and organisations tend to think and act from the inside out (why, how, what) regardless of their size. The reason they are so successful and inspirational is because “people don’t buy what you do they buy why you do it (…) The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe (…) If you don’t know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do then how will you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or more importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you do”. Sinek highlights the importance of hiring people who believe what you believe to ensure they work to their highest potential.

Reference is made of the law of diffusion regarding innovation whereby:

• The first 2.5% of our population are innovators
• The next 13.5% are early adopters
• The next 34% are early majority, late majority and laggards

The early majority won’t try something until someone else has tried it first

Innovators and early adopters are comfortable to take risks and pursue their intuitive decisions “driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available”.

He explains the recipe for success as money, the right people and the right market conditions. In spite of this, it doesn’t work if people don’t believe what you believe; they need to believe why you do it. Examples such as Martin Luther King are used to exaggerate the need to ensure people believe what you believe in order to be successful.

Innovator traits

According to Inventors’ Digest (2011:22), the top 10 traits of innovators are:

1. Persistence
2. Passion and intellectual curiosity
3. Independent minded, willingness to go against the grain
4. Ability to recognize and combine patterns into new ideas
5. Intuitive yet analytical with an ability to understand and interpret data
6. Ability to ‘sell’ ideas and concepts
7. Focused on the future
8. Ability to draw on wide networks for perspective, advice and accomplishing tasks
9. Tolerance for risk and ambiguity
10. Willingness to fail and learn from failure

Overall, I believe the main ways that organisations can be innovative is to:

• Be resourceful and efficient
• Maximise opportunities
• Add value
• Accept risk
• Listen to employees
• Allow creativity
• Respond to changes (environment and customers needs/preferences)
• Achieve and maintain competitive advantage
• Be innovative

References:

Adair, J. (1996) Effective Innovation; How to Stay Ahead of the Competition, London/Basingstoke: Pan Books Ltd.

Open Source Innovation [online], Available from: http://open-source-innovation.com/arsenal-access/pareto-principle/, (Accessed 10^th January 2012)

Schraeder, M. and Jordan, M. (2011) Managing Performance: A Practical Perspective on Managing Employee Performance, The Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 32 Iss. 2 p4-10, Available from Abi-Inform at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=5&sid=6&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=57096&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=2428788411&scaling=FULL&ts=1323957067&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1323957112&clientId=57096, [Accessed 15^th December 2011]

TED [online], Simon Sinek: How Great Leaders Inspire Action, Available from: http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html, (Accessed 10^th January 2012)

Top 10 Traits of Innovators (2011), Inventors' Digest, Vol. 27 Iss. 1 p22, Available from Business Source Complete at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f2e81653-cb72-4149-bf8c-482b4927de02%40sessionmgr112&vid=2&hid=108, [Accessed 13^th December 2011]

A New Paradigm: Open Innovation

Collaboration amongst companies has become the new approach to innovation in the 21^st Century; termed ‘Open Innovation’. Chesborough (2011:1) emphasises that “successful innovating firms must open up, to work with external partners to commercialize internal innovations, and allow unused internal ideas to be taken to market by others externally” as knowledge is now available on a global scale. Organisations have discovered the value of social networking platforms to acquire its external resources; finding people with knowledge has never been easier (Lindegaard, S., c2010:4).

Open innovation can be defined as “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively” (Chesbrough 2003a cited in Petroni, G. et al 2012:148). This form of innovation has resulted from growth within research and development (R&D) costs and the widespread nature of ICT (Petroni, G. et al 2012:147). As a result, innovation has become a 24/7 operation and, consequently, many businesses have R&D and innovation labs outside of their corporate Headquarters; increasing the possibilities for how innovation can be achieved and easy access for external contacts because to make innovation happen, the combination of internal and external resources has become critical to success (Lindegaard, S., c2010:3).

