16
Issue 14 The anytime, anywhere business opportunity Defining a new CEO agenda Interview with historian Niall Ferguson 28 42 54 Striking the innovation balance Seeking value in a radically changing world 10 view

View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

  • Upload
    pwc

  • View
    127

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Many CEOs are making innovation their top priority in a bid to get profits growing. But is your company being as innovative as it could be? Our Business Strategy and Innovation Leader John J. Sviokla explains what it takes to get it right.

Citation preview

Page 1: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

Issue 14 The anytime, anywhere business opportunity

Defining a new CEO agenda

Interview with historian Niall Ferguson

28 42 54

Striking the innovation balance Seeking value in a radically changing world 10

view

Page 2: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

10 PwC View issue 14

Striking the innovation balanceSeeking value in a radically changing world

Cover story

Page 3: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

PwC View issue 14 11

What characterizes the post-crisis econo-my? Our research suggests that a number of fundamental shifts are altering the nature of global commerce. In consumer markets, the shift is from Western to Eastern dominance, where the majority of growth is occurring. Resources that once were plentiful are becoming scarce. More countries are continuing to move away from planned economies to quasi-market- or market-based systems of competition. In short, we are seeing a set of major shifts that are changing the underlying structure of competition on the world stage and establishing a new playing field.

As a strategy designed to help companies succeed in this new environment, inno-vation is rising to the fore. According to PwC’s 14th Annual Global CEO Survey, innovation has gained prominence among global chief executives’ strategic priorities

Samurai Miyamoto Musashi was a great innovator. His two-sword (nitojutsu) style of fighting made him victorious in many battles, including 60 duels. He was also an accomplished calligrapher, sculptor, and part-time architect. Historians wonder whether this samurai’s ability to balance hard fighting skills and artistic intellect enabled him to be a dominant force in the clan wars that characterized the tumultu-ous world of his time.

Fast forward to today. Successful leaders in the post-crisis economy also will need to strike a balance by simultaneously innovating for long-term differentiation and short-term efficiency. Like Miyamoto Musashi, to succeed in a changing world, today’s leaders must excel at their core ca-pabilities while cultivating broad skills and understanding in others, most important, in their senior executive teams.

By John J. Sviokla

John J. Sviokla is a principal in PwC’s Diamond Advisory Services where he serves as business strategy and innovation leader.

In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things. Miyamoto Musashi 1584-1645

Executives know that their decisions have consequences—none more powerful than in the area of innovation. Ignore innovation and watch your competitors pass you by. Do it the wrong way, and watch your resources and efficiencies drain away. The bad news is that the ash heap of business history is littered with companies that have failed to innovate. No need to name names. You know who they are. The good news is that innovation is climbing to the top of the CEO agenda as a primary strategy for achieving profitable growth in a post-crisis economy. Is your company innovating to its full potential? Have you thought about your innovation goals and about how to achieve them? In this article, business strategy and innovation leader John J. Sviokla helps you answer those questions and more. He also introduces the six tensions that most affect a company’s ability to innovate successfully.

Page 4: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

12 PwC View issue 14

as a means of boosting revenues and reducing costs. In fact, for the first time, CEOs say they are just as likely to focus on innovation to achieve growth as on exploiting existing markets. (See Figure 1.) But approaches to innovation need to keep pace with the dramatic changes occurring in the global business landscape. No longer focused on generic products and services suited to all markets, CEOs are basing their innovation efforts on their customers’ needs, wherever in the world those customers happen to be.

According to our survey, they are using innovation to win battles on two fronts by simultaneously increasing new revenues and driving efficiencies.

no firm is immuneWhen people and companies face tumultu-ous environments, a normal reaction is to retreat to the known, nervously hoping that change will mercifully pass by without effect. But this is a dangerous assumption. We now inhabit a world where threats may arise quickly and unpredictably.

