With less than two weeks to go before the start of the FORTUNE Innovation Forum in New York City, Dick Harryvan, an Executive Board Member of ING Group who is responsible for ING Direct, joins the Business Innovation Insider for a special Q&A on innovation. At the FORTUNE Innovation Forum, Geoff Colvin will interview Dick Harryvan as part of the “FORTUNE Interviews a CEO” series.

Q: Who should be responsible for innovation inside of a large corporation? Why?

Dick Harryvan: General management must create the right conditions and make a commitment, after which all employees are empowered.

Q: What is the most important thing that needs to happen before innovation inside a company can occur?

Dick Harryvan: All employees must feel empowered to express their ideas and management must listen and show commitment.

Q: Is there an innovation success story within your business that you are most proud of?

Dick Harryvan: ING Direct is an innovation success within ING Group, despite negative advice by consultants.

Q: Is there a formal process for tapping into the knowledge of your workforce?

Dick Harryvan: We have a ’simplify’ program, as well as Lean Six Sigma and self-assessments throughout ING Direct globally. The objective is to make things simpler for employees and, most importantly, for clients. Employees can submit an idea to make something easier. Employee engagement was high in many simplification processes.

Q: How much do you rely on research and analysis to guide the development of new innovative services and products?

Dick Harryvan: All new products have to go through market research, resulting in a positive business case before we implement them.

Q: What innovative companies do you most admire?

Dick Harryvan: IKEA, Google, Nokia.

Q: Can you innovate without having access to large amounts of capital? If so, how?

Dick Harryvan: Absolutely, innovation is driven by creativity and can lead to cost savings rather than requiring capital.

Q: How can failure lead to innovative breakthroughs in business?

Dick Harryvan: Failure leads to innovative ideas to remove barriers to success.

Q: Does the importance of innovation to your organization vary depending on where you are in the business cycle?

Dick Harryvan: If an innovation leads to value creation the investment case can be approved even in tight phases of the business cycle.

[image: ING Direct Cafe]

In the weeks leading up to the FORTUNE Innovation Forum in New York City on November 29-30, the Business Innovation Insider is pleased to present a regular series of thought pieces with innovative thinkers in business and academia. Charles W. Prather, Ph.D., the president of Bottom Line Innovation Associates and the former Manager of the DuPont Center for Creativity & Innovation, joins us for a special Q&A on innovation. Below, he discusses creating a culture of innovation, unclogging the innovation pipeline and developing a “bottom line” model of innovation.

Q: What is the basic conceptual framework for “bottom line innovation”?

Charles Prather: Bottom Line Innovation is a set of offerings that provide the three essentials for helping organizations create a core competence for innovation. They are (1) Education, (2) Application, and (3) Leadership. The Education module teaches the basics along with tools to help break thinking patterns. In the Application module, a structured process for innovative problem solving is used to apply the tools of creative thinking to solve critical business problems. The Leadership module teaches leaders the four tasks they must accomplish to fully support and nurture innovation in their organization.

Q: What are the keys to creating a climate of innovation within any organization?

Charles Prather: Personal commitment and active participation by the top-most levels of leadership is THE key to creating a climate of innovation. We know that there are 10 dimensions that describe the climate for innovation, and the first and most important is Trust & Openness. Two of the remaining dimensions that benefit when there is a high level of trust are Freedom and Risk-Taking. When leaders’ performance is judged in part by the climate they set, things get better.

Q: Can you share a success story of how you transformed and developed innovation into a core competency for growth?

Charles Prather: Yes. One of the marketing arms of a medical company became committed to making innovation a way of working, and the effort was championed by none other then their President. He and his direct reports actively participated in the Education and Leadership workshops and sponsored a number of the Application sessions. As a result they are seeing growth in sales and earnings. The President even took it upon himself to learn the basics well enough that he began to teach these to his staff, and he talks about it frequently. This is the level of commitment and participation from leaders that will make a difference.

Q: How can companies “unclog” their innovation pipelines?

Charles Prather: Assuming there IS a pipeline of projects that is stalled, what is needed is a set of process steps and organizational supports to assure progress. One element is to realize that we must resource the selected projects to win, rather than just not to lose. “Just not to lose” resourcing is revealed when projects are staffed by 0.1 person and little budget - which of course dooms the project to a slow death from the start.

