2. tap the intellectual capital of their employees. These The community is called IdeaNet, and activity is struc-
changes have prompted organizations to try different tured around online brainstorms, or “idea challenges,”
technologies for collaboration, including blogs and which take place over a 3–4 week period and engage
microblogging tools, wikis, virtual project rooms, and anywhere from 600 to 30,000 employees. Challenge topics
idea management systems. Sometimes these technologies are framed around real business issues and sponsored by
survive and add value. Frequently, they fall into disuse. the business leader accountable for developing and im-
plementing the solution. While challenges often target spe-
Whether a technology persists or not depends on how cific employee groups, a fundamental principle of the
well it supports the work to be done and fits the corporate community is its emphasis on openness; therefore, most
culture. All too often, work is designed around technol- challenges are accessible to and visible by all employees
ogy rather than the other way around. To build sustain- who visit the site. The expectation is that contributions will
able communities, managers need to view technology as come from all employees, from frontline workers to middle
an enabler and focus the effort on taking a participatory managers to senior leadership, including the CEO. This
and iterative approach to build a system that reflects the participation model creates situations where a manager
needs and values of stakeholders at all levels in the orga- may act in the community as an idea contributor one day,
nization. The key to success is a human-centered ap- and as a challenge sponsor on another day.
proach. Methods from anthropology, design, and action
research can help managers to design systems that take In its first two years post-pilot, IdeaNet received close to
into account the way people actually work. 3,000 ideas posted to 52 idea challenges and generated a
portfolio of 874 ideas adopted by the business units, rang-
The Pitney Bowes Employee Innovation Community ing from quick-win process improvements to concepts now
represents an example of how managers can take advan- in longer-term development (Figure 1). While participa-
tage of these new forms of collaboration and implement tion remained steady across both years, the second year
technology in a way that sticks. To create community saw fewer ideas adopted by project teams, a healthy result
at Pitney Bowes, the program team took deliberate steps to of a more refined focus in selecting ideas and a more
engage the participation of stakeholder groups across the realistic evaluation of the resources available to implement
organizational hierarchy. This involvement meant that ideas. As of December 2010, approximately 35 percent
the resulting community not only reflected the perspec- of those employees with daily access to the intranet had
tives of these very diverse groups, but also had shared participated in IdeaNet idea challenges, about 6,500 in-
ownership. These factors enhanced the results and sustain- dividuals. In 2011, the community’s third year, 10 chal-
ability of the program. lenges have been launched as of June; with just over 600
The Employee Innovation Program ideas posted in response to these challenges, 2011 is ex-
pected to match last year’s activity.
Like many companies, Pitney Bowes realizes the best
thinking can come from anywhere in the organization, Designing an Innovation Community
and in 2008 the CEO set out a vision to engage employees
in innovation, specifically using an innovation community. From the start, the program team charged with the design
The idea surfaced in response to an internal audit of inno- and execution of the innovation community took a socio-
vation and product-management practices that revealed technical systems perspective (Bansler 1989). This per-
barriers to innovation across the enterprise. The mission spective acknowledges that technical systems do not stand
of the new Employee Innovation Program was to engage apart from human systems and that technology should
all employees in innovation, to facilitate organic growth support work rather than work accommodating the tech-
and process improvements, and to foster a culture of in- nology. Applied to the creation of the innovation com-
novation through changes in behavior. munity, this stance meant that technology would make
Figure 1.—Participation and idea uptake for IdeaNet idea challenges, 2009 and 2010
20 Research • Technology Management
3. up an important enabler of the community (via the web
platform), but that the most fundamental driver for sus-
tainability was a design that combined an understanding
The team aimed for a
of the organizational culture with the dynamics of the
human work system. In other words, the team aimed for
a design driven by the organization’s needs and not the
design driven by
technology’s features or functions. In addition, the ap-
proach was underpinned by the belief that workers are the organization’s
experts in what they do and should therefore be involved
in the design of their work. The team viewed worker
participation as key to employee engagement because
needs and not the
participation enables people to find and create meaning
in their work (Weisbord 2004). technology’s
To get broad participation in the design process, the
team used methods from the practice of participatory de-
sign (PD). This approach elevates the importance of user
features or
participation in the design process, positioning the de-
signer as a facilitator of a user-centered design process,
rather than as a master architect of the solution. Tradi-
functions.
