Who They Are:

Fortune 1000 companies across diverse industry sectors in chemicals to plumbing to pumps to enzymes to pharmaceuticals to renewable energy and beyond.
Significant European base.
Revenue of $500M to $1B USD or greater and select companies under this threshold with a clearly stated innovation agenda.
Innovation leaders in their respective industries or fast followers and a few laggards with a burning platform where strategic innovation is critical to their survival.

Client Testimonials

"We have made significant progress in building and executing a portfolio of new business opportunities in a very short period of time. We owe much of that to the approach and discipline that the Radical Innovation Group taught and advises us on."
New Business Development Co-Leaders, NOVA Chemicals

"Our Company was looking for ways to reinvigorate its historical strength in developing breakthrough innovation products. The Radical Innovation book provided us with the Innovation Hub concept which fits our company so well that I sought advice from the Radical Innovation Group, appointed a Hub Director to get us started and shared the concept with the Connecticut Technology Council where it was extremely well received."
Former President, Gerber Scientific Products

"The Learning Plan™ methodology has helped us discover new market applications, identify the stages of the learning process for breakthrough innovation projects, and better articulate organizational value."
Innovation Process Director, CEMEX

"We have clear evidence that implementing the Radical Innovation Group’s transition management tools and techniques does indeed increase the success rate of transitioning major business opportunities from our Innovation Hub to landing zones (receiving units)."
Innovation and Commercialization Manager, Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak)

"Building our Innovation Roadmap is helping our team own and drive the full innovation system including strategic relevance, funding, talent, and system level metrics."
Director (now VP), HP

Case Studies

Company A
Problem Statement: In 2005, a Canadian global company presented an opportunity development challenge. At the time, all the company had were 6 or 7 ideas that McKinsey and others presented as more fully developed strategic projects.

Solution: The company now has a strong pipeline and operates at the portfolio management level. It has built an opportunity development capability, an incubation capability and a portfolio management capability as well as an effective Venture Advisory Board.

Outcome: Company has been able to keep its new business development activities moving forward in a commodity chemicals industry coupled with a serious economic downturn, is viewed by the executive as the future of the company, has formed a number of strategic partnerships and has a robust portfolio that is now generating significant revenue after 5 years of operation. Note: This company implemented all the elements of the Innovation Roadmap for achieving a mature innovation system and has met with the greatest success.

Company B
Problem Statement: In 2001, a US global company presented a transition management challenge. The systems concept group in R&D felt it had a lot of great business opportunities and the BUs were simply not seeing the value of them. While the R&D group felt it had promising business opportunities, it was primarily an idea generation shop that was fairly isolated from the rest of the company.

Solution: By the end of our engagement over 1.5-2 years, the company had a clearly distinguished idea development, incubation, and acceleration process. A transition management capability was developed that ensured uncertainties were reduced to the level a BU could handle and an Business Accelerator was developed for business opportunities that did not fit with the BUs. A Venture Board was formed and composed of the right decision makers to ensure R&D and BU activities were linked, redundancies did not exist and organization and resource issues were addressed.

Outcome: The R&D group revenue contributions to the BUs increased by a factor of 2 to 3 times. Note: This company changed its business strategy with a new CEO and restructured, decreasing its focus on R&D yet still valuing the contributions of innovation to growth.

Company C
Problem Statement: In 2006, a Danish global company articulated a desire to instill radical innovation in its culture. The New Business Development group was in its infancy. There was a belief that the culture would change, if the company simply said it would. The company underestimated what it took to bring about this change.

Solution: In working together, the company has developed a common language for innovation across its two business areas and R&D. Our learning plan methodology is the cornerstone of the innovation strategy, which has been the trigger for culture change. The company is applying consistent evaluation criteria, which is different from criteria used for its new product development projects. The executive team reviews strategic projects and has developed a clear strategic intent for what the company wants to be in 10 years from now.

Outcome: A radical innovation culture is emerging. Platforms have been defined for growth and company renewal. The organizational purpose is clear. Innovation projects have a line of sight to growth targets in 2018. Note: This company has not completed its Innovation Roadmap in areas of governance, portfolio management and transition management. Due to the economic conditions in Europe, some of the progress was lost in 2009/2010, however, there is a renewed commitment. While innovation efforts were scaled back, they have not been shut down. Innovation budgets are increasing for 2011 to work through other areas of the innovation system critical for sustained success.