Documents

Our Philosophy of Insignia 2015 - Part II - Suggested Rounds Using Systems Thinking

Description
Download Our Philosophy of Insignia 2015 - Part II - Suggested Rounds Using Systems Thinking
Categories
Published
of 31
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  1 Systems Thinking Laws and Archetypes for Screening Innovations, and for Suggesting Evaluative Rounds during Insignia 2015 Ozzie Mascarenhas SJ October 16, 2014. Stage One: Short-listing Industries Insignia 2015 invites MBA students to choose among the following industries for testing contestants of Insignia 2015 rounds: 1   Electronic gaming/entertainment 2   Social Media 3   Digitalization 4   Online Retailers 5   Personal Computers 6   Luxury/Sports Car 7   Smart Phones 8   Fashion 9   Airline 10   Luxury Cuisine 11    Healthcare Products 12    Pharmaceuticals 13    Learning [AOL] 14    Business Enterprise Planning softwares 15    Investment Banking 16    Competitive Leagues (Sports) 17    Sports Apparels 18    Breweries 19    Energy Alternatives 20    Amusement Parks 21    Cosmetics 22    Web Browsers 23    Telecom Service Providers 24    Internet Industry Sl. No Industry Seniors Juniors 1 Electronic gaming/entertainment Ashwaith, 2 Online Retailers Aquinash, Romeo 3 Social Media Apravi, Alreen, Malvika 4 Competitive Leagues (Sports) Abishek, Elroy, Jeethan, Bryan 5 Luxury Cuisine Falen, Vienna, Roylin, Christaraj, Elvice, Felwin 6 Airline Jeffin, Jubin, Jeff 7 Fashion/ Cosmetics   Jagruthi, Shalvin, Natasha, Afrah, Rayan 8 Sports Apparels Pooja, Ashirwad, Nizam, Jubin 10 Breweries Donald, Aaron  2 11 Luxury/Sports Car Gururaj 12 Healthcare Products /Pharmaceuticals Uma, Julie, Yashaswini 13 Investment Banking Jobin, Ashwanth, Jithin, Denis, Jerin K.V Criteria for industry choice are:    It has to be contemporary    It has to be an innovative industry/company    Its innovations should be of National and International scope and relevance    Their potential for eradicating structured injustice, poverty and disease should be significant    Their social innovation content should have maximum impact on development of BRICS or LDC countries Task Groups should have the following attributes:    Form groups of maximum ten with almost equal proportions of gender and junior-seniors;    Choose your industry and justify your choice: the whole group should be interested in that industry and passionate about it; you must have access to maximum relevant information (e.g., data, facts, figures, technologies, patents, innovations) of that industry.    You should be able quickly to identify and research the best innovators in that industry    With corresponding market and technology breakthrough innovations    With significant social impact for development and/or improving quality of life (QOL); The first short-listing of 23-25 industries to 10- 12 will be based on “Industry Group” findings based upon the following criteria: 1.   Comprehensive industry analysis (srcin in India or abroad, its growth, GDP potential, employment potential, entrepreneurship potential, export potential, …) using CRISIL, Capital Line, Provost and EBSCO (see AIMIT Library Database). How would you assess this industry presence in India? That  3 is, identify its major market assets like factories, service outlets, and brands in the Indian market. 2.   Identify major market breakthrough innovators/innovations in this industry. [See Table 06] 3.   Identify major technological breakthrough innovators/innovations in this industry [See Table 06] 4.   Identify major radical innovators/innovations in this industry [See Table 06] 5.   Identify major catalytic innovators/innovations in this industry [See “Notes” below for definitions].  6.   Distinguish innovators/innovations by organizational leadership, talent management, disruptive nature, global scope, economies of scale and safety, economies of time, pace and space, economies of saving money, search, effort, anxiety, salvage loss, comfort and leisure, economies of happiness and hope, and revolutionary potential. 7.   Evaluate the industry innovator/innovation using Table 05. 8.   Evaluate the industry innovator/innovation using Figure 01. 9.   