tionally, PD is concerned with the politics of design and
with the distribution of power in the workplace; PD
approaches to worker participation have been able to
both improve systems design (by accounting for the re- First, 25 interviews were conducted with managers and
alities of work) and address issues of managerial control directors across the company, all the way up to the se-
and workplace democracy (Kensing and Blomberg nior team. The purpose of this “innovation audit” was to
1998). As the innovation community launched, Pitney explore interviewees’ experiences with starting and build-
Bowes was in a time of transition. Having made a num- ing new products and services within the company, in
ber of business acquisitions in the recent past, the order to identify both impediments to innovation and
company had a dynamic mix of corporate cultures. Fur- opportunities to improve the approach to innovation
thermore, the CEO’s intention to reshape the company’s companywide. The data was analyzed using a frame-
culture of innovation helped to get broad participation in work (Hansen and Birkinshaw 2007) that broke down
the design process. the innovation process from idea to implementation. The
interviews revealed major organizational barriers to in-
The methods used in the program design process— novation; for example, authority for taking an idea to
collaborative workshops, ethnographic interviews, and implementation was fragmented across individuals and
interactive activities—are drawn from multiple disci- functions, and the sharing of ideas and customer knowl-
plines, particularly anthropology and design (Brown 2009). edge was limited by organizational silos. The audit also
The iterative nature of the design approach was inspired highlighted mechanisms that could better support inno-
by PD as well as by the action research paradigm, in vation efforts within the company. The resulting conclu-
which the researcher makes real-world interventions, sions underscored the urgency of the CEO’s mission to
evaluates the results, and then repeats the process, taking engage employees and planted the seed for the innova-
into account the information from previous iterations tion community.
(O’Brien 1998). To achieve employee and management
commitment along with program sustainability, the re- In the wake of the interviews, the program team ran a
search and design processes solicited participation from co-creation workshop with the company’s CEO Council
three levels in the organization: senior management, em- (top 40 executives) to identify and address discontinui-
ployees, and middle management. ties in vision and tactics for building an innovation com-
munity. CEO Council members completed a survey prior
Involving Senior Management to the workshop, providing their views on the basic ele-
ments of the proposed community. This feedback was
The management perspective had the potential to inform incorporated into a mock-up description of the future
the design in two important ways: (1) senior managers program. At their annual meeting, the members spent the
had a point of view about what would succeed within the afternoon in groups and worked through the mock-up in
organization and what barriers would need to be over- 90-minute breakout sessions, followed by a plenary dis-
come, and (2) the commitment (or lack thereof) of se- cussion. The intent was not to reach consensus, but in-
nior managers could make or break the community, so it stead to surface key assumptions and potential pitfalls
was critical to understand their priorities. and to provide a forum for these leaders to contribute to
September—October 2011 21
4. the design. With all units and functions represented, the A unique approach to oversight, prioritization of quick
session yielded important insight on what was needed to wins, and sponsorship of idea challenges all helped se-
make innovation successful in the company. nior managers build a sense of ownership in the program.
