BENCHMARKING INNOVATION 3

Benchmarking Innovation:
A Short Report
Zoe Radnor and Judith Robinson

A project is reported that benchmarked `best practice' mature organisations, with a base in
the United Kingdom, on the processes and practices that they perceive underpinned
successful innovation projects. The majority of organisations had director level personnel
involved in the innovation process but only three had active involvement of the top
management. However, the majority saw the greatest level of innovation being obtained
through the use of cross-functional teams. Five key innovation supports were identified
during the benchmarking exercise. These were top management support for, and involve-
ment in the process; the appointment of an innovation champion or sponsor; rewards for
innovative behaviours and ideas; and finally a positive attitude to building on creative ideas,
irrespective of their source. It is suggested that benchmarking can play a role in identifying
best-practice innovation structures and procedures.

Summary in the innovation process. The data derived

from these visits led to a series of tables which

I nnovation is central to the development

and maintenance of new products, new
ways of working and new processes within
any organisation. A project was established to
benchmark `best practice' mature organisa-
tions, with a base in the United Kingdom, on
the processes and practices that they perceive
underpinned successful innovation projects.
This paper will aim to present some of the
initial findings from the project. They high-
light important issues in connection with the
context, culture and process of innovation.
The project methodology began when a
period of desk-based research was under-
taken to identify potential partner organisa-
tions. This was then followed by a series of
visits to benchmark partners to collect and
share information about innovation. Primary
data were collected through the use of inter-
views and questionnaires to understand the
current position and organisational context.
Eight organisations were visited during this
pilot project and data collected through a
mini-case study approach supplemented with
the use of an inventory. In all organisations, at
least one contact was at director level, or
similar, and this facilitated an overview of the
entire process from idea generation to launch.
In addition, most organisations enabled ac-
cess to other employees who played a role
described the context, culture and process
used during successful innovations. These
data reveal some key themes and practices
which are currently leading to successful
innovation within the United Kingdom.
Introduction
The comparison of operations within one
organisation with those in other organisations
is known as benchmarking. Slack and co-
authors (1995) note that Xerox used `compe- Xerox and
titive benchmarking' in 1979 to describe the `competitive
process in which the manufacturing division benchmarking'
revitalised itself by comparing the features of
its assemblies and processes with those of
competitors. Benchmarking is subject to a
variety of definitions: it has been defined as a
continuous search for and application of
significantly better practices that lead to
superior competitive performance. Others
note that benchmarking is the process by
which organisations learn modelled on the
human learning performance. In essence, all
of these definitions may be paraphrased as
benchmarking is in effect a tool which may be
used to measure and improve performance.
Several texts note that the use of benchmark-
ing enables the organisation to develop an

