Task 1

1.1 Research and develop a profile of a great innovation/innovator

Description of the innovation/innovator

Galileo Galilei was born on 15 February 1564 near Pisa, the son of a musician. He began to study
medicine at the University of Pisa but changed to philosophy and mathematics. In 1589, he became
professor of mathematics at Pisa. In 1592, he moved to become mathematics professor at the University
of Padua, a position he held until 1610. During this time, he worked on a variety of experiments, including
the speed at which different objects fall, mechanics and pendulums.

In 1609, Galileo heard about the invention of the telescope in Holland. Without having seen an example,
he constructed a superior version and made many astronomical discoveries. These included mountains
and valleys on the surface of the moon, sunspots, the four largest moons of the planet Jupiter and the
phases of the planet Venus. His work on astronomy made him famous and he was appointed court
mathematician in Florence.

In 1614, Galileo was accused of heresy for his support of the Copernican theory that the sun was at the
center of the solar system. This was revolutionary at a time when most people believed the Earth was in
this central position. In 1616, he was forbidden by the church from teaching or advocating these theories.

In 1632, he was again condemned for heresy after his book 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems' was published. This set out the arguments for and against the Copernican theory in the form of
a discussion between two men. Galileo was summoned to appear before the Inquisition in Rome. He was
convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, later reduced to permanent house arrest at his villa in
Arcetri, south of Florence. He was also forced to publicly withdraw his support for Copernican theory.

Although he was now going blind he continued to write. In 1638, his 'Discourses Concerning Two New
Sciences' was published with Galileo's ideas on the laws of motion and the principles of mechanics.
Galileo died in Arcetri on 8 January 1642.

Type of Innovation

Although the telescope was invented by German-Dutch spectacle-maker Hans Lippershey in 1608,
Galileo made a version based on descriptions Lippershey's invention the following year in 1609. Intially
capable of about 3x magnification, Galileo later made improved versions with up to about 30x
magnification.

n observer could see magnified, upright images on the earth with a Galilean telescope, which also came
to be known as a refracting telescope. It used a convergent objective lens and a divergent eyepiece lens.
Because the design has no intermediary focus, the resulting images were non-inverted and upright.
Although images were blurry and distorted due to design flaws like the shape of the lens and the narrow
field of view, it was still good enough for Galileo to explore the sky. The Galilean telescope could view the
phases of Venus and was able to see craters on the Moon and four moons orbiting Jupiter.

How their innovation led to benefits for their organization

Galileo made several key discoveries through his systematic use and refinement of the telescope.

The Moon

According to Aristotelian principles the Moon was above the sub-lunary sphere and in the heavens, hence
should be perfect. He found the "surface of the moon to be not smooth, even and perfectly spherical,,but
on the contrary, to be uneven, rough, and crowded with depressions and bulges. And it is like the face of
the earth itself, which is marked here and there with chains of mountains and depths of valleys." He
calculated the heights of the mountains by measuring the lengths of their shadows and applying
geometry.

One of Galileo's lunar drawings.

Note the craters, mountains and mare or "seas". The terminator between lunar day and night is clearly seen down the
centre.

Moons of Jupiter

Observations of the planet Jupiter over successive night revealed four star-like objects in a line with it.
The objects moved from night to night, sometimes disappearing behind or in front of the planet. Galileo
correctly inferred that these objects were moons of Jupiter and orbited it just as our Moon orbits Earth.
For the first time, objects had been observed orbiting another planet, thus weakening the hold of the
Ptolemaic model. Today these four moons are known as the Galilean satellites; Io, Europa, Ganymede
and Callisto.
Galileo's drawings of the moons of Jupiter of successive nights

The Phases of Venus

Venus was observed to go through a sequence of phases similar to the Moon. This could not be
explained in the Ptolemaic model but could be accounted for by either the Sun-centered Copernican
model or the Earth-centered Tychonic model that had the other planets orbiting the Sun as it orbited the
Earth. Galileo rejected Tycho's model as an unnecessary hybrid and used the discovery to consolidate
his support of the Copernican model.

Sunspots

Along with contemporaries such as Thomas Harriot, David Frabicius and Christoph Scheiner, Galileo
observed dark regions that appeared to move across the surface of the Sun. Debate centered on whether
these were satellites of the Sun or actual spots on its surface. Galileo, in his Letters on Sunspots
supported the sunspot interpretation and used it to show that the Sun was rotating. Its blemishes and
imperfections again undermined the Aristotelian ideal of a perfect cosmos.