Senior managers actively shared in the process of de-
The co-creation with managers surfaced a paradox: the signing a human system that would work with technol-
management discipline traditionally emphasizes control, ogy to create the community.
while open innovation requires managers to relinquish
some level of control. As part of their design recommen- Engaging Employees
dations, the CEO Council established the Enabling In-
novation Group (EIG) as a unique oversight group to With the goal of incorporating into the community de-
resolve this tension. This executive working team sign the motivations and needs of employees, we con-
provided oversight but also served to champion the pro- ducted nearly 50 interactive interviews with individuals
gram and encourage open participation from managers representing over 20 job functions and multiple business
throughout the community. The work with managers re- units. Interviewees were asked about how innovation
vealed a paradox: the management discipline tradition- occurs in their organizations. These ethnographic in-
ally emphasizes control, while open innovation requires terviews also included a participatory activity in which
managers to relinquish some level of control. As part of employees used small cards on a board to design a ficti-
their design recommendations, the CEO Council estab- tious community website. This tangible activity pro-
lished the Enabling Innovation Group (EIG) as a unique vided employees with the ability to envision possible
oversight group to resolve this tension. This executive futures and provided the researchers with a richer data
working team provided oversight but also served to set than interviews alone would have.
champion the program and encourage open participation
Insight from the employee research was codified in an
from managers throughout the community. More than 30
“employee value proposition” that described the benefits
individuals were nominated for membership in the EIG;
that would motivate and sustain employee participation.
10 directors and vice presidents were selected based on
Employees were looking for a community that would
specific qualities, including their skills as coaches, influ-
allow them to
encers, and leaders who could create energy around in-
novation. This visible and desirable assignment helped to • Connect with individuals across the organization, to
combat the perception of the community as another “pro- find employees with specific expertise and to build
gram du jour,” and the personal capital of these individu- groups around shared topics of interest;
als lent the program credibility from the start. This team
contributed to the program design, helped navigate inter- • Learn about innovative projects across the company;
nal systems, and acted as spokespersons to leadership • Have a voice, be part of change, and exercise an abil-
teams across the organization during the first year. By ity to influence things; and
year two, IdeaNet saw widespread adoption; this allowed
the EIG’s oversight role to be phased out and the group • Gain personal recognition for their contributions.
to be replaced by Innovation Champions who worked to
Using the employee value proposition as a guide, the
embed the community in the organizational culture.
IdeaNet platform made accessible a wide variety of tools
Another critical learning from the workshop was the im- to enhance access to information and provide opportuni-
portance of demonstrating quick wins. Idea challenges ties to contribute. This included such social networking
were designed with this criteria in mind. In late 2008, a tools as profiles and the capability for users to collabo-
three-month pilot with 2,000 employees quickly demon- rate on ideas through commenting. The IdeaNet home page
strated that idea challenges can serve as a call to action, established a sense of community by including space for
sparking participation. Results of idea challenges func- such content as success stories, innovation event announce-
tion as a fast and visible way to demonstrate quick wins. ments, challenge results, and recently posted ideas. This
allowed employees to consume and contribute content
Idea challenges also serve as a way to foster senior lead- in brief, productive interactions. A daily digest e-mail to
ership engagement by giving managers ownership of interested subscribers compiled the previous day’s idea
the challenges. The CEO required each one of his direct submissions to make activity on IdeaNet visible and ac-
reports to sponsor at least one idea challenge during the tionable even outside of the site, so that participants did
year, making participation by senior leaders mandatory. not have to navigate to the site to follow recent changes.
Importantly, this charge established a metric that mea-
sured behavior—idea challenges required leaders to be Further interviews after the three-month pilot revealed
transparent about their business challenges and to open that while employees are invested in their own ideas,
discussion of possible solutions to a broader group of they cared less about getting personal feedback than they
potential contributors. These leadership behaviors are a did about knowing the overall challenge results. Partici-
critical piece to help foster a culture of innovation. pants expected to see that the challenge had created
22 Research • Technology Management
5. value for the unit. This learning led the program team to
establish a challenge closing process to ensure that a deci-
sion was made on every idea and communicated to the
Participants
original submitter. For ideas adopted by the sponsoring
unit, a time frame, owner, and next steps were summa-
rized in a multipage “Results Memo,” which was pub-
expected to see that
lished on IdeaNet and via the corporate intranet.
