Silver, the Inventor of the Adhesive Polymer on Which Post-It is Based - Essay Example

Product innovation should be understood as a complex organizational process rather than a one-off event - 3M case study Introduction The continuous expansion of existing product line is an important requirement for the survival of firms in modern market. In services firms a similar rule exists. As a result, the promotion of innovation has become a key priority for organizations in all industries (Faceberg, Mowery and Nelson 2006). However, the approaches used by each firm to promote innovation are not standardized. Often, the support provided to innovation is not adequate, even if different messages are sent to the market. 3M is an organization that has become popular for one of its products: the Post-It. The specific product, which is unique worldwide, has made 3M a leading firm in managing innovation. The review of the actual history of Post-It, up to its entrance in the market, proves that the development of the particular product has been quite difficult for its designers. In fact, the inventor of Post-It, the chemist Spencer Silver, spent many years in trying to persuade leaders in his organization in regard to the value of his invention: an adhesive polymer of various uses. At the end, and mostly due to the efforts of Silver and those who believed in the product’s value, Post-It entered the global market. The case of 3M and Post – It shows that product innovation can be a quite challenging process, the complexity of which is often not clear even to those working for its promotion. 2. Product innovation – theoretical and practical aspects 2.1 Product innovation – overview and characteristics In the context of modern businesses, product innovation is a concept which is related to the following target: the examination and evaluation of ‘the need for innovative products and services’ (Rainey 2005, p.10). The above definition leads to the assumption that product innovation is a rather simple process. Still, such assumption would not be valid. In fact, product innovation has a series of aspects which are analytically presented in the sections that follow. Another characteristic of product innovation is the following one: the methods used for the promotion of product innovation within each organization are not standardized (Rainey 2005, p.10). Different tools and techniques can be used for promoting product innovation, depending on the potentials of each organization to provide the required funds and infrastructure (Rainey 2005, p.10). One of the most common issues that appear each time that product innovation schemes are promoted is the following one: can the particular process be introduced in any organization or it is necessary that certain requirements are met. Moreover, innovation, as a process is based on certain rules or it is not controllable as of its structure and components? The answer to the above questions can be identified in the study of Cogliandro (2007). According to Cogliandro (2007) innovation, in all its aspects, needs to be based on three principles: a) innovation needs to be related to all aspects of the organization; in fact, innovation would be expanded across organization covering all organizational activities (Cogliandro 2007, p.18) and during all periods of the life of the organization (Cogliandro 2007, p.18). In this way also, the chances for the success of product innovation would be increased; b) innovation needs to be taken into consideration when developing all critical organizational plans (Cogliandro 2007, p.18). This means that innovation should not be regarded as an organizational process of minor value but rather as a process that can highly support ‘the corporate growth’ (Cogliandro 2007, p.18); c) in the context of organization, innovation cannot be limited. This means that in all organizations product innovation should be combined with other types of innovation, such as innovation related to people and to processes (Cogliandro 2007, p.18). 2.2 Principles of product innovation Product innovation has become quite popular among businesses worldwide mostly because of its potentials to support a long term organizational growth. However, the development of effective product innovation plans can be a challenging task. The designers of these plans need to be aware of the challenges that are expected to face when involved in the development and implementation of such processes. Following certain principles would help towards the limitation of the relevant risks: a) product innovation plans need necessarily to be followed by alternative schemes; the risks of failure in these plans, as also in all business plans, can be high (Eversheim 2008, p.27); b) product innovation plans need to be feasible; these plans would not just include unique ideas for promoting innovation (Eversheim 2008, p.27). They should also be applicable, meaning that the resources required for their implementation are available (Eversheim 2008, p.27). If this requirement is not met then the value of product innovation plans is eliminated; c) product innovation process needs to be transparent, as possible (Eversheim 2008, p.27); this means that there are no parts of the process that are not clearly explained (Eversheim 2008, p.27); d) the methods and tools used for the implementation of the product innovation process need to be standardized (Eversheim 2008, p.27). In fact, these tools and methodologies would be clearly defined in advance, before the implementation phase, and should remain unchanged up to the completion of the process (Eversheim 2008, p.27); e) the idea on which the product innovation process will be based should