Take the case of a conglomerate based in a developing nation that created a refrigera-tor specifically for the rural residents of its home country. The unit employs innova-tive technology to maximize affordability and functionality, relative to other goods in its class. Low-cost products such as this will benefit the more than two billion developing-world consumers who have a limited amount of money to spend. While competitors in the cooler or fridge busi-ness need to take heed, companies in any industry that are not paying attention to similar developments may be blindsided by a disruptive innovator who resets the competitive rules, sometimes almost by accident. This is why CEOs believe innova-tion is critical to their near-term success.

balancing innovation tensionsOf course, in this challenging environ-ment, there is no cookbook approach to innovating successfully. However, the core of “innovation balance” can be achieved when leaders learn to reconcile the ten-sions within six aspects of innovation:

1. Incremental or radical innovation

2. Management or leadership

3. Short-term results or long-term commitment

4. Open innovation or proprietary investment

5. Organic or acquired innovation

6. One innovation process—or two?

No longer focused on generic products and services suited to all markets, CEOs are basing their innovation efforts on their customers’ needs, wherever in the world those customers happen to be.

Figure 1: CEOs have a new commitment to innovation

Base: 2007 (1,084), 2008 (1,150), 2009 (1,124), 2010 (1,198), 2011 (1,201)

Note: Percentage of CEOs who see the following as the main opportunity to grow their business in the following 12 months

Source: PwC, 14th Annual Global CEO Survey, 2011

0

10

20

30

40%

20112010200920082007

Increased share in existing marketsNew geographic marketsMergers and acquisitionsNew product/service developmentNew joint ventures and/or alliances

23%

21%19%15% 15%

11%

14%

17%

13%

10%

20%20%

13%

14%

13%

31%

37% 38%

29%

17%

14%

10%

Page 5: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

PwC View issue 14 13

These six tensions present core tests for leadership; admittedly, within each it is difficult to accomplish both objectives. But if you understand the tensions it can be done. The leading firms navigate these complexities by combining action, culture, and performance to deliver ongoing innovation and value creation. That is, they understand the essential paradox of innovation: Because it injects tension into the organization, innovation is always at odds with the key executive’s job, which, paradoxically, is to foster that very tension. So, innovation can succeed only when there is a will to do it, an environment that fosters it, and the talent necessary to get it done. With increasing global competition and accelerated commercial improvement, more firms than ever have realized the urgent need to master these tensions, and to do so sooner rather than later.

Tension 1 Incremental or radical innovationShould companies aim for incremental or radical innovation? The answer is both. As Chris Wasden1 points out, “If you look at the gross domestic product of the world over the last century—you see an exponen-tial increase in the past 150 years due to the power of innovation. Innovation powers all human progress.” But, as Chris goes on to state, “The job of leadership is to make the current organization lean, while at the same time, creating the organization of tomorrow. This is a fundamental job of the C-suite, and it is not easy!”

Why is embracing both radical and incremental innovation hard? There are many reasons; first among them is that when radical innovation is on the table, the tendency is to treat it like incremental

innovation, because that is the comfort zone where measurement is easy and return on investment is predictable. After all, most business school curriculums and management training programs foster such an approach. The result is that companies reward those who make the current orga-nization run smoothly. Many of today’s leaders rose to the top by playing the existing game better than anybody else. Distribution partners, and even customers, prefer the traditional path because they want tried-and-true solutions, products, and services. Unfortunately, those at-titudes, while necessary under certain circumstances, are anti-innovation. I sus-pect that if a major music label that serves artists had gone to its customers back in the 1990s with a value proposition of selling one song at a time instead of sell-ing complete albums, their talent would have rejected the idea. Apple succeeded in doing this very thing because it had no vested customers in the music market.

Incremental innovation

Management

Open innovation Short-term results

One innovation process

Radical innovation

Leadership

Proprietary investment

Long-term commitment

Two innovation processes

Organic newness

Acquired newness

Figure 2: Balancing innovation tensions

1 Chris Wasden is a managing director in PwC’s Advisory practice, focusing on strategy and innovation.

Page 6: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

14 PwC View issue 14

Tension 2 Management or leadershipWhen it comes to innovation, companies need to decide how to strike a balance be-tween managing the process and leading the context. If you read scores of books on innovation, the image of a funnel will be embedded in your mind. This funnel be-gins with idea creation, progresses through selection and testing, and terminates with scaling. Most of the books will also speak to the importance of managing a portfo-lio of innovations—because, as with any investment, investors in innovation should diversify their risks.