Post-pilot interviews also revealed that the majority of
the challenge had
employees did not feel connected to the activity of in-
novation, because they viewed innovation as a creative created value for
moment of identifying a large, disruptive idea. To build
participation in the community, it was vital to broaden
the definition of innovation and to enable each employee
the unit.
to see him or herself as a potential contributor. Site con-
tent was added to describe the roles employees could play
in innovation—as submitters, commenters, or connectors—
and additional communication reinforced this message. also initiated challenges or advocated to senior manage-
Emphasis was placed on the broad scope of ideas that ment for the launch of a particular challenge. During the
are valuable to the company, including everything from early idea challenges, the program team worked along-
basic process improvements to new growth areas. side middle managers to actively guide business-unit chal-
lenge teams in running effective challenges. Working
Once the community was active, the program team con- with these middle managers also provided a front-row
tinued to use participatory approaches with employees to seat to the realities of running the process and allowed the
guide activities to fulfill the community’s mission. For program team to adjust the design based on work realities.
example, midway through the first year the team hosted This flexibility proved hugely effective in ensuring a
a day-long “Open Space” meeting focused on direction quality process that produced the kind of outcomes man-
for the program’s second year. Open Space is an approach agers were driving for. It also enabled the program team
to conducting large meetings in which participants de- to make quick interventions if anything went off track.
sign their own agenda by nominating and leading topics of To accomplish this ongoing collaboration, a role was es-
their choice, within a predetermined overarching theme tablished for a “challenge architect” to work with spon-
for the meeting (Bunker and Alban 1997). Over 50 of sors to translate their objectives into idea challenges and
IdeaNet’s stakeholders and most-active users attended, shepherd challenge teams to get the most out of em-
representing every business unit. The day included 23 ployee participants. This role is central to the iterative
participant-led discussions under the theme of “How can learning effort, as it serves as program eyes and ears on
we continue to enable employees to innovate at Pitney the business-unit challenge teams and supports their
Bowes?” Each discussion produced clear recommenda- adoption of innovation practices. It also serves to main-
tions for program improvements. In some cases the pro- tain process controls that have proven critical for elevat-
gram team had to weigh employee preferences for new ing the probability of success for this new initiative.
technical features against the ability of IdeaNet to sus-
tain participation. In the first year, work with middle managers resulted in
significant modifications to the program. The most im-
Ensuring that the program was in tune with employee
portant was building and refining the practice of framing
motivations and making employees co-creators were im-
idea challenges around current business issues (VanGundy
portant factors in sustaining engagement in the community
2005). At the outset of IdeaNet, sponsors tended to ask
and differentiating IdeaNet from other top-down initia-
lightweight questions and to treat IdeaNet as an activity
tives. This involvement, like that of senior management,
separate from work they were doing to address their
demonstrates that while the technology enabled parts of
strategic objectives. Working closely with middle man-
the design—such as publishing the results memos—the
agers made it possible to move from this compartmen-
importance of the technology was far second to the par-
talized approach and position idea challenges as a tool
ticipatory design of the human system surrounding it.
that could be used to address current business challenges
and explore key strategic questions. The result of this
Including Middle Management shift was an evolution in the type of challenges that were
issued. In the first year, the program team experimented
Middle managers played a unique role in the community, to improve challenge outcomes and employee engage-
since in addition to being participants, they reviewed, ment; year two saw fewer challenges, but these were
prioritized, and implemented ideas. In some cases they more closely linked with the business and more focused
September—October 2011 23
6. on growth—reflecting the increasing comfort with using The make-up of the business-unit challenge teams has
challenges as a modality for approaching strategic innova- also evolved with experience. The process of running an
tion questions (Figure 2). effective challenge includes a team of four to five people
from the sponsoring organization who post comments
One excellent example of how challenges have come to on the site during the challenge and make decisions
support innovation work is their use by one business about the ideas once the challenge closes. Early on, these
unit’s R&D organization. This team actively experi- teams were made up of stakeholders who represented the
mented with IdeaNet challenges and evolved them to perspectives of business functions relevant to the chal-
function as the front end of their innovation pipeline. lenge. Over time, however, it became clear that these
Each challenge issued by the group addresses a strategic challenge teams also needed to include the individuals
area of opportunity, and all employees across the unit are who would have responsibility for acting on the ideas.
