PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

A ^IRSPRAY

T OWARDS MARKET ORIENTED

PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

B Y

P AUL T HEUNS

2005

A ^IRSPRAY

T OWARDS MARKET ORIENTED

PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Amsterdam, The Netherlands 29th of August 2005

Author Paul Theuns

Supervisors

• Airspray Inc.: R. F. Brands

• University of Groningen,

Faculty of Management and Organisation: Prof. dr. ir. F.P.J. Kuijpers Ir. G. Henstra

The author is responsible for the contents of this paper. All rights reserved.

PREFACE

Six great months at Airspray and a few more in Amsterdam, have resulted in this thesis. A pile of paper, of which I got more proud every single page. The last hurdle of my studies has been taken!

Besides finishing my studies, I hope this paper will contribute to Airspray’s future performance.

Insights given and recommendations made can be used to improve the market orientation of their important product innovations.

I would like to thank Airspray, for giving me the opportunity to escape the Dutch winter, spending time in a swing-state during the presidential elections of 2004, but above all for experiencing an international working environment. Special thanks go out to Robert, who invited me over. I learned a lot of his leadership skills and style. Also special thanks go out to all the other Airspray Inc. employees, who made my days at Airspray a lot of fun and showed me the good Floridian life!

Finally I would like to thank Frans Kuijpers and Greald Henstra for their time and guidance during the process of writing this thesis. Thanks for the stimulating words:

“Ga zo door en je zult spinazie eten”

These words kept me going, during difficult times while writing the thesis!

Paul Theuns

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Airspray is a global leader in developing, manufacturing and marketing specialty dispensers for home & personal care consumer products. Their main product is the foam-pump.

In the problem identification, I’ve identified a management problem. Together with the CEO, I’ve concluded to proceed with researching product innovation management.

I started the preliminary research with stating the objective:

To achieve this goal, I first had to find out what product innovation management is. By researching literature, I identified 7 key factors influencing product innovation management:

Strategy & Leadership, Culture & Climate, Planning & Selection, Structure & Performance, Communication & Collaboration, Market Orientation and Portfolio Management.

The 7 key factors were researched using the PIM scorecard. Throughout Airspray, managers valued every key factor between agree and neutral by means of the extent to which it is present within Airspray. Finally, market orientation, with the highest (= worst) overall score, has been pointed out as the key factor interesting for further research.

In order to achieve the objective, I presented the research question in chapter 5:

To research Airspray’s market orientation in depth, I’ve researched literature on the subject. I’ve concluded that three behavioural elements, customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination, and four cognitive elements, values & norms, knowledge & skills, technical and managerial knowledge systems, influence market orientation.

A scorecard has been used to research the behavioural elements. Overall Airspray managers agree/are neutral about the extent to which customer and competitor orientation is present and are neutral / disagree a little bit about the extent to which interfunctional coordination is present within Airspray. By improving the statements above neutral, Airspray can improve it’s market orientation. Biggest improvements are needed in the interfunctional coordination.

The cognitive elements have been researched by means of company documents, interviews, results of the scorecards and observations of the researcher. Improvements in knowledge & skills are needed on acquiring and disseminating market information. Technical knowledge systems are needed to tackle a lot of the behavioral problems, especially interfunctional coordination.

Managerial knowledge systems are needed, to improve the knowledge controlling.

Finally recommendations are made to implement a technical knowledge system, like the sales force automation system for collecting and disseminating market information throughout the organization, create a separate department Product Planning, to control and disseminate market knowledge and provide training to make sure the systems will be used properly and what will improve the market orientation knowledge & skills.

The objective of this research is to provide Airspray Inc. with insight in their product innovation management by valuing key factors and propose recommendations for improvement of their product innovation management

How can Airspray Inc. improve their market orientation in order to improve their product

innovation management?

CONTENT

PREFACE ... 3

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ... 4

1 INTRODUCTION ... 7

2 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ... 9

2.1 R EASON AND GOAL FOR THE PRELIMINARY RESEARCH ... 10

2.2 A IRSPRAY ; THE COMPANY ... 11

2.2.1 Structure... 11

2.2.2 History... 12

2.2.3 Mission Statement ... 12

2.2.4 Strategy ... 12

2.2.5 Corporate objectives ... 13

2.2.6 Products and innovation ... 13

2.2.7 Production ... 15

2.2.8 Supply chain ... 15

2.2.9 Competitive advantage... 16

2.2.10 Environment ... 16

2.2.11 Markets... 17

2.2.12 Competitors ... 17

2.2.13 Customers... 18

2.2.14 Key Figures ... 18

2.3 I NFORMAL SOURCES ... 19

2.4 F ORMAL INTERVIEWS ... 20

2.5 C HOOSING A REALITY PROBLEM ... 22

2.6 S UMMARY ... 23

3 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH ... 24

3.1 O BJECTIVE OF RESEARCH ... 25

3.2 T HEORETICAL FRAMEWORK PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT ... 25

3.2.1 Product innovation management defined... 25

3.2.2 Tidd et al. ... 27

3.2.3 Sommerlatte’s Innovation Scorecard ... 28

3.2.4 Cormican & O’Sullivan’s PIM scorecard... 30

3.2.5 Key factors ... 32

3.3 F IRST C ONCEPTUAL M ODEL ... 34

3.4 C ONCLUSIONS ... 34

4 AIRSPRAY’S PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT ... 36

4.1 C HOOSING THE PIM SCORECARD ... 37

4.2 W HO FILLS OUT THE PIM SCORECARD ? ... 39

4.3 A IRSPRAY RESULTS ... 39

4.4 C ONCLUSIONS ... 41

5 MAIN RESEARCH DESIGN ... 43

5.1 P ROBLEM STATEMENT ... 44

5.2 M AIN C ONCEPTUAL M ODEL ... 45

5.3 S UB - QUESTIONS ... 46

5.4 L IMITATIONS ... 47

5.5 M ETHODOLOGY ... 47

5.5.1 Information sources ... 47

5.5.2 Measure methods ... 48

5.5.3 Analyses en reporting... 48

5.5.4 Theoretical concepts ... 48

5.5.5 Problem statement... 48

5.6 S UMMARY ... 50

6 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK MARKET ORIENTATION ... 51