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000. 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF
and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000
4 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
understanding of how exceptional perform-
ance is obtained. Any benchmarking exercise
should therefore result in two types of out-
puts: the benchmark comparative data and a
set of enablers that represent the practices
that underlie the performance. Finally, Wat-
son (1993) cites a speech given by Deming to
Hewlett Packard in which it is noted that
users of benchmark data should `Adapt, don't
adopt.' This indicates that the context in
which the benchmark companies operate will
influence the process enablers. Since com-
panies differ in culture and business environ-
ment it is probable that direct transfer of
practices would prove unsuccessful.
It has been argued that there are a number
of different types of benchmarking including
internal, external, non-competitive, competi-
tive, performance and best-practice bench-
marking (Boxwell, 1996; Codling, 1992;
Holloway, 1997 and Zairi, 1993). Indeed, it
has been suggested that use of competitive
benchmarking can foster innovation, and
enhance product and service quality. This
study effectively falls into the broad category
of performance benchmarking. It combined
elements of measurement e.g. quality,
number of successful innovations launched
per year, and process benchmarking (an
attempt was made to understand the culture
and context within each organisation).
Benchmarking goes beyond a study of
business processes in that it has four essential
steps according to the method described by
W. Edward Deming: plan, do, check and act.
The last stage provides the process with a bias
towards action. Such benchmarking can lead
to business process re-engineering (Hammer
& Champy 1995). The four stages are often
represented as a wheel or cycle to highlight
the repetitive nature of the process.
The first stage involves the identification of
the processes or practices to be compared,
and an evaluation of the current performance
of the business. The second step requires
secondary research to identify potential
benchmarks, the development of question-
naires and research questions. Once the
benchmarkers have completed secondary
Linear innovation research, site visits should be arranged to
model share information and collect primary data.
The third step requires the data to be
analysed in two dimensions. First, to deter-
mine the perceived performance gap and
second, to identify the so-called process
enablers. Finally, the information derived
from analysis should be used to develop a
process suited for the company. This re-
quires recommendations for change within
the organisation aimed at improving per-
formance.
Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000
Innovation is important to the economy as
a whole. A recent Economist article (Anon
1999). notes that governments, businesses and
other organisations have been united by a
thirst for innovation. Innovation is often
described in terms of the production of better
products or services. We should also recog-
nize the innovation inherent in manufactur-
ing process changes, new ways of marketing,
distributing or supporting these services
(Urban 1980).
Innovation is a manageable process often
reduced to three broadly identifiable stages:
The invention stage where ideas are con-
ceived, collected and entered into the process.
The implementation phase during which
exploration and/or development lead to the
realisation of the idea within the organisation,
and finally
The market penetration phase in which the
benefits to the organisation of the innovation
are exploited (Weyrich 1998).
Others (Doyle 1994; Anon 1999) define the
innovation process in five steps:
(1) Imagining, to derive the initial insight
(2) Incubating, or nurturing the concept to
gauge if it has commercial valu
(3) Developing prototypes, coupled with
market research
(4) Promoting and marketing, and
(5) Sustaining the innovation by extending
the life-cycle.
Whilst there are always exceptions to rules,
most innovations result from a conscious,
purposeful search for opportunities (Mohrle
& Pannenbacker 1997). According to the CBI,
there are four styles of innovation: exploita-
tion of novel technology, process innovation,
supply chain integration and broad innova-
tion strategy with the best companies demon-
strating elements of all four styles (CBI
Innovation trends survey 1999).
Within the new product development
literature, innovation and new product devel-
opment is often described in terms of linear
processes (see for example Price & Bass 1969).
This impression of a linear process is con-
firmed when case studies relating to innova-
tion are consulted. The linear model implies
that innovation proceeds as an orderly pro-
cess, starting with the discovery of new
knowledge, moving through development to
launch. It is generally agreed, however, that
this approach is overly simplistic. A number
of authors have attempted to model the
innovation process in more detail (Calantone
1988; Ettlie 1980; Josty 1990; King 1992; and
Kline 1985). These papers all suggest that
innovation is a complex process, which
despite its importance is poorly understood.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000
BENCHMARKING INNOVATION 5

Thus, although these stage models have
high face-validity, Rickards (1996) points out
that the innovating system remains open to
information throughout. Ideas, generally of a
more incremental kind, may be regarded as
thoroughly inter-mingled with implementa-
tion activities. Furthermore, the cyclic rep-
resentation of the models indicates that
implementation is always `sandwiched' be-
tween planning-type stages. In other words,
we must treat stage models as useful guides
to a more complex reality that is always open
to contextual surprises. This is why bench-
marking can suggest possibilities, but cannot
provide a total a priori plan for a specific
future innovation. (Mintzberg 1994).
Methods
searches and the use of appropriate databases
(Mintel, Extel cards, and The creative organ-
isation database, Rickards 1998). The inten-
tion was to gather data and identify potential
benchmarking partners. A systematic search
for information was undertaken on compa-
nies based in both the FTSE Top 100 and Dow
Jones Top 100.
Criteria for Admission Included
Large organisations with turnover similar to,
or greater than that of the sponsoring organi-
sations' Business Units. Separate innovation
units associated with large organisations were
also included, provided their parent organi-
sation matched both the turnover require-
ment and operated within the science-based
or FMCG areas.