As stated by Chesborough (2003b cited in Petroni, G. et al 2012:147), the concept of open innovation was sparked by technology based firms, such as those operating in pharmaceuticals, achieved more successful R&D when collaborating with external sources rather than depending solely on their own department. Open innovation involves a high degree of trust as organisations join together as partnerships and alliances (Lindegaard, S., c2010:18). Collaborating and working together with rivals allows knowledge and ideas to be shared; assuring competitive advantage and be involved in co-operative buying. Co-operative buying is very advantageous for businesses as combining needs to purchase higher volume leads to bulk buying i.e reduced prices.

Quicker problem solving can be achieved when businesses work as a unit; a critical factor in the competitive and tough market in today’s economy. It is a necessity for companies that want to innovate to have an “ever-increasing range of expertise and knowledge” (Petroni, G. et al 2012:148). The timeline of the product life cycle has been significantly reduced, therefore, less time is available to make a profit on R&D which highlights the importance of being able to innovate and provide solutions at a significantly higher rate compared to previously. Open innovation ensures cost effectiveness in an efficient way due to the quicker process involved.

Collaboration is used strategically to ensure the market is captured; along with a proportion of market share to compete successfully. Synergy forms an aspect of open innovation whereby the output is great than the sums working together; allowing efficient operation in terms of speed, timings and costs. Benchmarking is a useful concept; enabling organisations to gain an insight into the works of its competitors as a way to set standards and potentially ‘steal’ their ideas.

Innovation can be inbound (commercialising external ideas), outbound (firms out-license or a spin-off internal ideas) or a coupled process which is a combination of inbound and outbound (Ollila, S., and Elmquist, M. 2011:274) 

Successful examples

Procter and Gamble (P&G) effectively and successfully collaborated with Cisco TelePresence. Two years ago, P&G’s CEO suggested that “50% of product innovation and development come from collaborating with partners and customers” (Cisco, Accessed 15/12/11). Through open innovation with Cisco, a communication-enabled business process was created allowing true collaboration with partners and customers; eliminating the need for travel. Their video collaboration studios have reduced costs and allowed innovation to take place quicker, faster, smarter and in a more sustainable way. Cisco’s solution has improved business processes and the quality of life of its employees; allowing business to be conducted more effectively without leaving the office.

Founded in 1999, Yet2.com was launched; a network that brings together buyers and sellers of all technologies to ensure all parties benefit from a maximum return on their investments (Lindegaard, S., c2010:17).

In conclusion

Overall, open innovation can be highly beneficial to any organisation relying on a high degree of trust and acquiring the right people with the right mindset in the first place.

Lindegaard (c2010:15) summarises the main benefits of such innovation:

• An increase in the speed of new products and services
• Shorter time to take these products and services to market
• Reduced direct spending in R&D
• Improve the success rate of products and services

References

Chesbrough, H. (2011) Open Services Innovation; Rethinking your business to grow and compete in a new era, San Frasisco: Jossey-Bass

Cisco [online], Available from http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/wp/Procter_Gamble_Final.pdf, (Accessed 15^th December 2011)

Giorgio Petroni, Karen Venturini & Chiara Verbano (2012), Open innovation and new issues in R&D organization and personnel management [online], The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 Iss. 1 p147-173, Available from SwetsWise at: http://www.swetswise.com/FullTextProxy/swproxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F09585192.2011.561250&ts=1323960403695&cs=851018530&userName=5845157.ipdirect&emCondId=5845157&articleID=163263836&yevoID=3428396&titleID=103893&referer=4&remoteAddr=212.219.220.116&hostType=PRO&swsSessionId=5dhHMc4pF3Fg0pnK47tasA__.pasc1, [Accessed 15^th December 2011]

Lindegaard, S. (c2010) The Open Innovation Revolution; Essentials, roadblocks and leadership skills, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc

Ollila, S. and Elmquist, M. (2011), Managing Open Innovation: Exploring Challenges at the Interfaces of an Open Innovation Arena [online], Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 20 Iss 4 p273-283, Available from Wiley Online Library at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00616.x/pdf, [Accessed 15^th December 2011]

Innovating Vs Inventing

The terms ‘Innovating’ and ‘Inventing’ are often used interchangeably without a great deal of understanding of their subtle differences. This post attempts to resolve the confusion between the definitions.