6.1 K OHLI & J AWORSKI ... 52

6.2 N ARVER & S LATER ... 53

6.3 K OK , H ILLEBRAND & B IEMANS ... 54

6.4 C OMPONENTS OF MARKET ORIENTATION ... 55

6.4 P REVIOUS RESEARCH ... 56

6.5 C ONCLUSIONS ... 57

7 AIRSPRAY’S MARKET ORIENTATION ... 58

7.1 O PERATIONALIZATIONS MARKET ORIENTATION ... 59

7.2 B EHAVIORAL ELEMENTS ... 60

7.2.1 Market orientation scorecard results ... 61

7.2.2 Customer Orientation... 62

7.2.3 Competitor Orientation ... 63

7.2.4 Interfunctional Coordination ... 63

7.3 C OGNITIVE ELEMENTS ... 64

7.3.1 Values & norms... 64

7.3.2 Knowledge & skills ... 65

7.3.3 Technical knowledge systems... 66

7.3.4 Managerial knowledge systems... 67

7.4 C ONCLUSIONS ... 67

8 CONCLUSIONS ... 69

9 RECOMMENDATIONS ... 73

10 EVALUATION ... 76

10.1 T HEORIES USED ... 76

10.2 R ESEARCH METHODS ... 76

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 78

1 INTRODUCTION

After a short introduction, in which I’ll discuss the structure of the thesis, I will start in this thesis with the preliminary research. Because a clear case of what should be researched in the company was lacking, it was necessary to start of with a preliminary research.

The preliminary research consists out of three chapters; Problem Identification, Preliminary Research Design and Airspray’s Product Innovation Management. In chapter two, the problem identification, the reason and goal for the preliminary research are discussed first. In paragraph 2.2 a thorough company description is given. To get a better understanding of the problems identified in the following paragraphs, it’s from obvious importance to see the company in a bigger picture. Paragraph 2.3 will discuss the informal sources used to identify a few, at that point, vague problems. Those vague problems are input for the formal interviews, which are discussed in 2.4. Finally in 2.5 a reality problem has been chosen, which is going to be addressed in research.

Chapter three discusses the preliminary research design. First the objective of research is stated.

Before a research question can be proposed, a theoretical framework for product innovation management has to be proposed. In order to do so, in paragraph 3.2, innovation models provided by literature are subject for research. In sub-paragraph 3.2.5 seven key factors influencing product innovation management are the result of this research. The chapter is concluded with presenting the first conceptual model.

In chapter four, Airspray’s product innovation management is researched by means of the first conceptual model. One key factor influencing product innovation management is pointed out as interesting for further research.

Chapter 2, 3 and 4 are input for the Main Research Design and Theoretical Framework. These two chapters influence each other, because theoretical foundation is needed for opening the box of market orientation. On the other hand, the research question is starting point for researching literature and providing a framework. In chapter 5, the main research design starts of with the problem statement. Now Airspray’s product innovation management has been researched a main research question can be proposed. The research question is followed up by the conceptual model, which is deepened, by opening the box of market orientation. Here after the sub-questions are proposed, which are answered throughout the research. Before in the last paragraph the methodology is discussed, limitations on the research process are pointed out. As a guideline for the methodology I’ve used theory of De Leeuw.

In chapter 6 the theoretical framework for researching market orientation is proposed. Market orientation is discussed as a culture as well as an implementation of the marketing concept. The chapter finishes with describing the relationship of product innovation management and market orientation.

These last two chapters are the input for researching Airspray on their market orientation.

Airspray’s market orientation will be discussed by means of three behavioral elements, consumer

orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination and four cognitive elements,

value and norms, knowledge and skills, technical knowledge systems and managerial knowledge

systems.

Every chapter will be concluded with a summary or conclusion. All these conclusions will ad up and are the combined input for the main conclusion as discussed in chapter 8.

This thesis will end with recommendations based on the conclusions offered to the management of Airspray.

The content is reflected schematically in figure 1.1.This figure will be presented in front every chapter for easy reference.

Chapters 2,3,4 Preliminary Research

Chapters 5,6 Main Orientation

Chapter 7 Research

Chapter 8 Conclusions

Chapter 9 Recommendations

Conclusions

Recommendations Problem

identification Introduction

Preliminary Research

Airspray’s Prod. Innov.

Man.

Theoretical Framework Main

Research Design

Airspray’s Market Orientation

2 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Chapters 2,3,4 Preliminary Research

Chapters 5,6 Main Orientation

Chapter 7 Research

Chapter 8 Conclusions

Chapter 9 Recommendations

Conclusions

Recommendations Problem

identification Introduction

Preliminary Research

Airspray’s Prod. Innov.

Management

Theoretical Framework Main

Research Design

Airspray’s Market Orientation

This chapter will form the preliminary research for the main research: the problem identification will be discussed. The preliminary research has been conducted because Airspray did not provide a certain subject for research. This identification starts with a description of Airspray, to get a better understanding of the organization. The description is together with informal interviews the input for the formal interviews. Out of these interviews a few coherent problem areas for the problem owners were identified. One subject has been chosen for further research in the main research. And so, this preliminary research will provide the information needed for the problem statement of the main research.

2.1 Reason and goal for the preliminary research

A first thought of investigating new geographical markets or new product applications wasn’t approved by the sponsoring company. The understandable reason for the rejection was because the headquarters in Alkmaar, The Netherlands, primarily investigates these growth opportunities.

Since Airspray Inc. is the sponsoring company of this research they wanted to have a research conducted that, maybe would influence the whole of Airspray, but which would focus on Airspray Inc., the USA part of the organization.

The CEO stated that he wanted to have a research done which somehow would contribute to their Business Development or Sales. What do they do right now and what could be improved, were questions that rose. Also the rising competition was an area of attention, because Airspray has not been used to dealing with competition, since they’ve operated as a nearly- monopolist in their niche markets.

So because no clear direction of the area, in which my research was going to be conducted in, was pointed out, I had to identify problems within Airspray Inc. Therefore the preliminary research can be viewed as problem identification, with the goal to find a subject interesting for further research. A subject in which improvements can be made and as so, would contribute to the performance of Airspray. With this structure I’ll follow Verschuren’s thought of what is done in which part. In the preliminary research the problem is analyzed and developed towards a clear and detailed problem statement. In the main research the problem statement is answered (Verschuren, 1992, p. 37-38).