invited to participate. Top ideas from these challenges are Frequently, employees post ideas that are not completely
reviewed by an executive committee within the unit, actionable; the ideas are not fully formed, may identify
which makes decisions about further development. High only part of a solution, or are not well articulated. The
involvement—over 75 percent of all employees in the inclusion on the challenge team of individuals charged with
unit participate—has contributed to the identification of implementing ideas gives these individuals the opportu-
additional business opportunities for development. In ad- nity to comment on ideas, ask questions, or build out
dition, the active engagement from this unit has informed ideas in collaboration with submitters.
many of the companywide best practices for the program.
In the third year, the challenge architect role itself has
shifted, from working alongside individual middle man-
agers to establishing a network of practitioners across
the organization who shepherd challenge teams. The EIG,
which provided strategic oversight and advocacy in year
one, has now been replaced by these challenge practitio-
ners, called “Innovation Champions,” who work to embed
this innovation practice within the business units. Innova-
tion champions have oversight of IdeaNet as a unit-level
business tool; they facilitate challenges, track and report
results, and build innovation practices within their units.
Results
The Pitney Bowes Employee Innovation Community
was initiated to support organic growth and employee
engagement as part of a renewed focus on the company’s
culture of innovation. The program has demonstrated re-
markable results on both fronts. The outcomes of idea
challenges have increased the bottom line, contributed
to strategy, impacted employee engagement, and created
other intangible benefits.
From an engagement perspective, employee participation
has steadily increased over time, with particular success
with customer-facing employees such as call center staff,
service personnel, and salespeople. The annual employee
engagement survey includes six questions on innovation
and empowerment; scores on five of these questions in-
creased 3–5 percent in the program’s first year, a statisti-
cally significant movement. Employee engagement
resulting from idea challenges is evidenced in very tangi-
ble ways. For example, IdeaNet provided an opportunity
for R&D personnel and technical fellows to engage in
conversations across the organization and make connec-
tions outside their own work groups. One idea posted by a
developer in India related to an active project in the corpo-
Figure 2.—Number and type of challenges, 2009 and 2010 rate R&D group. The R&D team was able to include this
24 Research • Technology Management
7. developer in project discussions and move quickly to pilot opportunities is projected at two or more years in the
the idea by working with his network in India. future (Figure 3). Of the 38 value-producing challenges,
thus far, near-term actions emerging from 7 constitute
From the perspective of building a culture of innovation, the majority of the $10 million in revenue and $320,000
behavior change has also been visible, most notably in cost savings realized to date. Yet to be measured are
among middle managers. For middle management, sup- results from six other challenges, which include new
port for innovation and the innovation community took products in development, as well as process or service
shape as leaders stepping forward to use idea challenges improvements still in progress. The remaining 25 chal-
as a business tool. Their willingness to demonstrate a de- lenges have produced a variety of intangible values, includ-
sire for open collaboration—to make their business chal- ing increased customer satisfaction, increased employee
lenges public and consider varying solutions—was a engagement, greater efficiency, and new training and
significant new behavior. Another important cultural im- recognition programs. Ideas from some challenges were
pact was an increase in cross-organizational collaboration, also incorporated into product roadmaps and other long-
evidenced by cosponsored challenges in which business term strategic initiatives and business strategy.
units shared responsibility for implementing ideas.