In the weeks leading up to the FORTUNE Innovation Forum in New York City on November 29-30, the Business Innovation Insider is pleased to present a regular series of thought pieces with innovative thinkers in business and academia. At the FORTUNE Innovation Forum, Paul Kwiecinski, the Managing Partner of Face the Music, will be leading a workshop that will engage participants in writing, singing and performing original blues songs about life in today’s business environment. Building on his experiences at Face The Music, Paul Kwiecinski will help forward-thinking individuals go beyond their “business blues” in order to refocus their energies on a compelling, collective vision of the future. In this Business Innovation Insider exclusive Q&A, Paul Kwiecinski shares his thoughts and insights about the process of business innovation:

Q: When it comes to innovation, what advantages/disadvantages do you feel small businesses have compared to their larger competitors?

Paul Kwiecinski: Small businesses have several advantages in innovation. One big advantage is a matter of physics - the inertia and mass of a large corporation makes it much more difficult to maneuver and change course. Small businesses are like cigarette boats, while the large ones are like tankers. Small businesses can respond to market changes and opportunities much more quickly. As in the Internet revolution, small businesses led the charge and defined how the Web was going to work.

The entrepreneurial spirit of small businesses is also innovative by nature. There is an action and response cycle that is fast-paced and adaptable. I’ve seen many long-term planning projects in corporations be scrapped because they were obsolete before they were completed. The small business approach of seeing an opportunity and forming an intention and approach around it, and getting into action is much more effective in today’s business environment.

In pharmaceuticals, most of the new drugs are coming from the small companies and being bought by the giants, while the big companies’ pipelines of internally developed molecules is sparse, despite the enormous resources available to them.

Flexibility, speed to respond, adaptability, networked resources, and a streamlined decision making process are key.

Q: As a small business, how does being closer to your customers and partners enable you to innovate either smarter or faster?

Paul Kwiecinski: Many of our existing offerings and products came from our customers; from having a dialog about what they are experiencing, and working together on approaches and solutions. Some just came from them saying: “Could you do…? It’s immediate and just-in-time information and response.

With our partners, it has been important to make and take time to be together in an unstructured way to make new and disparate connections and see various threads running through the issues and opportunities in front of us.

Q: What is your favorite small business innovation story?

Paul Kwiecinski: Maybe my own. We took a team-building exercise (writing blues songs) that was spontaneously delivered at an event in Paris in 1998, recognized that it might have great potential and developed a separate business that has operated prosperously for seven years. There was a moment of inspiration in doing it originally, and then a separate moment of inspiration by another partner to say, “Wait a minute, a lot of people could benefit from this.”

Q: What are the challenges in scaling a small-scale innovation into a large-scale innovation?

Paul Kwiecinski: There are three challenges: (1) To continue innovating, not to bog the idea down in large-scale mechanics (2) Coming to market quickly while the idea is timely and fresh and (3) Establishing good connection and communication between initiators, implementers and users.

Innovation consulting firm Innosight has been at the forefront of helping large, established competitors understand the impact of disruptive technologies on their industries and markets. Building on the disruptive innovation framework developed by Clayton Christensen, Innosight’s approach and proprietary tools facilitate the discovery of new, high-growth markets and the rapid creation of breakthrough products and services. With less than a month to go before the start of the FORTUNE Innovation Forum in New York City, Innosight co-founder and president Mark Johnson joins the Business Innovation Insider for a special Q&A on innovation. At the FORTUNE Innovation Forum, Mark Johnson will be moderating a panel discussion on Hardwiring Innovation and Creating a High-Performance Culture.

Q: Who should be responsible for innovation inside of a large corporation? Why?

Mark Johnson: It really depends. For innovations that sustain the core business, innovation responsibility should reside with the general manager who leads the unit but working closely with key people that allow different kinds of innovation to happen such as Product development for product service innovations and marketing for customer experience and channel innovations. For disruptive innovations that are intended to create whole new markets, responsibility should be separated out and a project manager who leads an autonomous should be put in charge.

Q: What is the most important thing that needs to happen before innovation inside a company can occur?

Mark Johnson: At Innosight, we believe the most important piece that needs to be in place is having a common language and a common way to frame innovation. That allows groups to collaborate in a way that allow innovation to happen given that they think about it in the same way. All too often different groups speak a different language of innovation. When that happens there’s what’s called an absorptive capacity issue – knowledge transfer which is so important for innovation to take place doesn’t happen because the fundamental language is so different between units.

