a quick thought

In looking over JISC Strategic document, I think there is something in the innovation matrix that can support a balance of both exploratory and strategic projects for the EXPOSE section, (the Boolean in the Matrix is a quick thought that occurred to me this AM).

 

[cid:image002.png@01CA7A4C.ADB899E0]

 

(1)Incremental Innovation = subtle change to processes and tools i.e. where institutions are somewhat comfortable in spending their own money. #lowRisk #lowGain

 

(2)Semi-Radical Innovation = implementing new practices, i.e. change the ways in which humans do things #Pull #TopDown

 

(3)Semi Radical Innovation = implementing new technology, i.e. change the tools with which humans work #Push #BottomUp

 

(4)Radical Innovation = Change both practice and tools i.e. #HigRisk #HighGain #disruptiveInnovation

 

A = Exploratory projects examining how processes could change

 

B = Strategic projects implementing new technologies to drive change

 

.: overlap in projects that can change both tools and processes are usually the successes. Though as they are projects they must have an "either/or" output focus: projects do better when they have *either* a 'technology' *or* 'process' focus as their project output (both and they end up w too much to manage, i.e. a project manager is usually either good at implementing 'technology change' or 'process change' NOT both at the same time <-- a subtle pattern that seems to be emerging from RI projects that require a short sustained output of either/or?

 

Though, the question then becomes what is a quadrant type "4 - Radical Innovation" project look like, e.g. realising a 'black swan' or 'man on the moon' innovation programme?

 

//ouch my brain just popped after playing around at this level, going back to my budget numbers and call paragraphs :)

Done