Inventions are usually based on products designed by one or a few individuals; only part of the story of innovation. Through technologies, business models and experimentation, products are introduced to the market; experience a degree of failure which forms a part of success. Innovation, on the other hand, incorporates products and processes, dealing with change (dealing with necessity) to develop solutions and add value through continuous improvement. Examples and research discussed below explains these differences in a workplace context.

Sim et al (2007:422) investigated nine individuals who each contributed to stages of invention and new product development within an organisation. There were four divisions:

1. The inventors focused on the scientific and technical aspects prior to concept development
2. The champions responsible for selling the acceptance of the project into the organisation
3. Implementers who focussed on “facilitating the project through the firm’s formal development process”
4. Innovators who had no specialised area and were involved in all three stages

(Taken from Sim, E. et al, 2007:425)

Distinct differences were found between the personalities, perspectives, knowledge base, motivation and attitudes between the four divisions; undoubtedly illustrating the differences between an inventor and an innovator. The differences between the inventors and innovators are highlighted below (Sim, E et al., 2007:431).

Inventors:

• Are creative in technology
• Are strong introverts
• Prefer working alone
• Are task orientated
• Have a knowledge base in technology only
• Motivated by technology as the end goal
• Solely involved in the invention process

Whereas innovators:

• Are talented in a variety of areas
• Can work alone or as part of a group
• Have multiple orientations
• Have a knowledge base of technology, customer, market and business
• Are motivated by providing solutions to customer problems
• Participate in all areas

Sim et al. (2007:432) believe that inventors are concerned with technological innovations; involving high technological uncertainty and low customer/market uncertainty. In contrast, innovators concentrate on radical innovations with high technological uncertainty and high customer/market uncertainty.

A prolific inventor, Dean Kamen, urged ‘would-be inventors’ at a Licensing Foundation meeting to primarily focus on innovating before inventing; "Invent as a last resort” (Innovate First, 2006:9) which he describes as “the murky unknown”. For example, the Chinese required a device to help them navigate their way across the Gobi desert at night to sneak up on enemies. Over 1,000 years earlier they discovered they could produce a compass-like mechanism by placing a loadstone in a container of water and allowing the magnetic forces as navigation. However, this was an invention rather than an innovation. “By innovating this discovery—instead of inventing the South-pointing chariot—the Chinese could have had a much more (cost) efficient tool to solve their problem” (Innovate First, 2006:9).

References

Innovate First, Inventor Advises (2006), Research Technology Management, Vol. 49 Iss, 3 p9, Available from Business Source Complete at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a397f483-c3cd-4f4b-a496-c6139cf3916b%40sessionmgr113&vid=4&hid=108, [Accessed 13^th December 2011]

Sim, E., Griffin, A., Price, R., and Vojak, B. (2007), Exploring Differences between Inventors, Champions, Implementers and Innovators in Creating and Developing New Products in Large, Mature Firms, Creativity & Innovation Management, Vol. 16 Iss. 4, p422-436, Available from Business Source Complete at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8befd7bc-2689-4a1c-a2d4-dcc58c2f27f0%40sessionmgr110&vid=2&hid=108, [Accessed 13^th December 2011]

Global + Innovation = Globalisation

Economists define globalisation as “the increasing trade liberalisation between nations and the rising degree of openness of national economies which have occurred in the last decades” (Bräuninger, M. and Vöpel, H. 2009:185).

Globalisation involves a broadened outlook of the work with “free transfer of capital, goods, and services across national frontiers”. However, it has been argued that it “does not include unhindered movement of labour and, as suggested by some economists, may hurt smaller or fragile economies if applied indiscriminately” (Business Dictionary, Accessed 12/12/11).

We live in a society whereby globalisation has become the norm of world markets and economies; sharing and spreading knowledge and research. However, through competing and supplying on a global scale, businesses can achieve numerous economies of scale. Westland (2008:4) explains that economies of scale for production are achieved most where the production costs are at its lowest; causing a world’s production to migrate to that given country. “These shifts have brought about the rapid rise of the Chinese and Indian economies (among others) over the past decade” (Westland, J.C. 2008:4).