Q: Is there an innovation success story within your business that you are most proud of?

Mark Johnson: As a consulting firm our success stories are with our clients. We have enjoyed working with companies to create numerous product successes which we cannot disclose given client confidentiality. Our most successful innovation stories come from the Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) industry.

Q: Is there a formal process for tapping into the knowledge of your workforce?

Mark Johnson: We have formal processes for doing this but they’re not mechanistic. That said, we tap into the knowledge of our professional staff by having bi-weekly “brown bag” lunch meetings. We also transfer people around, working in different team compositions to transfer ideas and insights to new groups. We also have formal training events where we expect each person of our professional organization to have a teaching role at some point throughout the year. Finally, we leverage knowledge through an on-line management system, enhanced by an individual at our company who works half her time “pushing” the system out to our employees.

Q: How much do you rely on research and analysis to guide the development of new innovative services and products?

Mark Johnson: Again, this depends if we’re talking about a sustaining, in market development effort or an effort to create a new market opportunity through a disruptive approach. If it’s sustaining we help clients by often conducting a lot of market and other forms of research. If it’s disruptive into a new market, we will do some research to understand the basic “jobs” consumers might have but it’s more of an empirical effort where learning takes place by “doing”, implementing in the market. Further, typical disruptive opportunities utilize existing, often simple technologies so technical research and analysis is often minimal, although not always in these kinds of innovations.

Q: What innovative companies do you most admire?

Mark Johnson: P&G, J&J, Cisco, Toyota

Q: Does the importance of innovation to your organization vary depending on where you are in the business cycle?

Mark Johnson: It’s an important point about innovation. The time to pursue innovations that really transform the company to the next level should take place when the core business is healthy and not financially challenged. When financial challenges happen, innovation takes a hit except for those innovations that can help wring out costs or seem good routes to gain market share. Again as a consulting firm, we can only advise here and our suggestion is start before you need to in focusing on innovations that help you to create new growth.

Q: Can you innovate without having access to large amounts of capital? If so, how?

Mark Johnson: Yes, the disruptive approach is all about this kind of innovation approach. It’s about spending a little to learn a lot in the marketplace before pouring too much money into a venture. The key is to manage risk in going into new growth areas and this is best done by keeping the “experiment” well bounded with a niche, foothold market and then trying to prove a viable business model through proving profitability. By keeping the investment low clarity remains on whether the business is structured right to turn a profit

Q: How can failure lead to innovative breakthroughs in business?

Mark Johnson: Failure is really a key to breakthrough because said another way, failure means learning of which adjustments are made. On the other hand, a mistake is doing the same failure twice because learning didn’t take place. For creating new growth in new markets, outside the core of a company the only option is to fail. In fact, 90% of successful ventures make significant changes to their strategy 4 times before getting it right. So failure is part of coming up with a business breakthrough for a new market. The key to failure means learning from the market and the learning is then transferred to making adjustments to get the overall business model right.

In the weeks leading up to the FORTUNE Innovation Forum in New York City on November 29-30, the Business Innovation Insider is pleased to present a regular series of thought pieces with innovative thinkers in business and academia. At the FORTUNE Innovation Forum, Business 2.0 editor-at-large Erick Schonfeld will be moderating a panel discussion that includes executives from Yahoo!, Digg.com and Microsoft on How to Bring the Next Big Thing to the Mass Market. In this Business Innovation Insider exclusive, Erick Schonfeld follows up on his Business 2.0 cover feature on disruptive innovation as he describes the primary characteristics of any disruptive technology:

“What all the disruptive companies have in common is that they are throwing orthodoxy out the window and taking a completely new approach to solve unmet consumer or market needs. Some of them are developing new disruptive technologies (like EEStor, which is developing a battery for an electric car that might rival the internal combustion engine), while others are using existing technologies to create disruptive business models (like Zopa, which is using the Internet to create a peer-to-peer banking service that is an eBay for loans). Usually a business is disruptive because it offers an alternative product to the status quo that is either better, cheaper, or more convenient.

The thing that surprised me the most in my reporting for the story is that disruptive technologies that win out in the end usually are not better than what they are competing against-at least not initially. The most successful disruptors creep up on incumbents, addressing markets they are ignoring or siphoning off customers they deem to be too unprofitable. Remember, the PC started out as a hobbyist toy. But every year it became more powerful, until now it rules the world. Today, Web-based word processors, spreadsheets, and calendars are not better than the desktop applications they are trying to replace. But they are more convenient and easier to share-and they tend to be free!