A benchmarking exercise was undertaken to Target Organisation Perceived as Being

facilitate learning about innovation from a
number of organisations. The key research
questions were:
Did the benchmark partners have a defined
process for innovation?
What clues could be obtained about the
context and culture of these organisations?
How does the organisational culture support
innovation?
In line with the benchmarking literature, this
study has been undertaken using the plan, do,
check act cycle as outlined in Table 1, which
outlines the key research steps undertaken
during each phase of the research.
Initial Selection of Benchmark Partners
This stage involved the use of data sources
including articles, professional bodies, Internet
Innovative Within its Own Industry Sector
Target organisation had launched at least one
innovative product per year for three years.
New product launches were successful in
terms of increased shareholder value.
Two additional categories of organisation
that also could be highly innovative were
added to the initial targets or prospective
benchmark companies. These were (1) uni-
versity and not-for-profit research organis-
ations and (2) SMEs which have to be
innovative to survive.
Hart (1996) has summarised the techniques
required to collect the required process data.
The approach used here follows the targets
set in Hart's review: interviewing people who
understand and know the process well,
obtaining a balance in the level of detail
between the process maps obtained for each

Table 1: Benchmarking innovation process stages

Benchmarking Stage Activities Undertaken

Plan Initial selection of target benchmark partners

. Secondary source research to identify potential targets

Do Collection of data from benchmark companies

. Benchmark visits to 8 organisations
. Triangulation of information obtained using secondary sources

Check Analysis of benchmark company processes with respect to their

operational context and environment
Act Development of a framework: people, process and culture for the
analysis of innovation in other organisations

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000 Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000

6 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

organisation and, finally focussing on Quantitative, qualitative and process maps.

breadth, not depth, in the collection of data.
Once the principle of benchmarking was
agreed, the researcher visited the organis-
ation. A semi-structured questionnaire was
used to guide these discussions, to ensure that
comparative data was collected from each
organisation. The organisation of each such
visit was left, in part, with the partner
organisation. Some offered one-to-one meet-
ings with key staff, whilst others met with the
researcher in small groups of three to five
members. One meeting was conducted by
telephone because of the limited regional
availability of the Marketing Director.
The data collected during the benchmarking
exercise comprised three distinct categories:
Miles and Huberman (1984) have written a
guide for the analysis of and display of
qualitative data. In brief, they encourage the
use of tables to display key information.
Results
Eight organisations were included within this
benchmarking exercise (Table 2), all of which
had a base in the United Kingdom or Ireland.
Five of the companies were global blue-chip
corporates. The purpose of the study was to
gain some understanding on innovation ac-
tivity, the main inhibiting/facilitating factors,
and also to assess non-specific strengths and
weaknesses in innovation work. The main

Table 2. Profile of Participant Companies

Trade description Name Innovation features

Supermarket retailer Retailco Top management involvement

fmcg environment
Major retailer
Pharmaceutical company Pharmaco Pharma company.
Commercial R&D
Healthcare company with Healthco Retailer of healthcare goods
retailing and manufacturing In-group manufacturing
businesses Breakout strategic growth
Globalisation of their brand
Strategic planner reputation
IT company hardware Computaco Consumer goods
Phenomenally successful
Excellent internet strategy
Strong marketing
Flavourists Familyco SME
Entrepreneurial culture
Research commercialisation Uniresorg Commercialisation of University
from a major UK University activities
Strong R&D and knowledge base
Biotechnology research and Biotechco R&D commercialisation
associated biotechnology Links with University
spin-outs Strong R&D
Consumer goods company Consumerco fmcg company
IT system designed to facilitate
innovation process
Central innovation groupings (product
related)
Local centres which modify innovations
to meet local needs and tastes.

Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000

BENCHMARKING INNOVATION 7

research objective was to gain an understand-
ing of the innovation process and the organ-
isational design features that maximise step-
change innovation. The sample were drawn
from a diverse range of industries and sectors
as the researchers recognise that best practice
can be shared across industry boundaries
provided the context is understood.
The results of the survey are discussed in
the following sections. It should be noted that
the exercise was to study `best-practice'
companies. However, benchmarking is a con-
tinual improvement process and as such,
`best-practice' is an elusive goal. As a con-
sequence, companies were selected as they
were recognised as offering good practice in
certain areas aligned to innovation. Further-
more, companies were selected so that a range
of both good practice, and business environ-
ments, were surveyed to enable learning from
diverse practices. Table 2 summarises the
main reasons why each company was
selected for inclusion in this study.
The use of a mixed qualitative and quan-
titative interview approach has enabled an
understanding to be developed, of the context
in which each organisation operates. For
example, when asked about their definitions
of innovation, most noted that innovation was
customer focussed (data not shown), the
exception being Biotechco who indicated that
innovation was technological.
Clearly, there is wide agreement that any
innovation process has to have a customer-
focussed approach. A member of the Retailco
Board noted that `All organisations, and
parts of organisations could be described as
retailers ± some just don't realise it! Every one
has a customer be it internal or external'. This
again reinforces the importance of an out-
ward-looking focus for innovation process.
Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance
of creating a culture which fosters and
encourages excellent intra company com-
munication to share knowledge.
The information gleaned from each set of
benchmark interviews has been summarised
into a series of key features associated with
the following topics: people; processes and
organisational culture. In this report, the
following definitions were used.
People (see Table 3) essentially summarised
who are the key players within the innovation
process. It links into the human side of the
innovation process. This includes the role
of top management; and the nature of the
leaders of the innovation programme on a
day-to-day basis, from where ideas are
sourced.
Process (see Table 4) is linked to the under-
lying operational aspects which help the
organisation develop innovations.
Culture (see Table 5) indicates the types of
tools that the organisations have used to
embed positive behaviours such as idea
sharing, entrepreneurial attitudes and a posi-
tive attitude to innovation and associated
cross-functional working within the organis-
ation. By using two-dimensional tables or
matrices, the direct analysis and comparison
of organisations becomes possible.
Innovation is associated with flows of
information across organisational boundaries
as it is in effect a boundary spanning process. Customer-focussed
Table 3 attempts to summarise how the approach
organisations encourage innovative activity
through the use of human resource. Five key
features were identified during the bench-
marking exercise. These included top man-
agement support for, and involvement in the

Table 3. People Aspects of the Innovation Process

Retailco Pharmco Healthco Computaco Familyco Biotechco UniResorg Consumero

Top management Yes No Yes Yes No N/A N/A

Director level Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Innovation Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No
rewards
Cross functional Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
team working
Ideas from: Everyone R&D Category Anyone Anyone R&D staff Academics Marketing
Design team Creativity managers SWORD Literature R&D
Traders and Innovation Suppliers Conferences Local mkts
Suppliers Innovation managers Customers Customer
group Competitors needs

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000 Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000

8 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Table 4. Culture Aspects of the Innovation Process

Retailco Pharmco Healthco Computaco Familyco Biotechco Uniresorg Consumerco

Clear agenda for Yes Somewhat Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
innovation
Hierarchical Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
organisation
Entrepreneurial Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
culture
Innovation rewards Yes Yes Part of Yes ? Yes Yes ?
appraisal
scheme
What types of Token Bonuses ? Yes Company Options Shares ?
reward? reward Meals out grows Consultant
Leave contracts
Functional silos Yes Yes Yes No No Some No Yes

Table 5. Process Aspects of the Innovation Process

Retailco Pharmaco Healthco Computaco Familyco Biotechco Uniresco Consumerco

Internal processes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes

emphasised
Process for sharing Yes Yes ? No Yes Yes Yes Yes
ideas across (seminars)
functions
Ideas database Yes Yes ? No No No No Yes
Several
IT/IS to facilitate Yes Yes ? Yes No Yes Yes Yes
process
Stage gate model Yes Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat Yes Yes Yes
Gatekeepers Variable Variable Variable Line Business Yes Academic Board
manager unit Admin members
manager
Dedicated resource Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes
Financial appraisal NPV/IRR Not NPV/IRR Uplift in No formal Portfolio No Portfolio
shared sales analysis analysis analysis

process; the appointment of an Innovation As discussed above, innovation can be

champion or sponsor (who may have a
different title); whether the organisation
offered special rewards for innovative be-
haviours and ideas; and finally a positive
attitude to building on creative ideas irre-
spective of source. The latter was supported
by the wide variety of sources cited when
innovation team members were questioned
on the point or origin of ideas.
described in terms of a process and as such
can be subjected to managerial controls. The
data shown in Table 4 illustrates the types of
managerial control processes which have
been utilised by organisations to manage this
process. Key features include the widespread
use of stage-gate systems and associated gate-
keepers coupled with a reliance on IT/IS
systems to assist in knowledge sharing and

Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000

BENCHMARKING INNOVATION 9

progress monitoring across functional bound-
aries.
When considering innovation, it is difficult
to avoid an examination of the organisational
culture (Table 5). A number of representative
quotations from each of the partner com-
panies about their organisations' attitudes
towards innovation, provide some support
for issues highlighted in the previous tables
(see Table 6).