In order to find such a subject, I started with describing the organization. Paragraph 2.2 is the

outcome of that description. I used company documents, like annual reports, marketing plans, the

strategic plan and press releases to describe Airspray. During the first period at Airspray, I also

had a good look around at Airspray. Because you’re new and fresh in an organization, you tend to

notice a lot. I also had a lot of informal conversations with different people within the

organization. Just to get to know the people and the company. Those informal contacts inspired

the three formal interviews I’ve conducted, in order to point out problems for these problem

owners. Finally I’ve selected a problem, which met three conditions. First of all it had to be

related to business development, my master degree. Secondly the problem should have my own

personal interest. And thirdly it had to cover a range of problems as stated by the interviewees,

and so contribute to the performance of Airspray. Finally I chose one subject for further research.

2.2 Airspray; the company

The company of Airspray is described to get a thorough understanding of what they do.

Information is gathered from company documents as well as the internet.

2.2.1 Structure

Airspray NV has it’s head-office based in Alkmaar, The Netherlands and their subsidiary is located in Pompano Beach, Florida, USA. The Airspray NV includes Airspray BV, based in The Netherlands, and Airspray Inc., based in United States.

Figure 2.1: Airspray N.V.

Currently Airspray employs over 115 people. Airspray is a ‘technology-driven' enterprise. During its 21 year existence, Airspray has developed expertise in R&D, in bringing innovative dispensing solutions to mass production and in their worldwide marketing. Airspray Inc. is responsible for the marketing and sales of all of the Americas, which is almost only North America and contributed 60% of the turnover in 2003 (Airspray Annual Report 2003, p. 19).

Airspray BV is responsible for the marketing and sales of the rest of the world. Both, Airspray Inc. as well as Airspray BV, has operating plants.

People of the management team of Airspray NV are based at both locations. The CEO spends about 25% of his time at the Dutch headquarter. The CFO and CTO visit the other office at least once a year.

Figure 2.2: Management of Airspray

This research is conducted at Airspray Inc. in the United States. From this point, if I use Airspray, I’ll refer to the Airspray Inc.

Airspray NV

Airspray Inc.

Airspray BV

General/Commercial (CEO)

(R.F.Q. Brands)

Production/NPD (CTO) Finance/Operations (CFO)

(E.I.M. van der Heijden) (J. van der Schaaf)

2.2.2 History

The company was founded in The Netherlands in 1983 and started of with the production of the Dry Spray dispenser. A refillable, air-powered device that creates a high quality, continuous spray. In 1984 they entered the North American market, which at the present time provides most of Airspray NV’s sales. In 1987 Airspray NV moved their production from Finland to the Netherlands. After a difficult period around 1996 Airspray NV found itself on the edge of bankruptcy. Airspray survived and got listed at the Euronext stock exchange in 1998. In the same year Airspray started to manufacture their products, besides the Netherlands, in the United States as well. Ever since the company outlived their difficult period in 1996, it hasn’t stopped growing.

2.2.3 Mission Statement

The mission statement is quoted in the 2003 annual report:

“Airspray is a global leader in developing, manufacturing and marketing specialty dispensers for home & personal care consumer products. By utilizing all its creative and commercial resources, Airspray is dedicated to fulfilling the needs of its customers worldwide for value added innovative dispensers and to exceed customer expectations in quality and service. Airspray strives to realize sustained profitable growth” (Airspray annual report 2003, p. 8).

Slogans Airspray uses in their ads and on their business cards are:

“Leading in the world of innovative dispensing technology”

“For innovative Dispensing technology”

The title of their last annual report might reflect in the best possible way in which Airspray sees itself:

“Innovate to grow”

These statements are supported by the strategy, which is discussed next.

2.2.4 Strategy

In the strategic plan set-up for the years 2003-2007 Airspray NV states her strategy as following:

“Realize the highest possible level of organic growth, by acquiring new customers, expanding the scope of Airspray’s products within existing customers and expanding the geographical presence.

Product innovations play a vital role in this strategy. The search of strategic alliances and/or acquisitions will need to contribute to the organic growth and innovation capabilities.”

Airspray NV’s strategy has mainly focused on growth through innovation. Organic growth is the

company’s top priority. This growth contains three dimensions. First of all they focus on growth

through developing and marketing dispenser technologies, in means of existing technologies as

well as new technologies. “The wide and deep product line-up results in Airspray’s unmatched

ability to meet the needs of its customers” (Airspray annual report 2003, p. 10). Secondly they try

to find growth in existing and new product categories. In the third dimension Airspray NV tries to

grow in terms of winning over new geographical markets and expanding within existing markets.

2.2.5 Corporate objectives

Airspray NV formulated a few corporate objectives, which have to be met every year:

• A growth rate of > 15% per annum, leading to sales of EURO 100 million by 2007

• Maintain EBIT margin > 25% of sales (2002: 27%)

• Increase ROCE to minimum 30% (2002: 25%)

• A growing dividend payment

• To present to the market one new product per year Not yearly objectives are:

• To develop new families of dispensers every 5 years and develop these into profitable and fast growing product lines

• To pursue value-creating acquisitions or alliance possibilities in the dispenser market (Marketing Plan Airspray NV, 2004, p. 1)

2.2.6 Products and innovation

Airspray NV produces high-quality, technically advanced dispensers in more than 20 variations

without the use of chemical or gas propellants. Airspray NV devotes fully 10% of their workforce

to developing new products and technologies. This has resulted in the fact that all dispensers are

based on using unique, patented technologies. Airspray NV has developed two new dispensers in

2004 and has launched at least one new product design per year since 1997. Although Airspray

NV argues that innovation purely for the sake of innovation, and innovation without real-world

application or need is shunned, they admit in being a technology-driven enterprise (Press release

Airspray, 24 August 2004: Healthy volume growth first half 2004). As shown in table 1.1 the

company today has four separate and distinct dispenser lines, of which each houses separate

products. What is not mentioned in the matrix his that most of these products can differentiate on

their volume output and engine. See next page.