Due to the increasing competitive pressures facing businesses in the economic climate today, there is an escalating demand to become global. As a result, organisations’ corporate strategies are re-evaluated and changed as well as globalising its research and development function; gaining an insight into international markets. Globalisation has been driven by technology and communication which have, in turn, altered world powers and increased interdependency. Global issues such as climate, food and resources have also influenced the process of globalisation to some extent requiring businesses to export and work co-operatively with other countries. In a survey, executives viewed innovation as the crucial factor to remain competitive in today’s global business environment (The McKinsey Quarterly 2006 cited in Sara, T. and Jackson F.H 2010:1).

According to Sara and Jackson (2010:1), “Companies from developing countries are using innovative ideas and techniques to compete in the global marketplace” whereas “companies from developed countries are expanding their reach of innovations to a broader audience”. Many developing countries have emerged into the global competitive market. For example, China, as mentioned above, has had a global impact on the marketing environment. Their significant investment and funding for innovation resulted from:

• Rising spending on research and development: since 1999, China is now the world’s second highest R&D investor after the US.
• More patents and scientific output: invention patent applications have increased by 23% annually since 2000.
• More multinational R&D centres: the Chinese government estimates that 750 global companies now have research centers in China, including Microsoft, Intel, Vodafone, Unilever and AstraZeneca.
• The growing graduate pool: Beijing’s university district alone has as many engineers as all of Western Europe and the government is cultivating its high-technology champions.

(Strategic Direction, 2007:32)

As explained by Tidd et al, “global firms now rely hardly at all on their home – or any other one – country for their operations, since they compete and increasingly produce in global markets” (1997:75). However, Porter and Nelson claim that conditions existing in their home countries highly influence their technological strategies because “even global firms draw mainly on mainly one – or perhaps two – countries for their strategic skills and expertise in formulating and executing their innovation strategies” (cited in Tidd et al.1997:75). Statistics have found that “10% of the innovative activities of the world’s largest 500, technologically active firms were located outside their home countries in the 1980s, compared to about 25% of their production and much larger of sales” (cited in Tidd et al.1997:75).

Sara and Jackson (2010:4) express the concern that “In many cases the executives of global companies from the developed countries are so focused on their traditional competitors that they do not recognise the threat developing from rivals coming out of emerging markets”. Ideally, the UK and European Union should take note from these industries to prepare themselves for a world of global innovation networks whereby “ideas and technologies will come from many more places (Strategic Direction, 2007:34). Emphasis has been specifically placed on the need to “invest more in science and innovation, and make international collaboration more central to their way of working” (Strategic Direction, 2007:34).

References

Bräuninger, M. & Vöpel, H. (2009) Globalisation, Trade, and Growth: A Macroeconomic Perspective', Intereconomics, Vol. 44 Iss.3 p185-192, Available from Business Source Complete at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5c01ffb6-ec1b-4484-a915-081c3857830f%40sessionmgr112&vid=7&hid=110, [Accessed 11^th December 2011]

Business Dictionary [online], Available from: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/globalization.html, (Accessed 12^th December 2011)

Sara, T. and Jackson, F.H (2010) Emerging markets and innovation: A partnership for global progress, Business & Economic Horizons, Vol. 2 Iss. 2 p1-6, July 2010, Available from Business Source Complete at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e683f668-d01d-4c05-b390-98c26f156d5e%40sessionmgr110&vid=2&hid=127, [Accessed 11^th December 2011]

Strategic Direction (2007) The new world of innovation; Innovation is going global, Strategic Direction, Vol. 23 Iss 9 p32-35, Available from Abi-Inform at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&sid=1&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=57096&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1360295591&scaling=FULL&ts=1323614138&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1323614201&clientId=57096, [Accessed 11^th December 2011]

Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (1997) Managing Innovation; Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Westland, J.C (2008) Global Innovation Management; A Strategic Approach, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan 

Supply Chain Management & Innovation

A supply chain can range from “basic commodities to selling the final product to the end-consumer, to recycling the use product” (Harrison, A. and Hoek, R.V 2011:6). Managing supply chains is an essential element of all organisations for producing and marketing goods and services, have a vital influence on the economy. Although managing such business systems can pose many challenges, innovation can significantly improve effectiveness and efficiency such as reducing CO2 emissions. They are critical to environmental change, enabling sustainability and heavily impact daily lives.