The most disruptive businesses, though, don’t replace existing products. They compete against non-consumption by opening up new markets that were never before possible. Think of the airplane, the cell phone, or the Internet. Sure, some industries might get trampled by these new technologies - but only if those industries are not giving consumers what they really want. If you think about it, disruption is just another name for the age-old economic concept of creative destruction.”

[top image: Scott Beale / Laughing Squid]

In the weeks leading up to the FORTUNE Innovation Forum in New York City on November 29-30, the Business Innovation Insider is pleased to present a regular series of thought pieces with innovative thinkers in business and academia. At the FORTUNE Innovation Forum, entrepreneur Paul Budnitz, the president and founder of Kidrobot, will be leading a workshop on how to line up funding for innovative new ideas. (Kidrobot is now the world’s premier creator and retailer of limited edition art toys and apparel - if you’re starting work on this year’s holiday wish list, you should check out the online Kidrobot store)

In this Business Innovation Insider exclusive, Paul Budnitz outlines the origin of the designer toy movement in the USA and explains how Kidrobot helped to catalyze and support this movement:

“When I started Kidrobot in early 2002, designer toys were mostly available in Japan and Hong Kong. In the USA the toys were mostly on eBay, and they were very hard to find and very expensive. I began to import these toys, but at the same time, we began to design and manufacture our own toys. I think what really popularized the movement was our willingness to work with USA artists, and to create a web site, stores, and an artist/customer community around that.

Kidrobot’s toy line is essentially a collaboration between myself and the Kidrobot staff, and US designers, graffiti artists, fine artists, fashion designers, etc. What is unique about Kidrobot is the depth of that collaboration — in general artists work with us to produce something in our style, not necessarily the other way around.

We have produced toys made with designers such as Frank Kozik, Dalek, Gary Baseman, Visionaire, Gucci, Marc Jacobs, Jil Sander, Paul Smith, Paul Pope, Mori Chax, Kenzo Minami, Cycle, Lemar & Dauley, Swizz Beatz, Wildbrain, Gorillaz, and many others.

In four years Kidrobot has grown from a web store and retailer into manufacturing and wholesale. We’ve also grown from toys to a full clothing line, into animation, and print. We also have designed a floor in Peter Gatien’s new mega-nightclub in Toronto, and have a series of limited edition cars coming out with Volkswagen this fall.”

[image: Paul Budnitz of Kidrobot]

In the weeks leading up to the FORTUNE Innovation Forum in New York City on November 29-30, the Business Innovation Insider is pleased to present a regular series of thought pieces with innovative thinkers in business and academia. At the FORTUNE Innovation Forum, world-renowned strategy guru Gary Hamel, a visiting professor at London Business School and the author of books such as Leading the Revolution and Competing for the Future, will be speaking on the topic of Continuous Management Innovation. In this Business Innovation Insider exclusive, Gary Hamel outlines why management innovation is the kind of innovation that matters most:

“Innovation is Topic A in companies around the world. This shouldn’t be surprising. After all, innovation is the only way to create wealth over the medium-term. In the short-run, companies can cut costs through off-shoring and outsourcing, they can capture the efficiency gains from industry consolidation and plump up the share price via stock buy backs. But in the longer-term, there are no substitutes to innovation.

Importantly, though, some forms of innovation deliver more in the way of competitive advantage than others. My research, and that of my colleagues at the London Business School, suggests that management research—fundamental advances in the way companies allocate capital, motivate employees, organize activities, create strategies, and set priorities—has the most potential to create long-lasting competitive advantage. Indeed, if one looks back over the last 100 years of industrial competition, it is management innovation, more than any other sort, that has produced big and enduring shifts in industry leadership. A few examples:

* Managing science. In the early 1900s, General Electric perfected Thomas Edison’s most notable invention, the industrial research laboratory. GE’s success in bringing management discipline to the chaotic process of scientific discovery allowed Edison to claim that his labs were capable of producing a minor breakthrough every 10 days and a major invention every six months. This was no idle boast. Over the first half of the 20th century, GE won more patents than any other company in America.