"Appendages" on Saturn

Galileo noted two appendages from the sides of Saturn. These disappeared then later reappeared. It was
not until 1656 that the Dutch scientist, Christiaan Huygens correctly described them as rings.

Stars in the Milky Way

Even through a telescope the stars still appeared as points of light. Galileo suggested that this was due to
their immense distance from Earth. This then eased the problem posed by the failure of astronomers to
detect stellar parallax that was a consequence of Copernicus' model. On turning his telescope to the band
of the Milky Way Galileo saw it resolved into thousands of hitherto unseen stars. This posed the question
as to why there were invisible objects in the night sky?

Challenges and Problems faced by the innovator

Copernican system

In Galileo's lifetime, all celestial bodies were thought to orbit the Earth. Supported by the Catholic Church,
teaching opposite of this system was declared heresy in 1615.

Galileo, however, did not agree. His research — including his observations of the phases of Venus and
the fact that Jupiter boasted moons that didn't orbit Earth — supported the Copernican system, which
(correctly) stated that the Earth and other planets circle the sun.

In 1616, he was summoned to Rome and warned not to teach or write about this controversial theory. But
in 1632, believing that he could write on the subject if he treated it as a mathematical proposition, he
published work on the Copernican system. He was found guilty of heresy, and was placed under house
arrest for the remaining nine years of his life.

An explanation of how they developed the innovation with specific reference to idea generation and idea
evaluation

The most vital thing that Galileo needed to do to overcome theological obstacles preventing the
acceptance of the Copernican, heliocentric model of the solar system is to reconcile the scientific findings
of Copernicus with passages of Scripture that seem to conflict with these results. It was previously held
that since the “Sacred Scriptures which state in many places that the earth is immobile, and that the sun
and the other stars move”, the earth must be the center of the solar system (GBB 25). Copernicus’s new
heliocentric model of the solar system would seem to directly contradict Scripture because of this. In order
for Galileo to gain widespread approval of these ideas he would need to show that they did not contradict
the writings of Scripture but that the interpretation of the Scripture was being taken too literally. The Jesuit
Benito Pereyra provided guidelines that seemed to give Galileo the means to do so. Pereyra published
four rules explaining his beliefs on the relation between science and theology. In them he stated, “For
since every truth agrees with every other truth, the truth of Sacred Scripture cannot be contrary to the true
arguments and evidence of the human sciences” (GBB 22). This type of thinking was necessary for
Galileo to convince the theological community to accept the heliocentric system of the solar system.

It was extremely important that Galileo strengthen the argument for a heliocentric model of the solar
system by creating a model that was somewhat less complex and much more accurate than even the
Copernican model to overcome scientific obstacles stopping its approval. Copernicus’s methods were,
“not, in principle, any more accurate than Ptolemy’s: in practice they were sometimes less so. Nor were
they, in the end, appreciably simpler than the earlier methods” (FOH 179). This would cause his data to
be used only in the cases where it predicted the motion of celestial bodies more accurately than
Ptolemy’s system, and Ptolemy’s data would be used when it was apparently more accurate than
Copernicus’s system. Galileo would have to rectify the Copernican system with the seemingly odd orbit of
the planets in order for it to be the commonly accepted system among the scientific community.

1.2 Research and identify innovation system features under the following
headings (dimensions of innovation)

A managed innovation processes

Innovation process management (IPM) a systematic approach to nurturing the creative capabilities of
employees and creating a workplace environment that encourages new ideas for workflows,
methodologies, services or products.

Strategic Alignment

For more than two decades the strategic alignment of information systems (IS) is one of the most
important issues that IS and business managers face and at the same time a major research topic in the
IS domain. In this paper the authors present an empirical study of the business value of IS strategic
alignment, which examines IS strategic alignment both at the strategy formulation and implementation
level. Also, investigated in this paper are the effects of adopting an innovation strategy on IS strategic
alignment. The study is based on firm-level data from Greek companies, which are used for estimating
econometric models of firm output based on the Cobb-Douglas production function. It is concluded that IS
strategic alignment, both at the strategy formulation and implementation level, generates significant
business value, increasing considerably the contribution of ICT investment to firm output. Finally, the
adoption of innovation strategy has a positive effect on the strategic alignment of IS both at the strategy
formulation and implementation level, as it puts pressure on firms to direct there IS investment towards
the support of their new innovative products/services and increases the involvement of organizational
units.