According to Hughes (2010:318), the aim of supply chain management is to “effectively reduce the inventory of an organisation”. Managing such processes can enable greater integration and result in improved profitability, productivity and achieving competitive advantage. Thorough and effective implementation is critical to its success; otherwise inventory related problems are likely to occur and although supply chain management is not as apparent as other organisational changes, it is still significant (Hughes 2010:319). Technological advances permit organisations to create more sophisticated supply management systems in a more effective and efficient way.

Supply chain management at Coca Cola involves “planning and controlling all of the processes from raw material production to purchase by the end-user to recycling of the used cans” (Harrison, A. and Hoek, R.V 2011:7). Planning needs to be co-ordinated to guarantee that customer needs are adequately met.

Supply chain management at Toyota

The car manufacturer, Toyota, is well known for its Toyota Production System (TPS) which formed the basis of its significant global success. Toyota developed this system to improve quality and productivity by eliminating waste and respecting people. It generated the idea of lean manufacturing and supply chain practices and concepts are now used throughout many business areas. Toyota has become a benchmark for many companies as an effective eliminator of waste through its well adapted systems such as TPS.

Steven Spears and H. Kent Bowen, two researchers, have devised four rules that have formed the foundation of Toyota’s thinking (Financial Times [online], 2011):

1. Structure every activity
2. Clearly connect every customer /supplier
3. Specify and simplify every flow
4. Improve through experimentation at the lowest level possible towards the ideal state

Over several generations, Toyota has invented and led the development and implementation of many innovative supply chain processes. Their first idea was ‘Jikoda’ in 1902; “allowing one worker to support 12 machines instead of just one dramatically dropping the cost of weaving” (Financial Times [online], 2011). The company’s success has been due to the successful applications of processes such as just-in-time, kanban and quality circles amongst many others.

Lean management; an innovative process

Lean management is a highly effective supply chain method to manage a business at all levels and presents employees with “the skills and a shared way of thinking to systematically drive out waste through designing and improving work of activities, connections, and flows” (Financial Times [online], 2011). Many organisations have succeeded using such systems through “minimal inventories of raw materials, work-in-process, and finished goods” incorporating aspects of just-in-time delivery (Jacobs, F.R et al 2009:404). To be a success, lean production systems require “high levels of quality at each stage of the process, strong vendor relations, and a fairly predictable demand for the end product” (Jacobs, F.R et al 2009:404).

References

Financial Times (2011) [online] Lean management like Toyota Production System spells inclusive growth, The Economic Times (Online), October 24, Available from Abi-Inform at http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=5&did=2492509751&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1323621126&clientId=57096, [Accessed 11^th December 2011]

Harrison, A. and Hoek, R.V (2011) Logistics Management and Strategy; Competing Through the Supply Chain, 4^th Edition, Essex: Pearson Education Limited

Hughes, M. (2010) Managing Change; A Critical Perspective, 2^nd Edition, London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Jacobs, F.R, Chase, R.B and Aquilano, N.J (2009) Operations and Supply Management, 12^th Edition, New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin

Behind the Scenes; The Young Apprentice

As mentioned earlier in the blog, I personally know Hayley Forrester who featured on the Young Apprentice until Week 6; the discount buying task. I took this opportunity to interview her regarding her experiences and thoughts about innovation and creativity. In her final episode, Lord Sugar explained: “I think I’ve concluded that, Hayley, you seem to be a person that stays in the shadow, you’re politeness is great and I know that your enthusiastic, but at this point in this competitive environment that we have here, Hayley… You’re Fired”. As she was driven away, Hayley said: “I feel Lord Sugar’s made a mistake in firing me, I wasn’t aggressive enough in the boardroom but then that’s not how I am as a person so I’m not going to be like that in the boardroom”. Certain questions couldn't be answered due to the signing of a confidentiality agreement at the beginning of the series, however, these questions are indicated.