* Allocating capital. DuPont played a pioneering role in the development of capital-budgeting techniques when it initiated the use of return on investment calculations in 1903. A few years later, the company also developed a standardized way of comparing the performance of its numerous product departments. These advances addressed a pressing problem: how to allocate capital rationally when confronted with a bewildering array of potentially attractive projects? DuPont’s new decision tools would help it to become one of America’s industrial giants.

* Managing intangible assets. Procter & Gamble’s preeminence in the packaged goods industry has its roots in the early 1930s, when the company began to formalize its approach to brand management. At the time, the idea of creating value out of intangible assets was a novel management notion. In the decades since, P&G has steadily built upon its early lead in building and managing great brands. In 2005, P&G’s product portfolio included 16 brands that produced $1 billion-plus in sales every year.

* Capturing the wisdom of every employee. As the world’s most profitable car-maker, much of Toyota’s success rests on its unmatched ability to enroll employees in the relentless pursuit of efficiency and quality. For more than forty years, Toyota’s capacity for continuous improvement has been powered by a belief in the ability of “ordinary” employees to solve complex problems. Indeed, people inside Toyota sometimes refer to the Toyota Production System as the “Thinking People System.” In 2005, the company received more than 560,000 improvement ideas from its Japanese employees.

* Enabling a network of volunteers. Linux, the ubiquitous computer operating system, is the best known example of a radically new approach to organizing human effort: open source development. Based on subsidiary innovations like the general public license and online collaboration tools, open source development has proved to be a highly effective mechanism for eliciting and coordinating the efforts of a geographically dispersed group of volunteers.

Given the power of management innovation to deliver peer-beating performance, it is odd that so few companies possess a well-honed process for continuous management innovation. Today, it’s a rare company that lacks a formal methodology for product innovation. Hundreds of companies have R&D groups that explore the frontiers of science. And in recent years, virtually every organization on the planet has been obsessed with operational innovation—reinventing core business processes for the sake of speed and efficiency. Yet a troll through the pages of the world’s leading business magazines quickly reveals the steerage-class status of management innovation.

Over the last seventy years, the terms “technology innovation” and “technical innovation” have appeared in the title or abstract of more than 52,000 articles. More than 3,000 articles have concerned themselves with “product innovation.” The comparatively new topic of “strategic innovation” (which includes terms like “business innovation” and “business model innovation”) has been covered in more than 600 articles. Yet taken together, articles on “management innovation,” “managerial innovation,” “organizational innovation,” and “administrative innovation” number less than 300, and nearly all of these focus on the diffusion rather than the invention of new management practices—a bias that’s understandable only if you believe following is better than leading.

When it comes to innovation, most companies have a barn-sized blind spot. Perversely, the sorts of innovation that are least likely to produce long-term competitive advantage—operational innovation and product innovation—are those that invariably get the most attention. What accounts for this myopia?

Firstly, managers typically don’t see themselves as inventors. Unlike technologists, developers and, more recently, business strategists, innovation isn’t central to the average manager’s role definition. In most companies, managers are selected, trained, and rewarded for their capacity to deliver more of the same, more efficiently. No one expects them to be innovators. Rather, they are expected to turn someone else’s innovation into growth and profits.

Secondly, while technologists have a near-religious faith in the advance-ability of scientific knowledge, few executives hold on to similarly buoyant hopes for radical innovation in management. Managers are unsurprised when science advances by leaps and bounds; but there’s little evidence they expect the practice of management to do the same.

When forced to account for a lackadaisical pace of management innovation, executives typically claim that immutable laws of human nature constrain the range of feasible options for mobilizing and organizing human effort. In this view, there are natural limits that circumscribe the scope of management innovation. There are limits, it is argued, to the number of people one person can effectively supervise, to the degree to which accountability can be distributed, to the extent to which employees can be trusted, to the willingness of individuals to subordinate their self-interests to the interests of the corporation as a whole. Whether these limits are real or self-imposed (mostly the latter, I think), they offer a reassuring alternative to the premise that it is a lack of imagination that most severely constrains management innovation.

Today companies face an array of daunting new challenges: the commoditization of knowledge, the emergence of ultra-low cost competitors, the rapid growth of customer power, unrelenting change, and collapsing barriers to entry. These unprecedented problems demand unprecedented solutions—solutions that will only emerge when companies learn to innovate as boldly around their management systems and processes as they do around their products, services and strategies.

