The Innovation Paradox

A common concern of customers is that their sourcing partner has failed to deliver innovation over the life of the contract. When I go into a presentation with a prospect, I am often asked – how will you be different from our current supplier in driving innovation into the engagement. There could be one of several answers why this is the case -

·     Current partners lack the capability or are culturally inept in bringing innovation to their clients

·     The customer has squeezed the partners so hard that they only  commenced making money  in Year 3 or Year 4 of a 5 year contract. Profitability or lack of it is the issue

·     Customer organization / stakeholder interest prevented an innovation culture

·     Complexity in sourcing makes idea generation difficult because of the lack of complete visibility of the business value chains

While all these are valid justifications to the conundrum, there may be a completely different perspective of the source of the issue. Let me explore the root cause by explaining the potential dimensions around innovation value zones -

The perception of innovation influenced and delivered decreases as we move from Zone 1 through 4. There are three reasons why technology sourcing partnerships fail to deliver innovation.

Firstly, more often than not, I have seen cases where the customer intrinsically expects the technology sourcing arrangement to deliver the Category 3 or Category 4 innovation given the competitive pressures or evolving business models contracting or threatening their market share. For them the innovation value zone is them and their consumers, while most technology sourcing partners understand their influence to be in a different value zone – between them and the customers division they influence or the overall customer process chain. The partners positioning of their innovation attempts lie predominantly in Category 1 or at best Category 2 innovation. Though these may have an indirect influence towards Category 3 or 4 innovation themes, most customers fail to appreciate their partner’s contribution and are dissatisfied with their performance on this dimension during the lifetime of the contract. This may stem from either a lack of understanding of the impact or more so a fundamental dichotomy in expectations between that parties involved. The further a technology partner’s offering is to a Category 4 value zone, the greater is the probability of disconnect on innovation delivered or influenced due to expectation mismatch.

Secondly, technology partners have a limited understanding of how to deliver parameters of success to help their customers excel in their innovation zones across the four categories. Most providers are unable to understand the impact of their services across various innovation zones coupled with a limited capability in how to engineer value creation for their customers.

Third, customers do not have scorecard metrics in place to measure engagements to periodically monitor alignment to the innovation zones. It’s important to define the impacted value zone clearly for the right outcome. This creates ambiguity between the customer and the partner in the quantum of innovation influenced and delivered.