Describe your overall experience of the Young Apprentice.
I found my experience on Young Apprentice very enjoyable, but hard working; which is obviously to be expected of the business world. I believe that it has finalised my plans of entering either the financial or business world.

What did you find most rewarding and challenging about working in a team?

I found the most challenging part of working in a team is that everyone wants their ideas to be listened to. I found the most rewarding part of working in a team that you have more ideas, which is very helpful.

How did you feel as Project Manager in Week 1?
I can’t answer this question sorry.

Do you prefer being the manager or a group member?
In business in general, I would say that I prefer to be the leader.

Do you consider yourself to be a team player or someone that prefers to work alone?
At times I prefer to work alone, however, I also believe that I am and can be a strong team player.

Did you, at any point, feel discouraged to share your ideas when under management of Zara, for example, who dominated the situation and pursued her own ideas disregarding those of others?
Sorry, I can’t answer this question.

Do you think that having a diverse, wide range of people in a group can aid creativity and innovative ideas?
I definitely believe that having a diverse range of people, will all have different views and ideas that can help bring practical, creative and innovative ideas.

To what extent do you believe management and leadership styles affects the innovation and creativity of other members?
I think that the manager has some control over the creativity and innovation of ideas, but only a small amount. I think that under the right supervision people will bring their own natural ideas.

Do you think individuals can feel reluctant to share their ideas because other people take credit for them when they are successful? How can this affect the team?
I think that people shouldn’t feel that they can’t take credit for an idea that is theirs.

What have you learnt from your appearance on the show?
I have learnt that business is definitely the profession I want to enter.

What would you consider the best way to ensure a group comes up with the most creative ideas?
I think that for a group to come up with the most creative ideas they must be confident in themselves.

In your final episode, Sir Lord Sugar said you were an enthusiastic and very polite individual but in the shadows and need to assert yourself more due to the competitive environment. What are your views on this? Do you agree?
I’m afraid I can’t answer this question.

What do you believe by the term ‘innovation’? Do you believe you are innovative?
I believe that innovation means that a person thinks 'outside the box' but still has profitability and the target market in account at all times.

Do you think creativity can be learnt or is it a natural gift?
I think that some creativity is natural, but I definitely believe that it can be enhanced.

Conclusion

Overall, it is evident that working in a team brings many challenges such as the willingness of each member to but their ideas forward; not always being listened to. This can hinder future participation, morale and motivation. Hayley believes “that the manager has some control over the creativity and innovation of ideas, but only a small amount. I think that under the right supervision people will bring their own natural ideas”. However, a leader’s management style can severely affect the degree of autonomy and scope of creativity for individuals.

The Young Apprentice; An Overview

The 12^th December marked the end of yet another series of The Young Apprentice. The twelve young, enthusiastic teenagers have been on an educational journey where they were required to work as a team but shine as individuals; some more successful than others. They were set various tasks to test their business knowledge, skills and teamwork. Team names were Atomic and Kinetic and remained Boys Vs. Girls for the first two weeks until Lord Sugar mixed up for the remainder of the series. Below is an overview of the series outlining the task, happenings during the task and the results.

Week 1: Frozen Treats

Task: Produce own range of frozen treats to sell to public

Teams: Boys (Atomic) Vs Girls (Kinetic)

Managers: Harry H (Atomic), Hayley (Kinetic)

Products:

Atomic: Cookie and marshmallow ice cream and apple and watermelon sorbet (‘Shiverrrr me Timbers’ pirate theme), very low prices

Kinetic: Healthy ‘Treat and Trim’ theme with strawberry and marshmallow, chocolate and banana and mango and vanilla flavours, very high prices

Results:

Atomic: Costs £117.92, Sales £677.17 = £559.25 profit

Kinetic: Costs £131.00, Sales £839.34 = £708.34 profit

Fired: Mahamad (only sold £62’s worth)

Week 2: Parent & baby

Task: Create a new and exciting product for the parent and baby market and pitch to 3 retailers (same teams as last week)