Product Family Dispenser Intro Features Application Dry Spray

Dispenser

Dry Spray Dispenser 1983 Dispenser that provides a continuous fine mist spray

without propellants

Olive oil, hair sprays, air fresheners, pet care products,

cleaning products, car care products, deodorant and body

sprays Foam Pump

Dispenser

F2 Finger Pump Foamer (F2 FPF)

1997 First mousse finger pump on the market. Creates foam

without the use of gas propellants

Hair styling and conditioning, facial cleansers, baby washes,

acne washes, self-tanning products, sun protection, household cleaning, pet care,

spot removers and anti-lice foam

Mini Foamer

(MF)

1999 Smaller in use than the F2 FPF with lower output of

foam

Specifically suited for cosmetic and personal-care

products such as facial cleaners and make-up removers. Other: foaming candy, hygiene products as

well as travel products

Table Top Foamer

(TTF)

2000 Specifically designed for counter-top applications

Mainly hand soap and also professional salon products

F3 Finger Pump Foamer

(F3 FPF)

2001 Combines design of MF and the higher foam output of

the F2 FPF

See F2 and Mini foamer

G3 Finger Pump Foamer

(G3 FPF)

2002 See F3, but allows for more design variations and is suitable for the screw thread

of a table top foamer

See F2 and Mini foamer

Water Resistant Foamer F3 (WRF3)

2002 For use in wet environment as its design limits the entry of water and humidity into

the dispenser

Bath and shower products such as body washes and shampoos

Water Resistant Table

Top Foamer (WRT4)

2003 See water-resistant F3, different outputs

See Table Top Foamer, in wet conditions

Water Resistant Mini

Foamer (WRM3)

2003 See water-resistant F3, different outputs

See Mini Foamer, in wet conditions

Water Resistant D

(WRD4)

2004 See water-resistant F3, different outputs, a Mini

Table Top Foamer

Every application in wet conditions e.g. specialized

shampoos, baby washes, women’s shaving foam, facial

washes and kid’s hand soaps Dual Chamber

Dispenser

Symbio Dispenser 1998/

2005

Sophisticated dual lotion dispenser for products with

sensitive ingredients, the second version enables a random ratio and is easier to

fill

High-end cosmetics, particularly in skin care and

skin treatment

Dual Foamer 2004 Produced two sorts of foam which are dispensed

separately

Specialized skin care products that treat acne, aging, and dry skin conditions, sophisticated sun care and self-tan products,

and 2-colored ‘fun-for-kids’

products Lotion Dispenser Symplicity 2004 Output the same as regular

lotion dispenser but design is different with a bellow on top and contains fewer parts

Hair colorants, shampoos, conditioners, moisturizer, sun

care products, hair gels and hair treatments

Table 2.1: Airspray NV’s products and applications (Based on www.airspray.net) 2.2.7 Production

Airspray NV has fully automated production facilities in its plants in The Netherlands and in the USA. Airspray NV orders their production machines and modifies them to their own needs. They also practice in-house maintenance, through which they are able to keep their downtime very low.

They have a very high product quality due to a 100% in-line testing on critical pump functions and automated packing in boxes (Strategic Plan Airspray NV, 2003, p. 125).

Airspray Inc. only houses machines that produce Airspray NV’s final product: the pump. They receive pre-parts that are assembled in The Netherlands and other dispenser parts from manufacturers in the States. The machines at Airspray Inc. are flexible in their production capabilities and are switched easily from one product to another, although their machines are not able to make every Airspray product. Only Airspray BV houses machines that are build to assemble the Dual Foamer, Symbio and Dry Spray Dispenser.

The machines at Airspray Inc. are run in three eight-hour shifts a day, normally five days a week.

The machines at Airspray BV are run in two nine-hour shifts a day, normally six days a week.

Although Airspray NV tries to avoid it, when an emergency order has been placed or a machine hasn’t been working properly, Airspray NV uses the days off to get the orders done.

2.2.8 Supply chain

Different parts are bought from several manufacturers to assemble the pre-parts (Airspray BV) or assemble Airspray’s (Inc. and BV) final product. The majority of the manufacturers delivering to Airspray Inc. are moulders. Airspray is owner of the moulds used for producing their products.

Airspray NV sells the dispensers with or without the bottle. Airspray doesn’t focus on selling bottles, so it only sells standard bottles as an extra option. Airspray BV produces the pre-parts for the dispensers. The pre-parts needed in the USA are shipped over to Airspray Inc. Also final Airspray products assembled in The Netherlands are first shipped over to Airspray Inc. and from there on distributed to the customer.

Airspray sells their dispensers to customers who assemblage the end product. These Fast Moving

Consumer Goods companies sell their end products to retailers, who sell it to the consumer. The

supply chain is reflected in figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Supply Chain

2.2.9 Competitive advantage

In order to realize sustainable and profitable growth it is necessary to reach a favorable market position with a clear competitive advantage. Not all companies have such a competitive advantage as Airspray.

The Strategic Plan is showing that Airspray has a clear competitive advantage, which can be described as a differentiation advantage. Based on the ability of offering innovative foam pump and dual dispensing concepts, Airspray offers its customers the opportunity of creating value for their own consumer products.

Despite the fact that the competitive advantage is being protected by comprehensive patent protection, upcoming competition is now an evident threat to Airspray. This will put more pressure on the sustainability of the competitive advantage. A concise marketing strategy with a clear customer group focus, product positioning and an aggressive marketing mix program has become more important than ever before. But above all, strategic innovation remains Airspray’s main driver for sustainable, profitable growth.

2.2.10 Environment

Airspray doesn’t use propellants to create foam, spray or lotion. This is an environmental advantage over competitors who do. An important aspect of products with environmental advantage is the industry’s motivation to actually use these products as a basis for consumer products. Although it is an important aspect, there are only a very small number of Airspray customers that use Airspray’s dispensers solely because of the environmental advantages (Annual Report Airspray 2001, p. 16).

A good example is the Dry Spray Dispenser. This dispenser offers the possibility to create a continuous spray without the use of gas propellants. Unfortunately these positive aspects do not counterbalance the lower ease of use. With the Dry Spray Dispenser the user has to build up air pressure using an integrated pump in order to produce a spray. Therefore the Dry Spray Dispenser

Manufacturers of different dispenser

parts

Airspray BV

Airspray Inc

Airspray customers (Dial, P&G etc.) Bottle

producers

Retailers (Target, AH etc.)

End consumer

(you &me)

is only successful in specific market niches that require a spray but where the traditional aerosol is not suitable.