Challenges produced value in diverse ways. For exam-
Of the 52 challenges launched in 2009 and 2010, 38 pro- ple, a sales challenge resulted in three major actions that
duced value, either tangible (in the form of bottom-line contributed to a 23 percent year-over-year increase in
impact as cost savings or revenue gains) or intangible (in revenue. As the result of another challenge, a simple new
the form, for instance, of strategic value). Some value was protocol was instituted for call center agents that in-
realized within the first two years; the time horizon for creased customer satisfaction scores by 10 percent and
realizing the value of longer-term or more complex was still maintained at this level a year later. In another
Figure 3.—Value of IdeaNet challenges, 2009–2010
September—October 2011 25
8. instance, two challenges sponsored by international orga-
nizations that were active at the same time enabled a ser-
endipitous connection that yielded new service contracts.
One lesson was
Not all challenges produce value, in particular because
challenges require a balance between asking questions
central:
with enough uncertainty to warrant a challenge and
framing narrowly enough to produce actionable ideas. A
significant number of the early challenges served to im-
implementing
prove innovation practices, like that of framing the chal-
lenge question. The overall percentage of challenges technology for
with limited results was 27 percent (14 challenges), al-
though the percentage decreased from 38 percent in
2009 to just 10 percent in 2010. Even these apparent
collaborative
failures, however, must be seen as learning opportuni-
ties. “Failed” challenges offer a window for sponsors
and senior management to reflect on what can be
innovation is
learned—either about the business space or the deci-
sions to be made, even if there are no specific actions principally about
resulting from the challenge itself.
These outcomes illustrate the complexity of measur-
ing results from innovation and represent the diversity
designing for a
of results managers can expect. At Pitney Bowes, a
significant driver of the effort was the CEO’s inten-
human system;
tion to focus equally on growth and fostering a culture
of innovation culture change. The actual return on
investment of IdeaNet includes both tangible and in-
technology is
tangible value generated across a time horizon ex-
tending years out. Many actions, like those that
increase customer satisfaction, are of significant im-
secondary.
port to the company but are difficult to assign a dollar
value to. In addition, current actions underway repre- 1. Start from your context. Best practices are helpful,
sent a portfolio of ideas with estimated future value but it is critical to consider the context of the organi-
that has yet to be calculated. Finally, the community zational culture. Another organization’s practice or
itself is now an important component of the compa- technology platform can’t be forced to fit your par-
ny’s innovation architecture, achieving the CEO’s ob- ticular culture. The key to sustainability is the upfront
jective of engaging employees and fostering a culture work to understand the needs and barriers that are
of innovation. unique to the organization.
Lessons Learned 2. Design first, consider technology second. Estab-
lishing an innovation community is not about procur-
A number of factors contributed to the success of the ing a technology platform, but about designing a
Pitney Bowes Employee Innovation Program (see “Key socio-technical system that takes into account real
Success Factors,” p. 27.). However, one lesson was cen- organizational dynamics.
tral: implementing technology for collaborative inno-
vation is principally about designing for a human 3. Plan for change. Build in the practice to monitor,
system; technology is secondary. In the case of the learn, and modify as the community evolves, ideally
Pitney Bowes Employee Innovation Program, the pro- in collaboration with stakeholder groups.
gram team used participation from stakeholders at all
4. Recognize and accept failures as learning oppor-
levels of the organization to build a community that ac-
tunities. Even with the best design practices and par-
complished the CEO’s intention for engagement and
ticipation, failure must be accepted as a natural part
growth, while also serving the unique needs of each
of an evolutionary human system. Set aside time to
constituent group. Based on this example, managers
reflect on what has been learned—but don’t over-
can draw on a few key design principles when creating
think it. Keep experimenting.
an innovation community—or any system that requires
the commitment of groups across organizational silos This effort was well served by good planning; how-
or management hierarchy. ever, the planning, like the program itself, was dynamic
26 Research • Technology Management
9. Key Success Factors for an Enterprise Innovation Community
Stakeholder involvement at all levels
Participation should include senior managers as sponsors, mid-level managers as project leads and idea implementers, and
all employees as contributors. The program should have a senior executive as sponsor.
