Disruptive Innovation Video Presentation (Individual) Assess

Disruptive Innovation Video Presentation (Individual) Assessment

You are required to review an organisation case study including information about the organisation’s internal structure, market research techniques, and R&D methodology. The case study will also include information regarding relevant regulation and economic conditions affecting the organisation. The case study will be shared in week 09.

You must then record a Disruptive Innovation Video Presentation reflecting on the organisation’s capacity to innovate from the following perspectives:

• Internal perspective: Prepare an analysis of the key internal structures impacting the organisation’s innovative capacity and offer recommendations.
• External perspective: Prepare an analysis of the key external factors impacting the organisation’s innovative capacity and offer recommendations.
• Marketing perspective: Prepare an analysis of the key marketing and customer related factors impacting the organisation’s innovative capacity and offer recommendations.
• Technology perspective: Prepare an analysis of the organisation’s innovative processes and whether they enhance the organisation’s innovative capacity and offer recommendations.

The video recording should not exceed 15 minutes. Need to upload the supporting material to Turnitin. It can be, either a script, PowerPoint slide deck (with notes), or a Word document with key points. It is important to indicate references in the document that will be uploaded into Turnitin. You are not expected to research the industry mentioned in the case study. The focus should be on researching, analysing, and applying disruptive innovation related theories, concepts, and scholarly views. Concepts relevant for this assignment are in workshops 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Study the attached assessment rubric carefully. Watch the assignment briefing webinar conducted by the Subject Coordinator – refer subject welcome message from the Coordinator for the date and time.

Paper For Above instruction

The following paper provides a comprehensive analysis of an organisation’s capacity for disruptive innovation, focusing on internal, external, marketing, and technological perspectives. This examination synthesizes relevant theories, concepts, and scholarly perspectives pertaining to innovation within organisational contexts, aiming to offer strategic insights and actionable recommendations.

Introduction

Disruptive innovation, a concept introduced by Clayton Christensen, fundamentally alters industries by introducing new approaches that displace established market leaders. Understanding an organisation’s capacity to innovate through various internal and external lenses is crucial for fostering sustainable competitive advantages. This paper conducts a detailed analysis of an organisation’s innovation potential, considering internal structures, external environment, marketing dynamics, and technological processes. It aims to identify key strengths and weaknesses and propose targeted recommendations to enhance disruptive innovation capabilities.

Internal Perspective Analysis and Recommendations

The internal structure of an organisation significantly influences its innovative capacity. A decentralised and autonomous internal framework, as observed in the case study, can both promote and hinder innovation. For instance, distinct business units with significant autonomy may foster competition and agility but can also lead to duplication of efforts, as seen in the overlapping R&D projects at Millennium Health Sciences (MHS). This lack of coordination hampers knowledge sharing and strategic alignment, slowing down disruptive potential.

Effective internal structures should facilitate cross-functional collaboration, encourage risk-taking, and foster a culture that values innovation. Adoption of an integrated R&D management system could align efforts, reduce duplication, and encourage resource sharing. Additionally, establishing innovation committees that oversee cross-unit initiatives can promote synergy and prevent siloed research efforts.

Leadership plays a crucial role; cultivating a top management team that prioritises innovation over short-term gains and can navigate organizational change is critical. Transforming the culture from a hierarchical, experience-based promotion system to one that rewards creativity and risk can stimulate continuous innovation.

Recommendations include developing cross-unit R&D teams, implementing integrated project management systems, fostering leadership that champions innovation, and creating incentivisation schemes that reward innovative ideas regardless of hierarchy or tenure.

External Perspective Analysis and Recommendations

The external environment exerts significant influence on an organisation’s innovation capability, including regulatory frameworks, economic conditions, and market trends. In the case of MHS, regulatory regimes and economic stability in Australia present both barriers and opportunities. While Australian regulations around R&D and export markets can restrict or facilitate innovation, the organisation’s limited regional engagement hampers its global disruptive potential.

Broader economic trends, such as increasing consumer demand for ethnically tailored skincare products in Asia, present opportunities for expansion. MHS’s analysis shows that product ranges like CLEO and Poseidon already demonstrate success abroad, indicating a potential competitive advantage through global diversification. External factors such as government policies favoring R&D collaborations in Singapore offer viable pathways for strategic partnerships and joint ventures, fostering innovation through shared knowledge and resources.

Recommendations include actively engaging with government-led initiatives that promote international R&D collaborations, seeking regulatory exemptions or incentives to accelerate product development, and increasing market intelligence efforts to swiftly respond to evolving consumer preferences globally.

Marketing Perspective Analysis and Recommendations

Marketing and customer insights are instrumental for disruptive innovation. The case indicates that both units at MHS primarily gather market insights through traditional means, with limited integration between research and marketing functions. This disjointed approach hampers the organisation’s ability to anticipate and shape emerging customer needs, which is essential for disruptive innovation.

To cultivate an innovative marketing approach, MHS must develop customer-centric strategies that harness detailed insights from diverse market segments, particularly in high-growth regions like Asia. Implementing advanced analytics and big data tools can enable deeper understanding of consumer behaviors, preferences, and unmet needs, leading to the design of disruptive products tailored to evolving demands.

Furthermore, co-creation platforms involving customers, clinicians, and beauticians can foster innovative ideas and enhance product-market fit. Strategic positioning efforts should also focus on branding that underscores the organisation’s innovative credentials, thus attracting early adopters and niche markets that are crucial for disruptive success.

Recommendations include integrating market research into R&D decision-making, leveraging digital marketing for real-time feedback, and fostering collaborations with key stakeholders to co-develop innovative products.

Technology Perspective Analysis and Recommendations

Technological processes underpin the organisation’s innovation potential. In the case of MHS, the presence of separate R&D teams working independently leads to duplication and potential intellectual property conflicts, as observed with the Poseidon project. A lack of integrated technological infrastructure can hinder knowledge sharing and delay innovation cycles.

Adopting cutting-edge R&D tools such as AI-driven research platforms, digital twins for product testing, and open innovation portals can significantly accelerate development timelines and stimulate novel solutions. Emphasis on patent strategies versus trade secrets should be aligned with organisational risk appetite; in the case of Poseidon, patenting might allow broader strategic advantages, although trade secrets offer secrecy benefits.

Enhancing technological capabilities includes investing in prototype testing facilities, data analytics, and computational modeling. Building a unified digital infrastructure across R&D, marketing, and production units will facilitate seamless communication, reduce overlaps, and foster rapid prototyping and testing.

Recommendations incorporate investing in digital innovation tools, establishing collaborative R&D platforms, and ensuring that technological investments are aligned with organisational innovation strategies.

Conclusion

Ultimately, MHS’s organisational and technological frameworks set the stage for its capacity to innovate disruptively. Addressing structural silos, leveraging external partnerships, harnessing customer insights, and investing in advanced technological tools are vital steps toward fostering a culture of continuous innovation. Implementing these targeted recommendations will enable MHS to navigate competitive pressures and exciting growth opportunities in domestic and international markets.

References

1. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
2. Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2014). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Wiley.
3. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
4. Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Creates New Alternatives for Business and Society. Harper Business.
5. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Free Press.
6. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press.
7. Grant, R. M. (2016). Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Wiley.
8. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Blue Ocean Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 76-84.
9. Gamble, J. E., & Thompson, A. A. (2014). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. McGraw-Hill Education.
10. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper & Brothers.