2.2.11 Markets

The market in which Airspray operates is the market of designing, manufacturing and marketing of dispensers for consumer products around the world in several segments like for instance baby care, Bath and Shower, Deodorants, Hair care. These are the main segments although Airspray also has a food segment with for example olive oil. Airspray is a manufacturer of a part of the bottle that is in the end sold to the end- consumer. The customers of Airspray are nevertheless the fast- moving consumer goods companies like Unilever and P&G. The market for dispensing systems is part of in the packaging components industry, which includes the development, manufacture and sale of consumer product dispensing systems. Airspray has some unique technologies with which it operates in several niche segments of the total market of dispensers and non- dispensers. Non- dispensers are just a closure of the bottle. These closures are substitutes of a dispensing system and belong therefore to the same market (Taminau, 2003, p.27).

The market is being defined along 3 axes (figure 2.3):

• Region

• Dispenser technology

• Category and/or brand

Existing markets refer to Europe and North-America (region), existing foam pump versions, Dry Spray and Symbio (dispenser technology) and personal care (category).

Concerning Europe, the Top 5 (Ger, Fra, Ita, Spa, UK) is the main region, although Eastern Europe is emerging and should have a fair amount of attention as well. The Water Guard line (including the WRF3 and WRD4) is now part of existing foam pump models.

5 main sub-categories in personal care are hair care, child C&T, bath & shower, skin care and sun care. These sub-categories contain a large number of specific applications.

2.2.12 Competitors

The threat of new competitors has become more and more evident. Rieke, Keltec, Taplast and Yoshina in particular are the biggest and most threatening ones. They developed or try to develop a foam pump.

It looks like they try to compete on price. Airspray has to protect and strengthen its leading position in the foam pump segment and solidify our relationship with our multinational customers Marketing plan 2004, p. 3).

On the lotion pumps, spray pumps and dual chamber pumps Airspray has a lot of competition.

Next to direct competitors Airspray has a lot of indirect competitors. Producers of aerosols, closures or

triggers belong to the group of indirect competitors.

2.2.13 Customers

Airspray sees itself as a key supplier to manufacturers of consumer products, predominantly in the personal care sector. They have more than 500 clients on five continents. Big ones are companies like P&G, Unilever and Johnson & Johnson.

The development of the turnover geographical spread is shown in table 2.2. America provided 61% of total turnover in 2004.

Geographical spread Airspray customers

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

America 70% 67% 63% 60% 61%

Europe 24% 25% 32% 34% 34%

Rest of the world 6% 8% 5% 6% 5%

Table 2.2: Geographical spread Airspray customers (turnover)

2.2.14 Key Figures

The most important financial numbers over the last 5 years are shown below. Also a few other key figures are shown. The year 2004 shows a decline in turnover and profit. This is caused by the exchange rate fall of the US dollar against the euro. In addition, one-off costs, which were not anticipated in the budget, had a negative impact on the result booked in 2004 (Airspray annual report 2004, p. 23). The first half year of 2005 looks promising and management raises its expectation to at least 20% sales and profit growth for the full year 2005.

Key Figures

2004 2003 2002 2001 2000

Profit and loss account (x € 1,000)

Net turnover 34,467 36,027 32,343 27,256 21,62

Gross margin 12,707 15,969 14,348 11,942 9,437

Net operating profit 6,758 9,644 8,632 6,984 5,277

Profit before tax 6,457 9,49 8,428 6,993 5,438

Net profit 4,219 6,209 5,806 4,95 4,614

Balance sheet (x € 1,000)

Total fixed assets 21,284 19,633 17,71 14,684 9,996

Total current assets 14,411 14,203 12,672 12,337 11,83

Total assets 35,695 33,836 30,382 27,021 21,826

Group equity 27,514 27,553 22,411 19,436 15,576

Provisions 557 403 138 - -

Long-term liabilities 2,308 2,366 2,522 2,6 2,078

Current liabilities 5,316 3,514 5,311 4,985 4,172

Total liabilities 35,695 33,836 30,382 27,021 21,826

Sales volume (x mio. units) 123 104 95 72 56

Number of employees year-end 121 115 108 98 79

Number of employees average 120 116 104 94 64

Table 2.3: Key figures Airspray 2000-2004 (www.airspray.net)

2.3 Informal sources

In order to get to know the company better, I wanted to get to know the people, who work for Airspray instead of just studying company documents. I’ve set up meetings with every person in the small office. Those meetings had a very informal set-up. In those meetings I asked a few questions and gave direction to the conversation but tried to let the Airspray employee do the talking. During the informal conversation and by observation, I’ve tried to search for dissatisfactions with the present situation. Verschuren points out in his book (1992) that it is very common that a vague dissatisfaction with the present situation in the ‘real world’ is pointed out.

It’s the first task of the researcher to get a clear view of the problems (Verschuren, 1992, p. 41). I focused on dissatisfactions in the sales and business development area, while the CEO and I agreed on these limitations.

To get a clear view of the problems, I’ve used concepts of De Leeuw, to distinguish the problems.

De Leeuw, in regard to the vague problems, discusses subjective problems, which are problems based on subjective feelings of unhappiness by a certain individual. He states that a problem is a situation when someone has a problem with something. The problem owner is a person who worries about how, he thinks, a part of the world is constructed, and how it should be constructed (De Leeuw, 1996, p.174). De Leeuw distinguishes three pure problem types:

• Perception problems

• Goal problems

• Reality problems

Perception problems are problems caused by a wrong perception of the problem owner. Goal problems are problems caused by pursuing unrealistic or otherwise undesirable goals. Reality problems, finally, are problems, which are indeed caused by a phenomenon in the actuality (De Leeuw., 1996, p. 176).

There are more than one problem owners at Airspray. They’ve all got their own problems, some of which are coherent. These different problem owners with their problems form together a so- called mess of problems. The mess of problems at Airspray is at this point the vague problems that came out of these informal observations and conversations:

1. Functioning of sales organization 2. Organization of the sales force 3. Innovation Management 4. Competition

5. Airspray’s attitude 6. Communication

This mess has to be mapped, so you can analyze the situation, by distinguishing the problems into perception, goal and reality problems (De Leeuw, 1996, p. 177). Based on the problem analyses a reality problem has to be chosen, which is going to be addressed or solved in the research.

To identify the reality problems at Airspray, I decided to do an in depth interview with the people

responsible at Airspray Inc, for the commercial activities Marketing and Sales. These are the

areas I’ m interested in, as well as the CEO wanted to have a research done in these areas. They

included the CEO, the director of sales and the director of BD.