be objective (Eversheim 2008, p.27). This means that the product innovation process would refer to a wide variety of technologies, not only on organization’s existing technologies, as applicable in the organization involved (Eversheim 2008, p.27, (Lytras et al. 2009)); f) the planners of a product innovation process would accept that uncertainties cannot be avoided (Eversheim 2008, p.28).The term uncertainties, as used above, refers to all problems that can possible appear during the implementation of the product innovation process (Eversheim 2008, p.28). These problems would include both events in the external environment and failures in the process itself (Eversheim 2008, p.28); g) the ‘individuality and creativity’ (Eversheim 2008, p.28) of the individuals that will support the implementation and development of a product innovation process should be adequately protected through all the phases of the process (Eversheim 2008, p.28). From a similar point of view, Cooper (2005) notes that the successful implementation of a product innovation process is depended on certain rules: a) goals need to be clearly defined in advance (Cooper 2005, p.57); b) the key areas to which the process will be related have to be set immediately after defining goals; these areas, known also as strategic arenas, indicate the sectors on which the efforts of the organization for innovation will focus (Cooper 2005, p.57); ‘market, industry sectors and product types’ (Cooper 2005, p.57) are indicative examples of strategic arenas, c) both the entry strategy and the attack strategy, as parts of the product innovation process, need to be defined in advance taking into consideration the characteristics of the organization and the similar practices of rivals (Cooper 2005, p.57); d) emphasis should be also given on ‘allocation and commitment’ (Cooper 2005, p.57). Resources that will be necessary for the successful implementation of the product innovation process need to be identified in advance (Cooper 2005, p.57). Moreover, the adequacy of these resources and their engagement to the process would be also checked in advance (Cooper 2005, p.57). At this point, emphasis should be given on the following fact: the lack of effective leadership style could result to the failure of the process, even if all rules related to the product innovation process, as described above, are applied (Hajdini 2010). Moreover, a leader can identify solutions for securing the success of a plan for innovation, even if the terms of the plan have certain gaps (Hajdini 2010).The cases of Terry Semels (Hajdini 2010, p.20), the leader of Yahoo, and of Eric Schmidt (Hajdini 2010, p.32), the leader of Google, are examples of the critical role of leadership style for the success of product innovation process. Adair (2007) also explains that innovation is a key element of leadership. According to Adair, a successful leader has necessarily to be creative and quite capable in identifying and promoting innovative ideas (Adair 2007, p.8). 2.3 Product innovation as a complex organization process – the case of 3M The complexity of product innovation, as a process, can be derived by a series of facts. At the first level, in order for product innovation to begin it is necessary that the need for product innovation is identified and verified (Von Stamm 2008, p.237). Also, the development of product innovation is not similar during the various phases of product life cycle (Von Stamm 2008, p.237). Indeed, ‘in the early product life cycle period product innovation is likely to be developed frequently’ (Von Stamm 2008, p.237). As the product life cycle period continues, product innovation schemes are gradually limited; the above phenomenon that can be more intensive in organization governed by leaders who do not accept the high value of product innovation as a means for organizational growth (Chu et al. 2010) In practice, the complexity of product innovation can be made clear through the case of 3M, examined in this paper. The practical implications and challenges of product innovation, as related to 3M, need to be presented so that the complexity of the specific process to be fully understood. The development of Post-It in 3M has been the result of an accident in the research laboratories of the organization. More specifically, in early 1970s one of the firm’s chemists, Spencer Silver, was trying to develop a new, effective adhesive. While proceeding with the research he made a mistake using wrong amount of ingredients, polymers, for developing an adhesive. He didn’t stop the process but waited to see the result. The result was an unknown adhesive polymer, the one currently used in Post-It. Silver thought he could possibly used this polymer in a new product but he had no idea, yet, on the type of the product in which this adhesive would be useful. Moreover, he didn’t manage to persuade the managers in 3M that the specific material would be of any value (p.425-426 case study). Actually, he had ‘to fight alone for getting the patent of the particular product’ (p.427 case study). At the same time, he persuaded the firm to support the production of ‘a sticky bulletin board’ (p.427 case study); the above product did not have the expected success and the firm did not continue with it. After his removal to the firm’s Central Research Labs, Silver managed to found supporters for his product: Oliveira, ‘a biochemist, Nicholson, team leader in one of the firm’s laboratories and Fry, a mechanic’ (p.428 case study). Fry had the idea to use the particular adhesive polymer in small pieces of paper for keeping notes. In cooperation with this team, Silver managed to show the product to an extensive number