Industry Foresight

Many companies have surprisingly little notion of where their industry is heading, rarely looking beyond
their own boundaries, too busy fighting today’s fires to take the time to truly understand what is driving
their operating environment and how it may evolve. While Managers are busy managing, and Executives
are busy executing, nobody is busy “Envisioning”. It is rather like sitting in a small sailboat not knowing
the weather conditions that lie ahead – out of control, entirely at the whim of the fates. “Industry
Foresight” is a “top-down” approach that explores the drivers, trends, enablers, and dislocations within
one or more industries. It is in looking at the forces of deregulation, industry convergence and emerging
markets, and in exploring the intersections of social, demographic, technical, environmental, political,
competitive and other trends that potential “white space” opportunities are revealed. Since today’s world
is not linear we cannot extrapolate the past to see into the future. Industry Foresight therefore goes

Consumer/Customer Insight

Most organizations would like to see themselves as customer-driven, but often have little understanding
of the behaviors, perceptions and needs of their customers. Product-driven companies would benefit from
taking a more customer-inspired approach, though this is often at odds with the organization’s cultural
norms. Customer involvement in product development often consists of traditional focus groups or web-
based surveys, and typically goes no further than merely soliciting customer response to internally-
generated product concepts, or specific executions such as packaging or advertising directions. This is a
missed opportunity. Instead, these same forums could be used to spark whole new product categories
and other value-driven solutions – using a “generative” rather than a “reactive” approach. Equally, many
customer research programs are content to hear what customers say, but do not explore the fertile
ground of their unarticulated (latent) needs. Further, customer participation in corporate strategy
development is practically unheard of. There is a tremendous opportunity in involving customers (and
suppliers and other external stakeholders, etc.) as true partners in the innovation process by adopting a
Customer Insight approach. “Customer Insight” is a qualitative, “bottom-up” approach that leverages
insights into the behaviors, perceptions and needs of current and potential customers by involving them
as true partners in the innovation process. It is a non-traditional, qualitative approach to customer
research that seeks a deep understanding of customer needs and the drivers of customer behavior at a
level well beyond what customers themselves can articulate. The approach is not limited to customers,
but can be extended to glean insights from many other types of stakeholders – examples include: channel
partners, suppliers, employees, investors, early adopter non-users, etc.

Core Technologies and Competencies

A solid understanding of a company’s core technologies and competencies provides a pragmatic

backdrop against which imaginative ideas can be assessed and shaped into practical investment-worthy
opportunities. Even when an organization possesses deep insight into customer needs and future trends,
transforming ideas into action is an uphill battle unless there is a keen sense of the organization’s
inherent strengths and ability to leverage and build upon its core technologies. To truly leverage core
competencies for strategic innovation, consideration of both technical and operating capabilities is
essential – capabilities that are integral to an organization's success, that yield significant customer
benefits, and that provide competitive differentiation. Such competencies may include unique
relationships with suppliers and partners, brand equity, organizational speed and agility, innovative
business practices and proprietary technology. In large organizations with multiple business units one
group may have developed its own operational processes and have valuable competencies and best
practices to share. To be viable, short- and long-term innovations must possess a tight link to core
competencies. That said, outsourcing and partnering are strategies that permit an organization to pursue
an opportunity, if it does not currently possess some of the required capabilities.

Organizational Readiness

There is a time for inspired dreaming and high-minded vision development (“Divergence”) and a time for
down-to-earth pragmatism (“Convergence”). During the strategy innovation process, it is critical to draw
upon each mindset at the appropriate time. During the pragmatic (“Convergence”) stage it is essential to
have a clear understanding of a company’s “Organizational Readiness” – its ability to act upon and
implement innovative ideas and strategies, and to successfully come to grips with the operational,
political, cultural and financial demands that will follow. Even with the most inspired vision, innovative
products and adequate funding, an organization may simply not be able to effectively implement. Before
investing time and money in newly identified growth opportunities, it is necessary to assess
"Organizational Readiness" along two dimensions:

● “Cultural Readiness" – the degree to which an organization is culturally and philosophically

prepared to embrace innovation – considering such factors as: business boundaries and thinking,
innovation mindset, bias for collaboration, decision-making style, bureaucracy levels, internal
power struggles and political agendas, willingness to embrace change, and penchant for action.
● “Operational Readiness" – an organization’s ability to act, depending on such factors as: suitable
organizational and technology infrastructures, efficient business processes and practices,
available funding, ease of implementing the required supporting technologies, and available and
qualified staff to assign to specific projects – without question one of the leading barriers to
implementation.