All organizations need a funnel for innova-tion. The easiest way to understand this is to ask a simple question: If someone in an organization has a great idea, does that person know where to take it? If the answer is no, then the organization’s innovation process needs improvement. My colleagues and I recently conducted a survey of more than 5,000 employees of a global insurance

carrier, and we found that they wanted to innovate. They also believed that their organization could innovate, but they did not know where to take their innovative ideas, and they did not have faith that the organization could manage the process of listening to new ideas, sorting them, funding them, and building them. These attitudes indicate that this company, like many firms, does not have the fundamental funnel process in place. Leadership, whose job it is to fix this problem, can do so by applying the focus, analysis, money, and commitment required.

But that’s the easy part. The trickier part is leading the context of a company’s top ex-ecutives, their management teams, and their organizations. This involves several funda-mental questions leadership needs to ask and answer: Am I hearing the best ideas? Are my people plugged in to the fact that a breakthrough idea may be coming from anywhere? Can I see what might strike our industry from an entirely different angle?

Other critical questions are: What ideas do we consider? Whom do we interact with? Whom do we do business with? Put an-other way, the innovation space that a firm occupies is bounded by what the organiza-tion “thinks,” by the people with whom the organization regularly interacts, and by the customers with whom it does business. If a company’s innovators compare their or-ganization with others in its industry, that company’s innovation will be constrained by what those innovators know. If they are in dialogue with those outside their firm, industry, and social sphere, the chances of innovating are better. A look at the history of entrepreneurs shows that they have deep hobbies and passions outside of work that find their way into new inventions or ideas. As with samurai Miyamoto Musashi mentioned earlier, a broad context can lead to competitive advantage.

Figure 3: Innovation funnel

Idea creation

Selection and testing

Scaling

Page 7: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

PwC View issue 14 15

Tension 3 short-term results or long-term commitmentDespite what pundits say, organizations need not tolerate failure in order to inno-vate. The problem is not tolerating failure. Rather, it is a matter of understanding that no revolutionary approach that I know of has ever been right the first time. Senior executive teams that understand innovation also understand how to make an innovative difference in the marketplace. They know that even as the teams in the firm create new and improved ways of doing things—everything from checking out at the local supermarket to improving the interface to a car’s navigation system—there will be

from time to time a revolutionary approach to the market that might not immedi-ately go as planned. It is this type of noble failure—well executed and seeking great value—that should be tolerated.

Let me offer an example involving Dave Pottruck and Charles Schwab, at the time, co-CEOs of Schwab, a major investment-services company. The organization was trying to create a no-load mutual fund marketplace. Schwab had invested millions of dollars in the platform, which allowed them to enable a customer to have mul-tiple accounts across many mutual fund providers. Despite the fact that Schwab had collected almost $2 billion in assets on this

new platform over an eight-year period, it was not the game changer that manage-ment expected. Yet, the firm continued to invest and to try to figure out how to make this good idea into a great idea.

Pottruck and Schwab decided to do an experiment in which the firm did not charge its customers anything to purchase a new mutual fund within its portal. This was radical because, at the time, investors who wanted to purchase new funds were required to pay a Schwab transaction fee to purchase a third-party no-load fund. With-out yet having any other sources of revenue associated with these transactions, Schwab waived its fees at these test branches to see

Despite what pundits say, organizations need not tolerate failure in order to innovate. The problem is not tolerating failure. Rather, it is a matter of understanding that no revolutionary approach that I know of has ever been right the first time.

Page 8: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

what customers would do. They found that customers flocked to Schwab because they had enormous choice without any extra costs. Schwab then used this experience of enhanced volumes to negotiate with a pilot group of no-load funds to absorb Schwab’s fees. Thus, the No-Fee, No-Load Mutual Fund Marketplace was born. The idea was a huge success, resulting in the firm’s garnering hundreds of billions in assets. Pottruck and Schwab had in effect changed the entire nature of the pricing and power structure in its industry—and almost all companies have followed suit. However, as Pottruck is quick to note, they had it wrong for years before they got it right. In other words, they were willing to tolerate what Pottruck calls “noble failure” on their way to success. That is the challenge for senior management.