2.4 Formal interviews

In order to find a subject for further research I wanted to address the vague problems in more formal interviews, to find out if there were any reality problems.

The formal interviews took place with three people, responsible for the marketing and sales of Airspray Inc., the CEO, who is within the MT responsible for all commercial activities, the director BD and the sales director. I organized face-to-face meetings with the CEO and director BD and interviewed the sales director by phone. I rather would have had a face-to-face meeting with the sales director as well, but he’s based in Chicago. Although, I expected to have a somewhat other interview, he talked very freely over the phone. I was surprised by his openness, and it did not limit the outcome. The director BD also talked frankly about problems. The CEO was a bit less open about possible improvements, as shows table 2.1. The interviews were semi- structured (Baarda en de Goede?). The vague problems, that came out of the observations and informal interviews formed the subjects for the more formal interviews. Results of these interviews are concluded in table 2.1.

Problem owners CEO Dir. Sales Dir. BD

Problems

1 Functioning of the sales force x

2 Organization of the sales force x x

3 Product Innovation Management x x

4 Competition x

5 Airspray’s attitude x

6 Communication x x

7 Costs of marketing activities x

8 Retaining customers x

Table 2.1: Problems for different problem owners

1. Functioning of the sales force

Dir. BD: Sales reps should go in as a marketing, BD and as a sales person. They should offer a solution. Give them info about bottles, designing, other options, like bigger or smaller output.

Lack of good training Compensation is not optimal

Sometimes sales people focus on a certain person they know within a FMCG company, but P&G for instance is huge and you should know tons of people within P&G.

Sales don’t understand the bigger picture

Different approach to different people from Marketing, Purchasing, R&D

2. Organization of the sales force

Dir. Sales: The sales force is divided in independent and dependent reps. The independent reps are accountable for more than halve the sales, as they should be considering the areas they cover. The independent reps don’t report to anyone. You cannot form a cohesive group with dependent as well as independent reps.

Dir. BD: Mix of direct and indirect people

Most of the sales people are too old; in a business like ours you should have well representative sell people.

BD and Marketing & Sales go hand in hand in B2B. There should be one person who receives all in formation and is responsible for all.

The whole sales organization is not operating as a team, only one meeting each year

Selling by territory is obsolete, we should make national accounts. One rep is focusing on P&G, another is focusing on the distributors, and again another rep focuses on the pet care.

3. Product Innovation Management

Dir. Sales: Little exchange of information between sales and Holland on NPD

Technology oriented, Airspray develops good products, but it might give problems in the future. Example: dual dispenser, little response in the American market. Products in this industry don’t have a very long life experience. Don’t get caught in the middle. NPD is expensive and should be delivering the products the market wants!

Market Intelligence is not good right now. Comes with contacts in the market, with seeing people and talk to them, experience and exposure. Airspray has had almost no competition, which made them arrogant to some customers and didn’t show the need of market oriented product development.

Dir. BD: Too much R&D driven product development, it’s happening backwards and should be market driven .We’ve tried with brainstorming sessions and send them over to Holland. Dual foamer is a good example of how it shouldn’t be working.

It’s a co-production of a client and Airspray. That’s good. But there is still so much wrong with the product. No overcap, hard to fill, doesn’t look very appealing, not easy to use and so on.

Culture of Airspray is R&D driven; Just because it’s a very specialized product focusing on a niche market it’s working

4. Competition

CEO: The CEO sees the competition as the biggest challenge in the future. Airspray’s sales volumes are growing, the niche-market is expanding. Now bigger players on the market for pumps are noticing Airspray’s success, and the niche market is close to becoming interesting for them.

5. Airspray’s attitude

Dir. Sales: Because of the lack of competition, Airspray became arrogant. A near- monopolist in it’s niche market, with quite a lot of power.

6. Communication

Dir. Sales: There is very little communication between the independent reps and Stu, the sales director.

Little exchange of information between sales and Holland on NPD.

Dir. BD: BD and Marketing & Sales go hand in hand in B2B. There should be one person

who receives all information and is responsible for all. Communication between

marketing and sales is the biggest problem. The weekly call reports are not filled out by the reps.

7. Costs of marketing activities

CEO: Wonders if the marketing costs are worth the money. Going to trade shows, placing ads and editorials.

8. Retaining customers

Dir. BD: Airspray is on the mercy of the marketing of other firms (FMCG) Sales people should know their customer

Beside the six vague problems noticed after the informal interviews, two other problems came up during interviews with the CEO and director of BD. The costs of marketing activities and the retaining of customers. I included those problems in the list because they talked explicitly about those problems, without being asked. I did include them in my vague problems list and confronted the other interviewees with these problems as well.

2.5 Choosing a reality problem

While interviewing the interviewees I found out that the vague problems are not stand-alone problems. One influences or might even cause the other. And giving more insight in a problem may suggest solutions for other problems as well.

The outcome of the interviews showed us three subjects that were viewed as problems by two of the interviewees: Organization of the sales force, Product innovation management and Communication. I noticed that those problems weren’t named by the CEO, but by the directors of Sales and BD. (The CEO only mentioned two items of which one can be viewed as an external problem; competition. The other problem, the concern about the marketing costs, wasn’t shared by the other two.)

Of those three reality problems, the communication problems relate to the other two problems;

sales and product innovation management. The director of sales mentions a problem of communication between him and the independent sales reps. This can be viewed as a problem because of the way the sales force is organized. He also stresses that there is no communication between the sales force and NPD in Holland, directly or indirectly. For example no input has been asked from the sales force for developing the Symplicity, the newest pump in Airspray’s assortment. This problem can be viewed as a product innovation problem. The director of BD names the communication between marketing and sales as one of the biggest problems. This problem might have to do with one of the other problems, but that’s not sure at this point.

So with two reality problems I went to the CEO to discuss what to research further one. While discussing the outcomes of the interviews he stated that he was aware of the problems within the sales organization, but he didn’t want to have any research done on that subject. He already had plans to change the set-up of the sales organization. I was satisfied because my personal interest leaned more towards product innovation management, because of three reasons. First of all the subject has a great fit with Business Development, the master of my study. Secondly I thought it was very interesting, that two out of three people responsible for the marketing and sales of 65%

of the total sales of Airspray, named product innovation management as a problem. This is interesting, because as the description of Airspray has shown, Airspray strives on innovation.