Disciplined Implementation
While it is not easy to produce creative, visionary strategic thinking, perhaps the greater challenge lies in
successfully implementing that thinking in a way that creates meaningful business impact. For example,
generating new product ideas is not necessarily that hard. It is in the act of execution – where the rubber
meets the road – that innovation efforts most frequently slip off the rails. It is here that an organization
must demonstrate its ability to translate a Power Point presentation full of good ideas to the bottom line,
by tenaciously negotiating the obstacle -ridden path to business impact. In the context of Strategic
Innovation, the term “implementation” includes a broad set of activities that call for support and
involvement across the organization: the transition to specific projects or programs; technical product
development, design and prototyping; test marketing/product concept refinement, qualitative and
quantitative testing; developing new business processes or creating new organizational structures; hiring
and training; brand development; creating collateral materials; gaining broader organizational buy-in;
establishing feedback loops for continuous improvement. The work of Strategic Innovation often has
profound implications in terms of operational, structural and business process change. For example, a
relatively straightforward new product development effort may not be as clear cut as it would seem, since
it may raise larger, systemic issues and call for a series of support strategies that will enable these new
products to make their way through the commercialization process (such as brand strategy review,
channel rationalization, etc.). In some cases, an innovation effort may call for building a new “business-
within-a-business” – clearly a demanding and complex undertaking. When an organization has put the
finishing touches to its roster of innovative ideas – for potential new products, growth strategies, new
“white space” opportunities to pursue, new markets to enter, new programs to launch or new business
processes – it finds itself now at the critical transition point from “Idea Generation” or “Strategy
Development” to “Project Management”. This is where the innovation process transitions from ambiguous
and exploratory to concrete and operational.

1.3 Research the ways that organisation and team dynamics can effort workplace
innovation systems.

Explain:
● How different approaches to management and leadership can support or hinder
innovation within teams and organizations and ways of overcoming these
● Challenges and barriers to innovation within teams and organizations and ways
of overcoming these

Approaches to management and leadership are helpful in supporting innovation in the organization as it
helps in providing a crystal-clear plan for managing innovation. These approaches are helpful in providing
a clear vision of the organization. These are helpful in supporting an effective structure for innovation
management. As per leadership approaches, leader plays a major role in communicating the innovative
vision of the organization. The leader helps in enabling the proper level of support for innovation systems
in the organization.

There are certain challenges and barriers to innovation that are faced by organizations such as time, cost,
technology, and resistance to change. In this concern, organizations must focus on the effective
evaluation of innovation ideas so that the best innovation idea could be implemented within the
organization. Leaders in the organization must encourage the culture of readiness for innovation in the
organization.

1.4 Develop five to ten innovation principles, based on your research.

Explain:
 Why choose these principles
 How you could you apply and promote them in a business context

Design with the user: This principle is chosen because this principle says that innovation should be
designed in the way that it must be fulfilling the requirements of the users. Through bringing the
innovation as per the needs of customers business can increase their revenues.

Design for the scale: This principle is chosen because as per this principle innovation process in a
business should be developed as per the scale of operations of business. This will help business in
developing appropriate innovation processes for them

Build for sustainability: This principle is chosen because as per this principle innovation must be
supporting the sustainability of the organization. This will help in increasing the sustainability of the
business.

Be collaborative: This principle is chosen because this principle says that innovation must be
collaborative so that it is helpful in achieving the innovation goals.

Open innovation: This principle is chosen because this principle says that innovation must be able to
adopt and expand open standards. This will help businesses in adopting flexible process and policies for
innovation.

1.5 Develop or outline at least two processes for idea generation and idea evaluation

1. There should be effective and efficient communication between all departments of an organization.

2. For effective evaluation of ideas, it must be checked that such ideas are able to achieve the overall
goals and objectives of the organization