Tension 4 open innovation or proprietary investmentThere is much energy around the notion of open innovation, and the stories are com-pelling. One need only look at iTunes, or talk with an executive at Procter & Gamble (P&G) to see the power of involving customers, suppliers, traditional partners, and even some non-traditional ones in the proc ess of innovating. As the saying goes, “No one is as smart as everyone.” At the same time, great fortunes are made in types of businesses that are extremely closed, from investment banking, to drug creation, to computer software. Many

institutions aggressively protect their intellectual property and stop others from using it—often to great advantage.

So, even in this world of increasing openness there is a very valuable role for a closed approach when it comes to innovation. In determining how to achieve the right balance of open and closed innovation, there are three key questions to consider: 1) What parts of the project are open to whom? 2) For what purpose? 3) Who gets to extract the value?

For a detailed discussion of each of these questions, see Two views on page 22.

Even in this world of increasing openness there is a very valuable role for a closed approach when it comes to innovation.

Page 9: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

PwC View issue 14 17

At Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC), the country’s largest customer-owned health insurer, innovation is not a luxury—it’s a necessity. Healthcare reform and changing customer expectations are just two of the challenges facing large organizations like HCSC and their custom-ers. Another is rapidly rising costs. As Paul Nutting, HCSC’s senior director, electronic commerce notes, “If we don’t innovate, ris-ing costs become a problem for everybody. Large employers cannot afford continuous cost increases and still compete in their markets. So for us as an organization, we have to innovate just to stay in business.”

In response to these challenges, HCSC has launched an innovation program that it hopes will fundamentally change the way healthcare is delivered. A key aspect of the program is technology innovation with a particular focus on mobile and social media. Addison McGuffin, HCSC’s vice president, business technology innova-tion explains why: “Children today can’t remember a time when there wasn’t a Facebook or an Internet. We have to be able to connect with that new consumer and understand their priorities.”

things that will fundamentally change the system. Everybody will benefit.”

While using technology in a new way means big changes for HCSC’s customers, it also means a radical shift for the com-pany itself and for the healthcare industry. Nutting explains: “We’ve always focused on providing innovative solutions and services to our customers, and now technology is helping us to do that quicker and better. These tools are intended to empower our members with better information and to become better consumers of healthcare.”

HCSC’s mobile innovations include public sites that allow customers to shop for insurance and to find physicians and hospitals. Features include the ability to check on claims and other coverage mat-ters and to access information on specific conditions such as maternity care and on managing specific diseases such as diabetes. “We’re using Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to take customer engagement to another level,” says McGuffin. “We want to stay connected to our customers. Our objective is to be a partner for life.”

Innovation at HCSC

After considering a number of alterna-tives, the mobile platform seemed the best means of achieving that goal. As Nutting sees it, the mobile platform offers a unique opportunity for HCSC to engage with its customers and take costs out of the sys-tem. “Almost everyone has a mobile device that is dramatically accelerating commu-nication and connectivity,” he says. “When we looked at our capabilities and at what we wanted to achieve, the mobile platform seemed the logical choice.”

Today, HCSC is focusing on using mobile devices to help physicians get the infor-mation and tools they need to provide personalized and cost-efficient care. They are also developing mobile applications that help people better manage and track their illnesses, which is information they can share with their physicians. Accord-ing to Nutting, these capabilities working together can start to dramatically change how healthcare is delivered, can help to keep people healthier by encouraging and enabling prevention, and can significantly reduce costs. “These things are a small subset of the innovation going on in health-care,” he says, “but they are enabling other

Page 10: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

18 PwC View issue 14

Tension 5 organic or acquired innovationMost large organizations acquire that which they cannot build. Whether it is Google buying YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock back in 2006, or P&G purchasing Gillette, a robust and continuing appetite exists for organizations to acquire their innovation in addition to building it. It is vital for senior executives to keep in mind the ability to bring in, through investment, that which cannot be homegrown. Some organizations buy others to acquire strategic capacity. Others do it to grab a position in a grow-ing market before it is too late. Still others acquire to expand their product lines.