“Product innovation plays a vital role in their strategy”. “Above all, strategic innovation remains

Airspray’s main driver for sustainable, profitable growth”. Thirdly because of what earlier

research has shown. Research has shown that industry manages development and innovation poorly (O’Sullivan, 2002, p. 77) and that a large percentage (60%-80%) of change programmes fail to meet their goals (Strebel, 1996, p. 86, Rothwell, 1992, p. 221). So, what is the point of these changes and innovations? Well many resources point out that, although innovation can be seen as a difficult process to manage, it is imperative to survive. Beside that, innovation is increasingly seen as a powerful way of securing competitive advantage and a more secure approach to defending strategic positions (Tidd et al., 2001, p. 15). It’s not a question whether or not to innovate but rather of how to do so successfully. Airspray has made the choice to innovate from the beginning, but will it be successful in the future with a changing environment?

One big problem on the subject was the location of the NPD of Airspray. It’s located in Holland and my research is supposed to contribute to the performance of Airspray Inc. Because of the problems, mentioned by the directors of sales and BD, I had a hunch that Airspray’s innovation management should be more market driven than it is right now. I wanted to look at innovation management in a broad perspective, including aspects that would influence Airspray Inc. as much as Airspray BV. Communication between product development and marketing & sales and culture are examples of elements influencing Airspray Inc. just as much. I persuaded him by first finding out which areas of product innovation management where interesting for further research, by researching the whole company, instead of Airspray Inc. only. If the outcomes where interesting for Airspray Inc., I would continue my research.

2.6 Summary

This chapter describes the way in which I’ve come to a subject for research. It’s necessary, because the sponsoring company carried out no subject. The limitations were three-part. First of all it had to be related to business development, my master degree. Secondly the problem should have my own personal interest. And thirdly it had to cover a range of problems as stated by the interviewees, and so contribute to the performance of Airspray.

By describing the organization of Airspray, using all kinds of company documents as well as the internet, I got a better understanding of what Airspray does and how it is organized.

The informal conversations with all Airspray employees and observations resulted in a mess of problems, categorized in 6 problems.

These problems provided input for the formal interviews with three persons responsible for marketing and sales. Eventually eight problems were discussed and three problems were mentioned twice.

Communication problems were mainly connected to the other two problems: the sales

organization and product innovation management. Together with the CEO, I’ve concluded to

proceed with product innovation management, as long as it is interesting for Airspray Inc.

3 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH

Chapters 2,3,4 Preliminary Research

Chapters 5,6 Main Orientation

Chapter 7 Research

Chapter 8 Conclusions

Chapter 9 Recommendations

Conclusions

Recommendations Problem

identification Introduction

Preliminary Research

Airspray’s Prod. Innov.

Management

Theoretical Framework Main

Research Design

Airspray’s Market Orientation

This preliminary research design structures the first part of the research. The objective for the whole research will be presented. The problem identification in chapter 2 is input from the real world. In this chapter, after the objective of the research is stated, theory is used to operationalize product innovation management. These operatinalizations are together with Airspray input for the first conceptual model.

3.1 Objective of research

The objective of research should resemble for whom it’s carried out, what the result should be and why the result is important (De Leeuw, 1996, p.85). Although Airspray has proven to be a very innovative producer of pumps, product innovation management has been indicated as a problem area in the future. Airspray strives on innovation and thinks, as I do, it’s a very important competitive advantage and an important tool, if not the only one, in defending their strategic position. That’s why the objective of this research is:

To achieve this goal, I first have to find out what product innovation management is. By describing Airspray, I’ve used a lot of company documents and interviews to get a good view of the company. No Airspray tool was found to analyze their product innovation management. So to deepen my research and propose a research question, I studied literature on the product innovation management subject (3.2) in order to point out key factors for product innovation management. Those key factors are input for the conceptual model presented in 3.3. At its turn, the conceptual model is input for the research question and sub questions.

3.2 Theoretical framework product innovation management

To identify areas that are interesting for further research, I will first review the literature on innovation management. I’ll start with defining innovation and innovation management. Then I’ll discuss three different theories on innovation management. Models developed by Tidd et. al., Sommerlatte and Cormican and O’Sullivan will be discussed. I’ll compare those theories and will follow up with my conceptual model.

3.2.1 Product innovation management defined

A lot of definitions can be found on the subject of innovation and product innovation. A few are discussed below:

“Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneurs, the means by which they exploit change as an opportunity for a different business or service. It is capable of being presented as a discipline, capable of being learned, capable of being practiced” (Drucker, 1985, p. 31).

“Innovation is the mechanism by which organizations produce the new products, processes and systems required for adapting to changing markets, technologies and modes of competition”

(Lawson & Samson, 2001, p. 378).

Sommerlatte distinguishes three types of innovation:

The objective of this research is to provide Airspray Inc. with insight in their

product innovation management by valuing key factors and propose

recommendations for improvement of their product innovation management

“Product/Service innovation: The creative development and commercialization of radically new products or services, often grounded in new technology and linked to unmet customer needs Process innovation: the development of new ways of producing products or delivering services that lead to advantages in cost, or timeliness of delivery

Business innovation: The development of new businesses and new ways of conducting business that provide unbeatable competitive advantage” (Jonash & Sommerlatte, 1999, p. 115)

“Innovation is the set of functional skills required to conceive and develop a new product or service and bring it to profitable realization. Innovation brings genuine newness to an organization customers or constituencies. Further, it is a mind-set, an all-consuming attitude that drives the way managers think about business strategies, process, leadership and structures. It is analogues to continuous process improvement in that it is an attitude that feeds on and sustains itself” (Kuczmarski, 2000, p.5).

Prins (2003) makes a distinction between ‘the innovation’ and ‘innovative capability’. He says that the innovation can be seen as:

“Carrying out one or more significant modifications in product, market or process, and generally in a combination of these three, for which no routines are present in the organization and which are also not simply purchased”

And innovative capability as:

“The capability of an organization to recognize, arrange and manage the processes, which are necessary for the realization of an innovation, in an efficient and effective manner”

“Product innovation is a continuous and cross-functional process involving and integrating a growing number of different competencies inside and outside the organizational boundaries.