In the weeks leading up to the FORTUNE Innovation Forum in New York City on November 29-30, the Business Innovation Insider is pleased to present a regular series of Q&As with innovative thinkers in business and academia. In this Q&A, Mary Kay Haben, SVP of Open Innovation at Kraft Foods, outlines the strategic rationale for the company’s new innovation program.

Q. Kraft recently announced an open innovation strategy that will solicit ideas from consumers about innovative ways to package and sell Kraft products. Can you describe in greater detail how Kraft is structuring the program and what types of results it expects from the program?

Mary Kay Haben: Recently Kraft embarked on an ambitious Open Innovation Strategy to augment and transform our innovation efforts. The purpose of Open Innovation is to better enable the organization to receive ideas from the outside and connect with potential external alliance partners. The expected outcome is improved speed to market, improved R&D leverage and hopefully more breakthrough innovation. Kraft is soliciting outside ideas against articulated needs (i.e. we search for stuff we know we want or need). In addition, we are accepting and vetting unsolicited ideas that may meet unarticulated needs via our InnovateWithKraft.com website. Further we are also looking for ways to transfer our own intellectual property outside the company through licensing and other arrangements.

For more information on the Kraft Open Innovation program, check out the following links:

Have an idea? Share it with Kraft [Innovate With Kraft]
Kraft and open innovation [The Medici Effect]
Kraft goes experiential [PROMO magazine]
Innovate With Kraft.com [All this Chittah Chattah]

Open innovation at Kraft foods? [Manage to Change]
With open innovation, no idea left behind [CNET]
Kraft Foods and Crowdsourcing [Mass Customization & Open Innovation]
Kraft tightens filter on customer innovation [Marketing & Strategy Innovation]

The current issue of FORTUNE is chock full of a number of interesting articles based around the theme of What It Takes to Be Great. In addition to the Secrets of Greatness cover article by Geoffrey Colvin, there’s a profile of Boeing CEO James McNerney, a piece by Michael Lewis on why iconoclasts in business find new ways to succeed, and a fun piece on What makes 12 Peak Performers Tick.

Jia Lynn Yang and Jerry Useem also weigh in on why it’s so important to cross-train your brain. The basic idea is that outside interests and hobbies - no matter how unrelated to your job - can become a powerful stimulus to creativity. One example is Condoleeza Rice, who’s actually a concert-level pianist in addition to being one of the brightest foreign policy advisors around. Apparently, Ms. Rice performs Brahms sonatas with Yo-Yo Ma when she’s not busy with her “side gig at the State Department.” This is more than just anecdotal evidence - scientific researchers in fields like neuroscience are starting to generate some amazing conclusions on brain behavior. By training your brain in different ways, you are opening up new neural pathways and establishing connections with parts of the brain related to visualization and conceptualization.

Anyway, the Condoleeza Rice “Cross-Train Your Brain” article is not yet up on the FORTUNE site. In the meantime, could I possibly interest you in the new Secrets of Greatness book from FORTUNE, now available at the low, low price of $13.57 from Amazon.com?

In coordination with the upcoming FORTUNE Innovation Forum in New York City, futurethink and the American Management Association are co-sponsoring a special innovation webinar on Wednesday, October 11 at 12:00 noon ET. The two hosts of the webinar will be Lisa Bodell, founder and CEO of futurethink, and Heather Schultz, Senior VP of Program Acquisition and Management at the American Management Association. (Heather is also the former President and COO of Tom Peters Company). Anyway, if you’re already signed up for the FORTUNE Innovation Forum, you have probably already received an e-mail invitation to the webinar. If not, here are the details:

“Innovation. Everybody’s talking about it. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find an organization or CEO who wouldn’t say it’s a top strategic priority. So if innovation is such an obvious answer to today’s business challenges, why is it still so elusive? The truth is there are significant challenges to overcome in order to make innovation part of an organization’s everyday life and DNA.

True innovation requires shifting how businesses treat innovation in order to make it a normal and repeatable business process; moving from the mystical and intangible to the measurable and manageable; and developing a clear framework for understanding innovation and a clear path for driving results. Attend our free web event and learn about the four capabilities organizations need to become truly innovative - ideas, strategy, process and climate. Uncover an effective approach to drive innovation, discover real-life examples of other innovators, and learn how to jumpstart innovation in your organization.”

To sign up for the webinar, visit the official site for the FORTUNE Innovation Forum and then scroll down the page to the “Free Innovation Webinar” link.