Managers: Lewis (Atomic), Gbemi (Kinetic)

Products:

Atomic: ‘Harris the Hippo’ toy bottle warmer

Kinetic: ‘Comfy Curve’ cradling cushion armstrap

Results:

Atomic 1,200 units from JoJo Maman Bébé, 0 orders from John Lewis and 4,000 units from Mothercare = 5,200 units

Kinetic: 0 from JoJo Maman Bébé or John Lewis, but 7,000 units from Mothercare = 7,000 units

Fired: Ben (no inspirational ideas and failed to put himself forward)

Week 3: Floristry business

Task: Make arrangements within 2 days to sell to the public and pitch to three pre-arranged corporate clients who would then choose either Atomic or Kinetic (5 star hotel, West End theatre and an exclusive hair salon)

Managers: Hannah (Atomic), Lizzie (Kinetic)

Clients:

Atomic: 4 bouquets for Theatre and 4 window displays for Hair Salon

Kinetic: 5 posies and mantelpiece display for Hotel

Selling:

Atomic: Bouquets at £3,£6 and £10 (depending on size)

Kinetic: Triple pricing strategy (put forward by Hayley)

Results:

Atomic:  Sales £858.25, Costs £407.29 = £450.96 profit

Kinetic:  Sales £912.10, Costs £448.58 = £463.52 profit 

Fired: Hannah (brought the wrong people into the Boardroom)

Week 4: Over 50’s market

Task: Choose 2 products from 8 suppliers to sell at Kensington Olympia’s over 50’s show

Managers: Haya (Atomic), James (Kinetic)

Products: Atomic chose pie maker and bird box whilst Kinetic chose shopping trolley and mini vacuum

Results:

Atomic: Pie maker £347.42, Bird box £500.00 = £847.42

Kinetic: Shopping Trolley = £329.98, Mini Vacuum = 808.79 = £1138.77

Fired: Lewis (Lord Sugar admired his enthusiasm but told to talk less)

Week 5 - Deodorant

Task: Design, package, brand and create an advert for an anti-perspirant deodorant for teenagers then pitch infront of industry experts

Managers: Zara (Atomic), Harry M (Kinetic)

Products:

Atomic: RAW, male market, filmed street dancer doing routine in sports hall for advert. Harry H pitched

Kinetic: Vanity, female market, filmed teenagers and geek in basement club, Lizzie pitched

Results:

Atomic: Very good advert, one of the best in the boardroom

Kinetic: Good concept but their execution failed and the product wasn’t associated with the advert

Fired: Gbemi (poor product design despite this being her main hobby)

Week 6 – Discount buying

Task: 10 hours to find and buy 10 items on the list for Madame Tussauds (items ranged from a Justin Bieber 34” sized suit to a Dashiki for Nelson Mandela). Teams told they would receive penalties for not getting items (£50 plus guiding price) or not negotiating lower price.

Managers: Lizzie (Atomic), Haya (Kinetic)

What happened:

Atomic: Spent hours making phone calls locating some items, didn’t find them all, items more expensive than Kinetic’s

Kinetic: Set off straight away (no strategy), used Haya’s knowledge of London, constantly looking out for possible locations

Results:

Atomic: 6 items bought, Costs: £963 Fines: £517.87 = £1480.87 total costs

Kinetic: 7 times bought, Costs: £721 Fines: £248.10 = £969.10 total costs

Fired: Hayley (very polite and enthusiastic but often stays in the shadows)

Week 7 - Popcorn

Task: Develop some unique flavours of popcorn to pitch to 3 retailers (Jet2, Odeon and Morrisons)

Managers: Harry H (Atomic), James (Kinetic)

Products:

Atomic: Mediterranean themed (La Popcorn) – Chorizo and tomato, feta cheese and olive

Kinetic: American themed (Empire State) – BBQ chicken, maple syrup and pancakes

Results:

Atomic: 10,000 from Odeon, 50,000 from Jet2 and 30,000 from Morrisons = 90,000 units

Kinetic: 15,000 from Odeon, 0 from Jet2, 100,000 from Morrisons = 115,000 units

Fired:

Team Atomic (Harry M, Harry H and Lizzie)

Haya from Kinetic (not seen any creativity but told she shouldn’t give up because she has great attributes)

Week 8 – Video Game (The Final)

Task: Create a new online video came with a viral Internet advert and pitch to professionals in gaming and online (ranging from Facebook to Disney) and Lord Sugar himself. Previous candidates from the series returned; Lewis, Harry H, Hayley, Lizzie and Hannah join James while Ben, Mahamed, Harry M, Gbemi and Haya lend their support to Zara.

