3
use of new products, processes, and organization forms. Technology alone will not
produce enough nor sustained success in any sector, including agriculture. I would
posit that, increasingly in today’s and tomorrow’s world, technology alone does not
represent the main determinant of the perceived value innovations create for its users.
Is the answer a big budget?. Do more money and larger teams mean more
innovation?
Large budgets are not necessarily a good predictor of innovation success. A myriad of well-funded innovation efforts has fallen short of expectations or outright
failed in the market. Case in point: Motorola’s failed launch in the 1990s of Iridium–
a mobile telephone service providing global coverage that cost investors over $5
billion. While Iridium was expected to capture millions of customers, by the time it
filed for bankruptcy protection, it had only acquired about 55,000. It was finally
purchased for the discounted price of $25 million. Many modest budgets, in contrast, have managed to deliver high value to both investors and users. See Box 1.2
for a cassava example.
If it’s not technology or money, what leads to successful innovation?
One pivotal part of the answer is people. People are the most effective predictor
of success of any innovative undertaking. People cannot thrive, however, in organizations that stifle their creativity and experimentation. Organizations must support,
encourage, and foster a culture that enables employee innovation, or they risk crippling the talent they hired to produce results in the first place, leading employees to
look for a brighter outlook and professional development elsewhere. To succeed,
organizations must invest in building a system that both nurtures human innovation
and takes the user into account.
Most innovation failures stem from failing to recognize that innovation is both an
economic and social process rather than simply a technical one. Many innovation
endeavors fail despite funding availability, talented people, strong technology, and
sincere intentions. Ultimately, innovation success depends on whether the value
developers think they are delivering matches the actual value users
1
find in the product or service. The business model associated with any innovation is also pivotal to
fulfilling users’ expectations and determining if an organization survives.
Why do we have to innovate? Isn’t maintaining business as usual good enough?
The simple, straight, and honest answer is no. Failure to address disruptive change
and implement business model innovations has led to the demise of many successful
companies and organizations, in both developed and developing countries.
2
1 For the sake of simplicity, throughout this chapter, the term “users” will also encompass other
parties toward whom innovation efforts are targeted, such as customers, clients, adopters, endusers, and beneficiaries.
2 The longevity of corporations is rapidly declining in the United States. In order to survive, they
must innovate more rapidly than ever before. The 33-year average tenure of companies on the S&P
500 index in 1964 shrank to just 24 years by 2016 and is forecast to drop to just 12 years by 2027.
Even large companies such as Alcoa, DuPont, and Yahoo all left the S&P 500 index in the period
2013–2017. Companies like these have been replaced by firms like Facebook, Under Armor, and
PayPal. While the chance of remaining in the S&P 500 index for the first 5 years after being listed
before 1970 was over 90%, companies listed from 2000 to 2009 only had a 60% chance of maintaining their grip on that rank (Anthony et al. 2018). A similar trend pervades all markets, including
agriculture, both in developed and in emerging economies.
1 The Quest for Innovation: Addressing User Needs and Value Creation
use of new products, processes, and organization forms. Technology alone will not
produce enough nor sustained success in any sector, including agriculture. I would
posit that, increasingly in today’s and tomorrow’s world, technology alone does not
represent the main determinant of the perceived value innovations create for its users.
Is the answer a big budget?. Do more money and larger teams mean more
innovation?
Large budgets are not necessarily a good predictor of innovation success. A myriad of well-funded innovation efforts has fallen short of expectations or outright
failed in the market. Case in point: Motorola’s failed launch in the 1990s of Iridium–
a mobile telephone service providing global coverage that cost investors over $5
billion. While Iridium was expected to capture millions of customers, by the time it
filed for bankruptcy protection, it had only acquired about 55,000. It was finally
purchased for the discounted price of $25 million. Many modest budgets, in contrast, have managed to deliver high value to both investors and users. See Box 1.2
for a cassava example.
If it’s not technology or money, what leads to successful innovation?
One pivotal part of the answer is people. People are the most effective predictor
of success of any innovative undertaking. People cannot thrive, however, in organizations that stifle their creativity and experimentation. Organizations must support,
encourage, and foster a culture that enables employee innovation, or they risk crippling the talent they hired to produce results in the first place, leading employees to
look for a brighter outlook and professional development elsewhere. To succeed,
organizations must invest in building a system that both nurtures human innovation
and takes the user into account.
Most innovation failures stem from failing to recognize that innovation is both an
economic and social process rather than simply a technical one. Many innovation
endeavors fail despite funding availability, talented people, strong technology, and
sincere intentions. Ultimately, innovation success depends on whether the value
developers think they are delivering matches the actual value users
1
find in the product or service. The business model associated with any innovation is also pivotal to
fulfilling users’ expectations and determining if an organization survives.
Why do we have to innovate? Isn’t maintaining business as usual good enough?
The simple, straight, and honest answer is no. Failure to address disruptive change
and implement business model innovations has led to the demise of many successful
companies and organizations, in both developed and developing countries.
2
1 For the sake of simplicity, throughout this chapter, the term “users” will also encompass other
parties toward whom innovation efforts are targeted, such as customers, clients, adopters, endusers, and beneficiaries.
2 The longevity of corporations is rapidly declining in the United States. In order to survive, they
must innovate more rapidly than ever before. The 33-year average tenure of companies on the S&P
500 index in 1964 shrank to just 24 years by 2016 and is forecast to drop to just 12 years by 2027.
Even large companies such as Alcoa, DuPont, and Yahoo all left the S&P 500 index in the period
2013–2017. Companies like these have been replaced by firms like Facebook, Under Armor, and
PayPal. While the chance of remaining in the S&P 500 index for the first 5 years after being listed
before 1970 was over 90%, companies listed from 2000 to 2009 only had a 60% chance of maintaining their grip on that rank (Anthony et al. 2018). A similar trend pervades all markets, including
agriculture, both in developed and in emerging economies.
1 The Quest for Innovation: Addressing User Needs and Value Creation