Table 6. Representative Comments from Each Organisation and Its Innovation Procedures

Organisation Representative quotes

Retailco ``The involvement of top management is responsible for the success of our
process''
``Our suggestion scheme generates 1000 ideas a month''
``Since instigating our innovation process we have increased our project
pipeline and cut our budget by a factor of four''
``A two tier structure enables us to work on risky and less risky projects''
``Everyone can be involved in innovation''
Pharmaco ``We want to be recognised for innovation and leadership in the therapeutic
areas in which we compete.''
``We have established ourselves as a group of internal consultants ± that's truly
innovative for a bunch of statisticians. We can, however, utilise our statistical
expertise to help other parts of the business examine their processes and we can
suggest changes which may make substantial cost savings. Statistics is all about
processes''
``our discovery process is probably very similar to that of other pharma
companies, but we also encourage innovation in other areas, working, process
modifications and to our culture''
Healthco ``each business has an innovation champion, but they may be at different
levels''
``category managers have innovation as part of their appraisal procedure''
``we are hugely advantaged by having access to in-house manufacturing in
terms of R&D costs and development time''
``. . . tend to over analyse leading to both a slow response to competitors and to a
protracted decision making process''
Familyco ``there is a formal process for new product development, matching a flavour
etc, other innovations are processed more informally through the business units
to the M.D.''
Computaco ``we have no process for innovation ± it's against our culture''
``[we are] a metrics driven organisation''
``we have a very flat organisational structure, and are very entrepreneurial''
Uniresorg ``The Academic brings their idea to us we then help in the process of
commercialisation''
``The metrics used for benchmarking research vary depending on the
organisation''
Biotechco ``Research scientists and group leaders must be both creative, and innovative in
order to be successful in their research programmes''
``Researchers have changed ± they are becoming more commercially aware''
``we try to recognise everyone when arranging rewards for commercialisation-
not just those named on the patent ± this is important''
Consumerco ``we use a stage gate system for innovation''
``innovation is about adapting existing products to new markets''
``our cross-cultural and functional teams are a key part of our success''

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000 Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000

10 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

It should be noted, that all companies factor blocking innovation it should be

visited recognised that most innovations do
not pass smoothly along their process from
idea to launch. Within each stage, many
iterations and modifications may have to be
incorporated. Retailco and Healthco in parti-
cular recognise that innovations may move
forward along the process crossing certain
barriers only to return to the previous stage
following consumer testing.
Benchmark companies were asked to rank a
number of potential blocks to the innovation
process within their companies. The partici-
pant companies were provided with a list of
factors and asked to rank them in order of
decreasing impact on the innovation process
in their organisation. For example, if lack of
activity co-ordination is the most important
ranked as number one. The results of this
ranking is given in Table 7 which indicate that
overall lack of resource availability; poor
activity co-ordination, and low participation
in the innovation process are the most
important blocks to innovation as reported
by the benchmark partners.
A similar approach was then taken to
explore the role of external factors impinging
upon the innovation process (see Table 8). As
Table 8 indicates the organisations saw the
first factor as the need to satisfy the changing
requirements of customers. Second, the re-
quirement to meet profit targets whilst main-
taining profit margins and third advances in
technology and the need to develop strong
relationships with customers. Therefore, from

Table 7. Internal Blocks to Innovation

Internal blocks to innovation Score Overall Ranking

Senior mgt commitment to the innovation process 5

Resource availability for sustaining innovation 18 1
Strong R&D base 4
People's skills- creativity, knowledge, and skills 8
Strong marketing department 11 5
Sophisticated technical systems 5
Strong manufacturing base 3
Level of involvement and participation in innovation activities 13 3
Effectiveness of communication systems 12 4
Activity co-ordination/integration for innovation 15 2

Table 8. Ranking of External Factors Impinging Upon the Innovation Process

External factor Score Overall

Ranking

Advancements in the level of technological sophistication 11 3=

Intensity of overseas competition 0
Developments in the levels of awareness/concern for environmental issues 3
Customer care ± need to build strong relationships 11 3=
Supplier management issues ± strong supply chain 5
Single European Market 4
Government incentives towards innovation 3
Need to offer competitive mix 4
Reduction in product life cycles ± need to introduce innovations quickly 10 5
Need to meet tighter profit margins 12 2
Competitor activity 5
Need to satisfy the ever-changing requirements of customers 21 1

Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000

BENCHMARKING INNOVATION
this analysis it could be concluded that the
benchmark partners reported that they were
most concerned to develop strong relation-
ships with their customers often voiced in
terms of `relationship marketing' and cus-
tomer service.
Finally, within the benchmarking literature
there is a substantial body of data relating to
the use of specific performance measures when
documenting innovation. As such it was of
interest to collect some data relating to the
performance measures reported to be applied
within the organisations (Table 9). These data
indicate that each organisation appears to select
those measures that are most appropriate to
their organisation, with the results being
spread across a wide range of measures.
Discussion
This paper has sketched out the findings from
our recent work into benchmarking innova-
tion amongst eight organisations. The results
were presented in terms of three main tables,
based on people, culture and process. These
can be summarised as:
The majority of organisations had director
level personnel involved in the innovation
process but only three had active top
involvement of the management. How-
ever, the majority saw the greatest level
Table 9. Performance Measures Used in Innovation
Performance measure
Product flow ± definition and measurement
Profitability analysis
Performance ± cost/ratio
New products as Percentage of turnover
Average development time
Idea to concept time
Concept development time
Product development time
Percentage of sales value by products launched in the last
three years
Speed
Commercial success volume from new products
Percentage of new product sales from innovations
Time to market
Brand share/category
Fit with global strategy
In-house measures
Not applicable
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000
11
of innovation being obtained through the
use of cross-functional teams.
All but one company felt the culture of the
organisation reflected a clear agenda for
innovation. Six companies stated they had a
hierarchical organisation, and five stated they
had an entrepreneurial company ± some
stating they had both.
A variety of rewards were given for
innovation, such as tokens, bonuses, meals
out, and special options.
The process for innovation varied across all
the benchmark partners. Half of them em-
phasising the internal processes, and the
others not. However, the majority had a
process for sharing ideas and used the stage
gate model as a tool for monitoring the actual
process. The use of IT varied amongst the
companies, as did the gatekeepers for the
stages of innovation. Finally just over half had
a dedicated resource for the innovation, with
variations in financial appraisal methods
deployed.
These findings, together with some of the
qualitative data and the other tables pre-
sented can highlight some key issues in
People, culture and
process
relation to innovation. These key issues, and
questions that can be raised include:
(1) It is possible to benchmark the innovation
process, provided a clear understanding
of the organisational context is developed?
Company
Retailco, Pharmaco
Familyco
Pharmco, Familyco
Retailco, Pharmaco, Healthco
Retailco
Retailco
Retailco
Retailco
Healthco
Retailco
Healthco, Familyco
Healthco
Retailco, Healthco, Computaco
Retailco
Consumerco
Biotechco
Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000
12
(2) Can entrepreneurial activities survive
within a hierarchical structure?
Innovation is complex and multi-dimen-
sional in its approach, and therefore contex-
tual issues will always have to be taken into
account for any innovation
Lack of resource availability is generally
regarded as a major block to the innovation
process
A wide range of performance measures are
reported as being used amongst the reporting
organisations ± further analysis needs to take
place into which are the strategic and value-
added metrics relevant to the success of an
innovation process.
Innovation aims to meet customer require-
ments and also profit targets. Therefore, a
question arises whether these tangible goals
favour incremental , relatively easily measur-
able, innovation over pure `blue sky' re-
search?
To draw together the selected findings in
response to the research questions outlined,
some initial points would be:
Did the benchmark partners have a defined process
for innovation?
Although not all of the organisations had an
explicit written process for innovation, it was
apparent that all employees interviewed had,
at least, a tacit understanding of the innova-
tion process. Furthermore, this understanding
could almost always be related to the stage-
gate system of innovation management dis-
cussed by Cooper (1990) and by Clark and
Fujimoto (1991).
What clues could be obtained about the context
and culture of these organisations?
That innovation is important for all contexts
and sectors and organisations. That the
product or service you provide seems to
make little difference to the type of innova-
tion process you put in place. This also goes
across the people and culture aspects of the
companies. In organisations such as Compu-
taco, you would expect a director involved in
innovation (due to the nature of the market)