Simply put, it is the process of transforming business opportunities into tangible products and services.” (Cormican & O’Sullivan, 2004, p.2)

All of the above authors, except Cormican & O’Sullivan, who only define product innovation, make a distinction within innovation. I follow the distinction made by most of them and make a distinction between product/service innovation, process innovation and business/market innovation. This is important because my research will focus on product innovation management.

When I talk about product it means product or service.

What I like about the definitions of Drucker, Lawson & Samson, Sommerlatte and Cormican &

O’Sullivan is the linkage to the external environment. Drucker names “exploit change”, which I interpret in a broad sense, Lawson & Samson talk about “adapting to changing markets, technologies and modes of competition”, Sommerlatte states “often grounded in new technology and linked to unmet customer needs” and Cormican & O’Sullivan use “involving and integrating... competencies inside and outside the organizational boundaries”. The definitions of Prins and Kuczmarski miss this connection in their definitions.

On the other hand I like the distinction made by Prins explicitly and Kuczmarski, implicitly. Prins calls it “the innovation” and “innovative capability”, while Kuczmarski first talks about the innovation as a new product or service and than about innovation being a mind-set and being continuous. I must state that Lawson & Samson make the distinction as well, but it’s not reflected in their definition. This research aims to contribute to the innovative capability of Airspray.

Cormican & O’Sullivan put an extra emphasis on the fact that innovation is not something done

by NPD only. By naming cross-functional in their definition, they explicitly involve different

functionalities. In my research NPD will not be the center of attention and so this part of the definition strokes with the research.

Within the definitions about product innovation I do not follow Sommerlatte in his definition of product/service innovation, because I see innovation as radically new products or services as well as incremental improvements to products and services. Cormican & O’Sullivan’s definition is very close to what I think is a good definition, although the distinction made by Prins and Kuczmarski is missing. Their definition is in my view a capability because they talk about a continuous process. I see product innovation on itself as a new product and not as a capability. By adding management to product innovation, it becomes a capability and my definition of product innovation management is constructed with the following characteristics:

• A distinction has been made between product, technology and business innovation

• It has a linkage to change in the external environment

• It’s set up as a, explicitly a cross-functional, capability The final definition used in this research reads as follows:

“Product innovation management is a continuous and cross-functional process involving and integrating different competencies inside and outside the organizational boundaries.”

Process or business innovations are not taken into account within this definition. This is a limitation of the scorecard, but I use it to identify areas for improvement, which will be taken into account in a broader perspective in the main research.

Now I’ve defined product innovation management we’ll look at three different innovation management models. I’ll start of with describing Tidd’s model.

3.2.2 Tidd et al.

Tidd makes a clear distinction between product, process and service innovation. Together with the perceived degree of novelty, incremental, radical and transformation, they define the innovation space, which has to be managed. They provide a model with four components of the innovation process, which must be managed.

Figure 3.1 Tidd’s four components of the innovation process which must be managed Effective Strategy implementation

mechanisms

Supportive Effective Organizational external Context linkages

Phases in the innovation process

The arrow represents the ‘what’ question and can be divided in a few phases:

• Signal processing

• Strategy

• Resourcing

• Implementation

• Learning and reinnovation

The four components contain the ‘how’ question of what must be managed are:

1. Strategy

Developing a framework for an innovation strategy The national system of innovation and market position Technological trajectories

Integration for strategic learning

2. Effective external linkages Learning from markets

Learning through alliances, suppliers, competitors and other external sources of knowledge

3. Effective implementation mechanisms Managing the internal processes

Learning through corporate ventures

4. Supportive Organizational Context Vision Leadership

Structure Key individuals

Training and development Involvement in innovation Team working

Climate External focus

Extensive communication Learning organization

Tidd et. al. warn for ‘one-dimensional management’, that is, focusing only on those parts which are perceived as important. Examples are:

• Seeing innovation as a linear ‘technology push’ process

• Seeing innovation simply in terms of major ‘breakthroughs’

• Seeing innovation as a single isolated change rather than as part of a wider system

• Seeing innovation as product or process only

Tidd’s model presents innovation in a very broad perspective. Not only technologically change is taken into perspective, but also changes in organizations, markets and marketing are taken into account. He also focuses on process and product/service innovation.

3.2.3 Sommerlatte’s Innovation Scorecard

Sommerlatte is a Vice President of Arthur D. Little where he has been consulting for many European companies in using innovation for competitive advantage. He stresses that Arthur D.

Little, in cooperation with the European Business School, has been able to show that companies

achieving superior growth of their total shareholder return and of sales, in comparison to other participants in their respective industry sector, are, in most cases, the ones that turn out also to demonstrate the highest sustainable innovation performance (Somerlatte, 2004, p. 3).

By carrying out a systematic desk research and performing in-depth structured interviews with senior executives of selected ‘outperformers’, both in Germany and in the USA, he found that all

‘outperformers’ share several of the following aspects of innovation management:

• They pursue, in the framework of their corporate strategy, an innovation strategy, which is based on a continuously actualized competency platform

• They have implemented a comprehensive innovation process which starts with a systematic search for innovation ideas and stretches into successful market penetration

• They have shaped a flexible organization which favors highly innovative behavior through an overlay project organization parallel to the structure and processes of the operational organization

• They engage in multiple innovation partnerships with external partners such as lead customers, suppliers, R&D institutions and consultants

• They are cultivating an innovation culture based on organizational learning and knowledge management.

A random sample of 200 companies (70 respondents), which show less growth of their TSR and sales performance of the outperformers, were asked to rate themselves against the same indicators and found that there is indeed a significant difference between the degree to which the outperformers and the random sample companies meet these (Somerlatte, 2004, p. 5). He concludes in his paper ‘Capital market orientation in innovation management’ that meeting these indicators of innovation management is a major explanation for the strong total shareholder return and sales performance of the outperformers. He proposes in his paper that companies should use the indicators to assess and steer their innovation performance as a prerequisite for a successful capital market strategy.

Arthur D. Little, in cooperation with the European Business School, developed an innovation scorecard which summarizes the key indicators of innovation performance and permits the establishment, for a given company, of its innovation profile and score (Somerlatte, 2004, p. 5).

Figure 3.2: Structure of Sommelatte’s innovation scorecard Innovation Score

Innovation Strategy Innovation

Organization

Innovation Culture Innovation Resource

Deployment

Innovation Process