What we have set out to do is to develop a modified framework that can be used for all types of innovations. We start with the two parts (invention and commercialization) that make up any innovation, including service, product, or business concept. We then modify Oloffson’s framework so that it can be used for all innovations.

Invention:

• Element Change: Similar to Oloffson’s T [component] dimension, however instead of just dealing with physical components, it deals with any element that makes up an invention. Elements could be a molecule in a drug, power supply in a computer or a step in a new business model.
• How different are the invention's elements compared to previous versions?
• Is there one specific element that has dramatically changed?
• Is this change due to new materials, new technologies, or other new inventions?
• System Change: Similar to Oloffson’s T [structure] dimension, however instead of just dealing with physical structures, this dimension deals with any type of system. A system could be a drug made up of different molecules; a car made up of different components or a business model made up of different elements.
• How different is the invention's structure compared to previous products in the industry?
• Is there one specific aspect that has changed or has everything about the structure changed?
• How different are the linkages between the elements?
• Has this structure existed previously?
• Has it existed in this industry?
• Is the new structure dramatically different from previous structures?
• Performance: Similar to a combination of T [separate] and M [undershooting], however performance is focused purely on the invention and not on any commercialization aspect of the innovation. Performance is based on functional benchmarks used by the industry to determine how well a product performs. It can be acceleration for a car, efficacy for a drug, Turnover ratio for a business model or strength for a material.
• Does this invention dramatically under-perform or outperform the current innovation(s)?
• The invention is not consistent with the current innovation(s) performance trajectory?
• Example: When the 3.5” hard drive was introduced by Conner Peripherals, the performance measures that were used by the established 5.25” drive makers was cost-per megabyte and storage capacity. In both cases the new 3.5” drives underperformed (Christensen and Bower 2).
• Benefit: Similar to a combination of T [focus] and M [undershooting], however benefit is concerned only with the invention and not with the market.
• Does this invention offer a significant benefit such as cost, size, convenience where it outperforms the current innovation?
• Example: Although the 3.5” drives introduced by Conner Peripherals underperformed when compared to the established performance measures, they offered other important benefits like ruggedness, lightweight and low power consumption (Christensen and Bower 2).

Commercialization:

• Target Customers: Similar to M [pioneer], however the use of the term customer is more to the point and is a term that is well understood in management literature.
• Is the innovation targeting over-served (high end - pioneers) or underserved (unsophisticated, low end) or not served customers?
• Is the innovation not targeting the current customer base?
• Need Creation: Similar to M [need-creator], however Needs is focused strictly on the commercialization end of the equation and not the invention.
• Does the innovation address a set of unaddressed needs?
• Does the innovation not address the current needs?
• To what extent does the new innovation address “new” or “latent” customer needs?
• Is the new innovation reformulating the established mindset of what customers want?
• Value Network/Industry Shakeup: Although M [supply] and T [supply] address some of the questions below, they do not fully evaluate this dimension.
• To what degree does the new innovation require fundamental destruction of previous knowledge and skills for incumbents to compete?
• To what extent does the innovation affect the relationship among current network players?
• Is a totally new network required to commercialize this invention?
• To what extent are new production systems, procedures and equipment required to commercialize this invention?
• To what extent does it impact the supply chain?
• To what extent does it impact the value chain?
• Does it destroy linkages and interactions among current players in the chain?
• Market Size & Growth: Oloffson’s framework does not address market size, however many innovation authors and practitioners do.
• Is the target market larger or much smaller than the current market?
• Is their a high sales growth?

1 Dan Olofsson, Radical product Innovations, IDP, 2003-01-15
2 Christensen and Bower, Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave, HBR, 1995

TOP ^