The vital insight in this increasingly competitive environment is to keep in mind that all innovation decisions are also

build-versus-buy decisions. It is almost always possible to acquire the innovation you might want, or at least the germ of an innovation that your organization needs. For most companies, it takes an enormous amount of managerial courage to acquire an organization within their “sweet spots” because of the underlying fear that they have been bested on their core turf. It is vital for all organizations, as they look at their own innovative capacity, to decide if they are better off living with the known risks of acquisition and integration. And they are manifest. For example, “US sources place merger failure rates as high as 80% and evidence indicates that around half of mergers fail to meet financial expectations.”2 Nevertheless, acquisition is always on the table—especially in a fast-moving world of competitive options.

A robust and continuing appetite exists for organizations to acquire their innovation in addition to building it. It is vital for senior executives to keep in mind the ability to bring in, through investment, that which cannot be homegrown.

2 Cited by Toby Elwin, “Mergers and acquisitions failures are project management failures,” November 30, 2010, at http://www.amajorc.com/blog/mergers-and-acquisitions-failures-are-project-management-failures#.

Page 11: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

PwC View issue 14 19

Tension 6 one innovation process—or two?

The final, and perhaps most difficult chal-lenge for senior executives is determining whether an organization needs one in-novation process or two. In my experience, it is not possible for the same people, same investment committee, or same set of partners to create both incremental and radical innovation. Or at least, it is very unlikely. Companies that are still run by their founders often are willing to fund new, breakthrough initiatives. Some, like George Hatsopoulos, the founder of Thermo Electron, would spin out a new business every time someone had a good idea, and between spin-outs and acquisi-tions, the group grew to a few hundred companies. He managed to create an organization that delivered enormous value over the years. In addition, a robust mechanism existed to fund the new companies with capital from the core company—allowing everyone to prosper. This innovative structure allowed Thermo Electron for a time to grow into a massively profitable, multi-billion dollar company.

More simply, it is possible for an executive team to have a healthy and vigorous inter-nal process for incremental and sustaining

improvements, and, at the same time, have a different process for radical improvement or change. As a general rule, the existing capital budgeting and assessment systems of an organization are very good at incre-mental innovations but terrible at radical ones. The implementation approach for incremental innovations is one that is com-patible with an existing company’s systems, but more radical innovations often need a separate structure so that the “mother ship” does not overwhelm the effort. Many seasoned executives are accustomed to separating out new and different business ideas so that they have an ability to germi-nate outside the “normal” process.

In general, those executives who want both incremental and radical innovation must be willing to have two innovation processes, or at least an ability to craft a unique solu-tion when a product is created that has the potential to disrupt an entire industry. Also, management needs to be willing to tolerate noble failure from these more radically minded groups—as long as they have not had a failure of concept or execution. These might be on their way to figuring out how to reconfigure an industry.

78%of CEOs expect their innovations will lead to significant new revenue opportunities over the next three years.Source: PwC, 14th Annual Global CEO Survey, 2011

Page 12: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

20 PwC View issue 14

winning the challenge The real leadership challenge is to under-stand how to achieve the right balance for any organization in its particular setting. The important thing to remember is this: Innovation is coming to every industry; faster, and with more vengeance than ever before. With regard to innovation, the good news is capitalism is winning. Ironi-cally, that’s also the bad news.

Technology and globalization have combined in a crucible from which have sprung vast new networks of supply and

As Miyamoto Musashi noted, leaders must take a close view of distant things and a distanced view of close things.

Based on my experience helping compa-nies to innovate, the challenge for the senior executive team is threefold. First they must decide how much they need to innovate and where growth will come from. Second, they need to create an in-novation process, if one does not already exist. Third, and most important as well as difficult, management needs to assess where they are in terms of the six aspects of innovation I’ve discussed in this article.

Page 13: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

demand. People and ideas are more con-nected and are moving faster than ever before. Growth is a given, and everyone wants a piece of the action. This makes for a vibrant but also hyper-competitive busi-ness landscape. And there’s no going back.

But the trajectory is clear. On one hand, as competition heats up, customers will be rewarded by continuing to get more for less. On the other hand, companies that innovate successfully will reward their shareholders as well. But there’s another

group of companies, an elite group, if you will, that brings something more to the table in the form of a legacy of curiosity and experimentation.