but this was not so. Also there appears to be
little relation between the organisational
structure, and the level of entrepreneurial
activity. Furthermore, innovation activities
are closely linked to the company structure,
management support for and interest in
innovation and the external environment
(Vedin 1980)
We conclude that this benchmarking exer-
cise has provided some insights into the
innovation process amongst a variety of
organisations with operating bases in the
Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
UK. It has been argued that successful inno-
vation is central to the development of future
competitive strategies of organisations (for
example, see Porter 1985). Critical success
factors such as quality, delivery, flexibility and
cost are integral parts which an organisation
requires to operate to survive. In addition,
successful innovation may become the factor
that allows the company to grow. By bench-
marking the practices and processes of inno-
vation with other organisations, companies may
be able not only ` to adapt' but also `advance'
in an ever-more competitive marketplace.
References
Anon (1999) Innovation in industry. Survey. The
Economist, February 20th.
Boxwell, R.J. (1996) Benchmarking for Competitive
Advantage. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Calantone, R.J. di Benedetto, A. and Meloche, M.S.
(1988) Strategies of product and process innova-
tion: A loglinear analysis. R&D Management, 18,
13±21.
CBI (1999) Innovation trends survey. http://
www.cbi.co.uk
Clark, K.B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991) Product develop-
ment performance. Strategy, organisation and man-
agement in the world Automotive Industry. Harvard
Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Codling, S. (1992) Best practice benchmarking. A man-
agement guide. Gower Publishing Ltd., Aldershot.
Cooper, R.G. (1990) Stage-gate systems: a new tool
for managing new products. Business Horizons,
May±June, 33, 44±55.
Doyle, P. (1994) Marketing management and strategy.
Prentice-Hall Europe, Hemel Hempstead.
Ettlie, J.E. (1980) Manpower flows and the innova-
tion process. Management Science, 26, 1086±1095.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1995) Reengineering
the corporation. A manifesto for business revolution.
Nicholas Brearley Publishing, London.
Hart, V. D. (1996) Process mapping: how to engineer
your business processes. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Holloway, J., Hinton, M., Mayle, D. and Francis, G.
(1997) Why benchmark? Understanding the pro-
cesses of best-practice benchmarking. Performance
Management Research Unit, Open University
Business School, Working Paper Series 97/8.
Josty, P.L. (1990) A tentative model of the inno-
vation process. R&D Management, 20, 35±45.
King, N. (1992) Modelling the innovation process:
an empirical comparison of approaches. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65,
89±101.
Kline, S.J. (1985) Innovation is not a linear process.
Research Management, 28, 36±45.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1984) Qualitative
data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Sage.
London.
Mintzberg, H. (1994) The rise and fall of strategic
planning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall
International Editions.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000
BENCHMARKING INNOVATION
Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques
for analysing industries and competitors. Boston,
The Free Press.
Price, W.J. and Bass, L.W. (1969) `Scientific research
and the innovative process'. Science, 164, 802±806.
Rickards, T., (1996) `The management of inno-
vation: recasting the role of creativity', The
European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology. Special Innovation Issue, 5, 1, 13±27.
Rickards, T. (1998) `Assessing organisational cre-
ativity: An innovative benchmarking approach'.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 2,
367±382.
Rock, A. (1987) Strategy vs tactics from a venture
capitalist. Harvard Business Review, Nov±Dec, 65,
63.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Harland, C., Harrison, A.
and Johnston, R. (1995) Operations Management.
Pitman Publishing, London.
Urban, G.L. and Hauser, J.R. (1980) Design and
marketing of new products. Prentice-Hall Inter-
national, Inc., London.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000
13
Vedin, B.A. (1980) Innovation organisation. From
practice to theory and back. Institute for Manage-
ment of Innovation and Technology, Chartwell-
Bratt Ltd, Bromley.
Watson, G.H. (1993) Strategic Benchmarking: How to
rate your Company's performance against the world's
best. John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York.
Weyrich, C. (1998) The meaning of innovation.
Electronic News (1991), 44, 8±10.
Zairi, M. (1992) Competitive benchmarking: An execu-
tive guide. TQM Practitioner Series, Technical
Communications (Publishing) Ltd., Letchworth.
Zoe Radnor is a Lecturer in Operations
Management at Bradford Management
Centre. Judith Robinson is a member of
the MBA programme at Manchester Busi-
ness School and Lecturer in Medicine at the
University of Manchester.
Volume 9 Number 1 March 2000