Pilot program before enterprise launch
A pilot program provides the opportunity to test the approach by starting small and scaling. A good pilot program can help
identify ways to overcome existing barriers to innovation and evolve the design prior to a formal launch.
Value proposition for community members
Understanding what will motivate participation in a specific organization is critical. Typical benefits include personal rec-
ognition, networking across the organization, and contributing ideas that positively impact the company.
Network of support
To ensure long-term sustainability, the program should be owned by the entire organization (not a single unit) and include
a network of champions to embed innovation practices in each unit of the organization.
Transparency of results
The practice of sharing results should mirror the open nature of the community and should include both quick wins and
long-term work in development. Participants don’t expect that every idea will be implemented, but they do want to see the
outcomes.
Foundation in current business objectives
Challenges should be focused on current business objectives, enabling them to become part of existing work supported by
a ready-made team to execute ideas.
and based on reflection-in-action (Schön 1983). The evolution. Also thanks to the engaged employees of
imperative for quick wins cannot supersede good plan- Pitney Bowes for continued participation and support of
ning. In this case, the program team used visible action innovation.
to meet the need for quick wins at the same time that
those actions created the space needed for deliberate References
planning. Bansler, J. 1989. Systems development research in Scandinavia:
Three theoretical schools. Scandinavian Journal of Information
Conclusion Systems 1:3–20.
Brown, T. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking
Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York:
Innovation is inherently uncertain, and human systems are HarperCollins.
dynamic. Building a sustainable innovation community Bunker, B. B., and Alban, B. T. 1997. Large Group Interventions:
required the program team to gain authentic participation Engaging the Whole System for Rapid Change. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
from stakeholders and be open to evolving the program Hansen, M., and Birkinshaw, J. 2007. The innovation value chain.
design to meet the unique needs of all groups. The team Harvard Business Review 85(6):121–130.
did not approach the project as master architects, but Kensing, F., and Blomberg, J. 1998. Participatory design: Issues
and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 7:167–
rather followed the spirit of the participatory design notion 168.
of the “designer-as-facilitator.” The result is a design that O’Brien, R. 1998. Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação
uses technology as an enabler and is bounded but not con- [An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research]. In
Teoria e Prática da Pesquisa Ação [Theory and Practice of Action
trolled. Striking this balance is not without its challenges, Research], ed. Roberto Richardson. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade
and the program team regularly considered where and Federal da Paraíba. (English version). http://www.web.ca/∼robrien/
how to intervene. The resulting community meets different papers/arfinal.html (accessed June 21, 2011).
Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals
needs at each level in the organization, but collectively it Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
clearly serves the interests of Pitney Bowes to drive VanGundy, A. B. 2005. The care and framing of strategic innovation
growth and support a culture of innovation. challenges. The Wonderful World of Jeffrey Baumgartner, Innovation,
September 29. http://www.jpb.com/creative/VanGundyFrameInnov.pdf
The authors would like to thank the teams, individuals and (accessed June 21, 2011).
Weisbord, M. R. 2004. Productive Workplaces Revisited: Dignity,
managers who supported the early research and contrib- Meaning, and Community in the 21st Century. San Franciso:
uted to the program throughout pilot, launch, and ongoing Jossey-Bass.
September—October 2011 27
10. In today’s business landscape, we consistently see
that the best performing companies are the ones
with a set of innovation capabilities. A key factor
explaining why these organisations outperform
their rivals is that they also ensure their innovation
efforts are tightly aligned with their overall
corporate strategy.
INSEAD’s Strategic R&D Management programme
will help you to view R&D from a strategic
perspective and to build the tools to translate
corporate strategy into innovation initiatives.
07 – 11 November 2011 in Fontainebleau, France
Contact us:
Tel: +33 (0)1 6072 9350
Email: srdm@insead.edu
www.insead.edu/srdm
Executive Education
Is your R&D
aligned with your
corporate strategy?