Products:

Zara: After many ideas were developed, Zara decided on ‘Piggy Panic’ – players are required to help Porky Pete from the butcher

James: Market research showed that the public would prefer their puzzle game but James took a risk and decided on ‘Crazy Cabinet’ – a time management game whereby the player plays the role of Prime Minister

Pitches:

James: Game relates to current affairs; concerns about running the country and everyone says they can do a better job. His spoof advert amused the audience and was seen as a great concept and “witty” game with clear scope to expand to keep the game current. He clearly understood the target market with a comical advert that was offensive to some degree; suited to its audience.

Zara: Clearly very passionate and enthusiastic about her product and also managed to amuse the audience with her game demo and viral ad. A game with “lots of potential”.

The Boardroom:

James: Told his advert didn’t correlate with the game

Zara: Informed her pitch was impressive, game not got the migration of James’ but clear development of characters in books, for example, and her advert engaged more with the game

The £25,000 prize:

Zara explained she would invest in professional filming equipment and sell productions. James, on the other hand, wishes to study Economics further before producing, developing and selling an idea that he develops. The winner receives the prize to build their future but once when Lord Sugar approves its use.

Hired: Zara

Conclusion

Overall, it was clear to study the group dynamics and the effect this has on motivation, creativity and innovation. All tasks were designed to test candidates’ abilities in many business areas including creativity and the ability to be resourceful. During Week 5’s deodorant task, members in Kinetic explained they found Harry a very difficult individual to work with and wasn’t creative enough which was critical because creativity in this area was essential to succeed; hence why this team lost the task. Also during this task, conflicts arose in Atomic whereby Zara’s dominant leadership style led to her disregarding Hayley’s thoughts and ideas. This can cause high demotivation in the business world and discourage future co-operation.

Meeting at Madame Tussaud’s for the task of Week 6 illustrated the importance of keeping up to date. This business has been in existence for over 200 years creating waxworks of famous people making it essential to keep up to date to ensure every detail is correct and accurate. This means that items need to be constantly replaced.

Throughout the series, it was apparent that candidates take credit for others’ decisions when they are successful. For example, in Week 6, Zara took credit for Harry M’s idea to contact a library to look up ‘Dashiki’ in a dictionary because Internet usage was forbidden throughout the task. The series also highlighted the importance of communication and the impact this has on motivation and the ability to be creative within a group. Harry M, for example, has consistently been told he is good at selling and negotiating but rarely listens to others and pursues his own ideas.

Each week, Lord Sugar provided feedback to the candidates; highlighting any strengths and weaknesses they may have. This enabled the individuals to learn from their mistakes; a concept relevant to innovation whereby businesses can learn from their own and competitors’ errors when bringing innovations into the market.

In Week 7, it was clear to the candidates that they had to work as a team to have a chance of winning both as a group and individually as the losing team were all fired in addition to one member from the winning team. Communication and teamwork was essential. Haya was one of the four fired from this episode but reflected on the importance that it’s ok to take risks; a critical aspect in innovation.

During the final series, Zara expressed she was a “naturally creative person” and is a highly determined individual who is always willing to put ideas forward, take risks and experiment; trying out lots of different ideas. However, this means that she doesn’t always consider the views, opinions and ideas expressed by others; wanting to steer from the back when not the leader. James also developed the ability to become a risk taker, put his neck on the line and pursue ideas but listen to others managing to understand how to work within a team and get the best out of each member.

References:

The Young Apprentice (2011) [TV Broadcast] BBC1, Every Monday, Week commencing 24^th October. 21:00 hrs