Leaders who leave behind a legacy of didactic thinking and normative advice are doing their organizations a huge disservice by dooming them to a future of mediocrity. Leaders who prepare their organizations for the future by leaving behind a legacy of inquisitiveness and bold thinking assure their companies a lifetime of success.

As Miyamoto Musashi noted, leaders must take a close view of distant things and a distanced view of close things. The speed of innovation and improvement is increas-ing—a phenomenon called the law of accelerating returns. In response, the best leaders are looking again at the innovation balance of their organizations and making sure that they are prepared to encounter both the promise and the peril of a world that is changing faster than ever before. Are you among them?

Page 14: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

60 PwC View issue 14

editorial

Editorial Director Tom Craren

Managing Editor Gene Zasadinski

Assistant Managing EditorChristine Wendin

View points Editor Reena Vadehra

Contributing EditorsSerena Foong Benjamin Isgur Sandy Lutz

online

Jeffrey Dreiblatt Adiba Khan Scott Schmidt Jack Teuber

Design

Odgis + Company

Creative Director Janet Odgis

Art Director, Senior DesignerBanu Berker

DesignersRhian Swierat Milo KowalskiJustin SuazoKate Mrozowski

Contributors

We thank the following individuals for their contributions to this issue of View:

Caroline Calkins-Heine Sarah Haflett Doug Kangos Kathy Nieland Kimberly Peretti Shannon Schreibman Erik Skramstad

Photography

AP Images

Luis Filipe Catarino/4SEE/Redux

David Cooper/Toronto Star

Corbis Images

Ruth Fremson/The New York Times/Redux

Getty Images

iStockphoto

Kit Kittle

Rainer Lott/Steffi Esch

Reuters Pictures

Gilles Rolle/REA/Redux

viewIssue 14

Page 15: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

To request additional copies of View or to comment: www.pwc.com/view.

PricewaterhouseCoopers provides industry-focused assurance, tax and advisory services to build public trust and enhance value for our clients and their stakeholders. More than 163,000 people in 151 countries across our network share their thinking, experience and solutions to develop fresh perspectives and practical advice.

© 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership, or, as the context requires, the PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other member firms of the network, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. This document is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consulta-tion with professional advisors.

The information contained in this document is for general guidance on matters of interest only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules, and regu lations, there may be omissions or inaccuracies in information contained in this document. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should consult a competent professional adviser. Although we believe that the infor mation contained in this document has been obtained from reliable sources, PricewaterhouseCoopers is not responsible for any errors or omissions contained herein or for the results obtained from the use of this information.

View magazine is printed at an ISO 14001:2004 certified plant with Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Chain of Custody certification (BVCOC-080903). It was printed with the use of renewable wind power resulting in nearly zero volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. The paper used is 10 percent recycled minimum with postconsumer waste. The paper is FSC certified, which promotes environmentally appropriate management of the world’s forests.

By printing at a facility that uses wind-generated electricity:

5,147 lbs of greenhouse gases were prevented

equivalent to 4,466 miles not driven in a year

equivalent to planting 350 trees

By using postconsumer recycled fiber in lieu of virgin fiber:

10 trees were preserved for the future

31 lbs of waterborne waste were not created

4,551 gallons of wastewater flow were saved

504 lbs of solid waste were not generated

991 lbs net of greenhouse gases were prevented

7,589,140 BTUs of energy were not consumed

6,034 cubic feet of natural gas were not used

Page 16: View, Issue 14 — Striking the innovation balance: Seeking value in a radically changing world

For an in-depth discussion of these misconceptions, see Demystifying innovation: Take down the barriers to new growth, PwC, 2011.

www.pwc.com/view

Rear view

Are you aware of the following misconceptions surrounding innovation?

{ Innovation can be delegated.

{ Senior and mid-level managers are the natural allies of innovation.

{ Innovative talent works for the money.

{ Innovation results from lucky accidents.

{ The more open the innovation process, the less disciplined.

{ Businesses know how much innovation they need.

{ Innovation can’t be measured.