Evaluate the industry innovations using Table 07. The first short-listing of 10-12 industries will be made by the MBA faculty based on individual industry student group presentations on Monday 4-6 pm, October 21, 2014. Details on which group presents where and when will be provided by faculty Insignia 2015 Coordinator Prof. Ryan. Second Stage: Construction and Evaluation of Rounds Systems Thinking Laws and Archetypes for Screening Innovations, and for Suggesting Evaluative Rounds   Table 01   states, illustrates and explains eleven major laws that describe behavior of systems (subjects, objects, properties, and events) in any time, space and pace. These laws, in any sequence and with creative and designful thinking, could be deployed to assess and rate innovations that Insignia 2015 contestants cite in the industry of their choice during a given round. Most laws (1-7, 11) are negatively stated. Hence, other things being equal, an innovation that verifies more laws in its production and diffusion is less valued than those that verify lesser number of Laws. Each Law could be used as a round. Laws 2-6 are corollaries of Law 1. Rate each contestant group by the innovation he/she cites in a given round that verifies the least number of negative Laws and most number of positive Laws (e.g., 8-10). Table 02   suggests another methodology for assessing contestant-cited innovations during rounds. Each Law suggests three ways of assessing any given innovation: its impact on the company, on entrepreneurship, and on the environment of culture and governance. Rate each contestant by the innovation he/she cites in a given round that he/she demonstrates has the highest potential a) for company’s growth and prosperity  within that industry, b) for motivating entrepreneurship within the company (also called intrapreneurship) as well as individual start-ups within that industry, and c) by its impact on society, culture, law and order. Table 03   provides yet another method for assessing contestant-cited innovations during rounds. Each Archetype provides a unique way of assessing that innovation as indicated in the Table. Applications across three industries (finance, energy, and electronic games) are illustrated. Table 04   provides definitions, illustrations and explanation for each archetype. Tables 05-12 are alternatives methods for evaluating innovations or for constructing contestant rounds.  4 Criteria for Assessing Rounds 1   Preliminary application of Table 01 and Table 04. 2   Preliminary application of Table 02 and Table 04. 3   Preliminary application of Table 03 and Table 04. 4   Evaluate the industry innovations and construct rounds using Table 08. 5   Evaluate the industry innovations and construct using Table 09. 6   Preliminary application of Table 10 for constructing rounds. 7   Create your own template for constructing and assessing rounds. 8   Create your own template for constructing and assessing rounds. 9   Preliminary application of Table 11 for constructing rounds. 10   Preliminary application of Table 12 for constructing rounds. The second stage evaluation of rounds will be made by the MBA faculty based on short-listed (Stage One) student group presentations on Friday, 3-6 pm, October 25, 2014. Details on which group presents where and when will be provided by faculty Insignia 2015 Coordinator Prof. Ryan. Notes on Catalytic and Market Disruptive Innovations In his  Innovator’s Dilemma , Christensen (1997) popularizes the concept of a “disruptive” innovation. A typical disruptive innovation is not attractive to mainstream customers at the time of introduction,  because it offers inferior performance on the attribute that these consumers value most (e.g., Southwest Airlines and its multiple no-frill trips to off-main airports in large cities). At the same time, there is an emerging market that places little or no value on this particular attribute. That is, these customers value a different attribute delivered by the disruptive innovation. Over time, the new product’s performance on the attribute valued by the mainstream customers rises to a level that satisfies them. Thus, incumbents (e.g., large national airlines) may first ignore the new technology or product and the emerging market that responds to it; it is irrelevant to their customers. But eventually, it satisfies their mainstream customers, thereby disrupting their core business. Christensen (1997) proposes three types of innovations: sustaining innovations, low-end disruptive innovations and new-market disruptive innovations. Certain innovations disrupt the normal trajectory of life and organizations, and hence, they are also called disruptive innovations. Disruptive innovations introduce a new value proposition either by creating new markets or reshaping existing markets.   (Christensen 1997, 2003).    Sustaining innovations  : Most new product and service innovations are sustaining. They provide better quality or additional functionality for a firm’s most demanding customers. These innovations move companies along established improvement categories. These are basically incremental innovations along an established product or brand on dimensions historically valued by customers (e.g., incremental innovations by changing brand’s size, speed, shelf  -life, color, texture, flavor, package, bundle, financing, delivery, after sales service, usage). Typical examples are new flavors of ice cream, new family sizes and flavors for toothpaste, rental cars with added conveniences, airplanes
Search
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks