This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
While it may not be intuitive to global readers, I see many similarities between Samsung's transformation from local leader in Korea to major player on the world stage and our own journey in building the United Bank for Africa into a group that operates in 20 countries and on three continents.
Innovation, in operations, products, business models and ecosystems, isn't merely a competitive advantage, it's the competitive advantage. And when innovation programs do get launched, like an internal venturefund or an idea wiki, they tend to either be organizationally isolated or easily marginalized.
In the case of venture-funded companies, which have little operating experience and untested ideas, the bargain is both the idea and the people, with the latter more important than the former. Why, then, destroy one asset to "improve" another?
Editor's note: This post is part of a three-week series examining educational innovation and technology, published in partnership with the Advanced Leadership Initiative at Harvard University. It crashes the latest version of the operating system that just got installed. We tried it at the NewSchools VentureFund, where I used to work.
Only around 20% of technologies funded by CVC&A grab enough attention of business units to start co-innovation pilot projects with portfolio startups. Third, corporate VCs and accelerators are costly and complex to operate, turning them into a slow and expensive innovation tool.
Leadership: the percentage of executive time that gets devoted to mentoring innovation projects, and 360-degree survey results that reveal the extent to which executives are exhibiting pro-innovation behaviors. Balance: the mix of different types of innovation (product, service, pricing, distribution, operations, etc.);
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content