of people in organizations in the ‘Richmond’s business district’ (p.432). In fact, two members of the above team, Nicholson and Ramey, ‘went door-to-door to show the product to as many people as possible in banks and offices across the above area’ (p.432 case study). Not relying on the support of 3M for promoting the product in the market was proved crucial for the product’s success. Gradually, Post-It had become popular, primarily locally and then worldwide. But this success was primarily the result of Silver’s willingness to support his idea and on the willingness of the other members of the team mentioned above to support the product’s expansion by all means. The strategy of 3M in managing innovation would be evaluated using the literature published in this field. Apart from the issues discussed in the previous sections, there are certain facts that need to be taken into consideration when having to evaluate a plan for promoting product innovation. All organizations, both profitable and non-profitable ‘need to use similar policies for managing innovation’ (Isaksen and Tidd 2006, p.6). At the next level, innovation is considered as of extremely high value for each organization, ‘ranking second, immediately after corporate strategy’ (Clegg, Hardy and Nord 1996, p.425). This means, that the value of innovation in promoting organizational performance is critical. One of the most important problems when managing product innovation process is to persuade other people to support the effort (Clegg, Hardy and Nord 1999, p.175). In many cases, individuals are skeptic in supporting such processes mostly because the potential risks can be high (Clegg, Hardy and Nord 1999, p.175). On the other hand, the demands of product innovation process are many. Not all individuals are appropriately skilled to be involved in the various phases of the particular process. For this reason, in product innovation, the following phenomenon can appear: a product innovation may face significant delays due to the lack of supporters (Wong 2011, p.7). Such issue appeared in the case of 3M. Post-It has been an innovation promoted by just a few persons, such as Silver, Nicholson and Ramey. These individuals have persuaded certain people in regard to the value of the particular product, but still delays in the expansion of the product in the market were not avoided. This fact leads to important concerns in regard to the actual potentials of individuals to promote innovation within modern organizations. 3. Conclusion Supporting innovation can be quite difficult. In fact, Silver, the inventor of the adhesive polymer on which Post-It is based, has spent many years in explaining the value of the product to stakeholders. Of course, Silver was given the chance to work on the particular product. This means that the promotion of innovation has been a key part of 3M’s culture. It was proved that the strategy of 3M in regard to innovation had an important weakness: it did not have a mechanism for checking innovative products in depth. From this point of view, the performance of 3M in product innovation should be thoroughly reviewed and updated. The case of Post-It has proved to strategic planners in 3M and in other organizations with similar product innovation frameworks that product innovation cannot be promoted only through well-written plans. It needs to be supported in practice, otherwise it be unable to support corporate growth. The case of Post-It has mostly proved that product innovation is an extremely demanding and complex process which need to be continuously supported in all its phases, otherwise it is very difficult to be successfully implemented. References Adair, J., 2007. Leadership for Innovation: How to Organize Team Creativity and Harvest Ideas. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Chu, Et Al., 2010. Managing Knowledge for Global and Collaborative Innovations: Series on Innovation and Knowledge Management. Singapore: World Scientific Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord, W., 1999. Managing Organizations: Current Issues. London: SAGE. Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord, W., 1996. Handbook of Organization Studies. London: SAGE Cogliandro, J., 2007. Intelligent Innovation: Four Steps to Achieving a Competitive Edge. Plantation: J. Ross Publishing Cooper, R., 2005. Product Leadership: Pathways to Profitable Innovation. Cambridge: Basic Books Eversheim, W., 2008. Innovation Management for Technical Products: Systematic and Integrated Product Development and Production Planning. New York: Springer Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. and Nelson, R., 2006. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online. Hajdini, I., 2010. Innovation Management: The Leadership Role of the CEO: Case Studies: Yahoo and Google. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag Isaksen, S. and Tidd, J., 2006. Meeting the Innovation Challenge: Leadership for Transformation and Growth. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Lytras, M., de Pablos, P., Damiani, E., Avison, D., Naeve, A. and Horner, D., 2009. Best Practices for the Knowledge Society. Knowledge, Learning, Development and Technology for All: Second World Summit on the Knowledge Society, WSKS 2009, Chania, Crete, Greece, September 16-18, 2009. Proceedings. New York: Springer. Rainey, D., 2005. Product Innovation: Leading Change Through Integrated Product Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Von Stamm, B., 2008. Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Wong, M., 2011. The Risk of Investment Products: From Product Innovation to Risk Compliance. Singapore: World Scientific Read More