Diaper innovation

Question: Discuss about the Diaper innovation. Answer: Introduction The proficiency of innovation which is sustainable is a critical condition for success achieving a near-competitive advantage and long-term viability in an environment which is turbulent. Innovation is a way in which the business can change on its already installed concept or venturing on the part of the business that is left idle therefore making the competition irrelevant. However, sustainable and systematic innovation management practices that have the ability to change innovation technologies into globally competitive products are exhibited by few firms (Beeckman, et al, 2016). Drawing upon available literature, the report examines the application of diagnostic assessment for examination innovation management practices by Abena. Abena new technology in developing inpants in adult diapers to convers poops to crystals and freshen smell is reviewed concerning their performance on diagnostic evaluation, as well as national context within their market (Hwang and Christensen, 2008). Objectives The main objective of innovation is to create a good working environment for health workers. When the innovation is implemented, nurses will not counter bad odor hence they will be willing to serve the affected adults without attitude (Becker, et al., 2013). Company profile Abena is a Danish, family owned company dealing with the sale of health care products and related solutions with headquarter in Southern Denmark Aabenraa. The company operates in more than 60 countries worldwide supplying more than 25000 products. Their main clients are hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, incontinence clinics, and a range of business in the related field (Porter and Teisberg, 2004). The new innovation The company has an innovation process in adult diaper. They want to put an inplant in the diapers so as to prevent bad smell. This is a good idea and it will help to improve the health sector since the bad odor experienced by health workers while serving the adult in this status will be long gone (Lee, 2014). There are three ways in which innovation can be done. This includes Radical Innovation, Disruptive Innovation, and Incremental Innovation. These innovations have their strengths and weaknesses, so the chief innovation officer is the one to choose the best suit for the company (Hull, 2012). product generation Step 1: Generating After doing pest and SWOT analysis, the company always identify the weakness of their opponent and opportunity; as a result, Abena found opportunity in producing inpants in adult diapers (Li, et al 2011) Step 2: Screening the Idea The company should set specific criteria for ideas that should be used and those that should be dropped. They should compile the three most important competitors innovation ideas and develop something preferred and customer friendly than competitors (Copper Kleinschmidt, 2011). Step 3: Testing the Concept Before the official launch of the idea, a test must be done so as to identify the weakness, the strength, and challenges faced by the theory. Customer feedback is also important because they are the main target of innovation Step 4: Business Analytics During the New Product Development process, a system of metrics must be established to monitor the progress. Input and output metrics must be built to measure the average time of each stage and the value of launched product, the percentage of the product sold and other valuable feedback that can be used in improving the service. It is important for an organization to agree on this metrics (Do, et al, 2011) Step 5: Beta / Marketability Tests After analysis and improving on the feedback, the market test is better for a new product or service. This will provide valuable information that will promote last minute improvements and tweaks. Step 6: Technicalities + Product Development This step can be provided without the alteration of the post beta test. In this process, the production department will be ready to produce the product, the marketing department will be ready to market the product, and the finance department will be ready with the funds to finance the introduction of the new product or service (Eling, et al, 2015). Step 7: Commercialize In the commercializing stage, the product should have gone mainstream, the consumers are using the service and purchasing the goods, and there is monitoring done by the technical support on the product. At this stage, refreshing advertisements will keep the products name firmly in the minds of those in the contemplation stages of purchase Step 8: Post-Launch Review and Perfect Pricing At this stage, the efficiency of NPD is reviewed, and necessary adjustment are made the product is launched to the market, and it starts to operate fully (Rese Baier, 2011). Rent = Volume X Rate X Length Rent can, according to its profile: small/large volume; by the rate of margin either high or law, and through life cycle short/long. The total number of these combinations is eight although 6 configurations are defined (Beeckman, et al, 2016). Each configuration involves a distinct level of volume, length, and rate, therefore, identifying the anticipated rent to be obtained from innovation. They are described in the following terms: Shrimp- this is a type of configuration offering low rent potential due to its modest level of volume, length, and rate. It does not produce much interest Champion- this is an arrangement providing high potential rent Gadget- this is a type of innovation providing high rate and low volume and length resulting in little interest. A significant investment cannot be justified with this type of configuration (Fleuren, et al, 2004). Joker- this is a configuration with a low rate but high length and volume making it more attractive than Gadget. Flash in the Pan- in this configuration, the volume is high, the length is poor, and the rate are sometimes low and other times high making it challenging for the investor. Oasis this the type of configuration offering good length, low or high rates, and good length Abena Company will use champion configuration because it produces high potential rent. These innovation opportunities are essentially that got in the niche market. However for the company to secure a desirable rate of return from its innovation, it must rely on the nature of innovation, the resources, and the market where the innovation is to be installed. The market is likely to be influenced by the reaction of the clients toward the innovation whether they like it or not the other factors which will affect the market is the capacity of new market plus the power of competitors (Patit, 2012). IDD analysis of the new project. From a financial perspective, the return and risks associated with innovation are not evaluated by the diagnostic tool for companies engaging in early commercialization, taking financial risk-return assessment is difficult since the data made to perform discount cash flow analysis is not there. Two characteristic that are of value to innovation and can affect the innovation process are the systematic charter of innovation and the existence of one or more sectors of application of the innovation (Markides, 2006). In addition to rent, the innovation diagnostic diamond was created that analyses the firms performance on indices connecting its strategy, resources, market and the element of innovation. The IDD also analyzed the gaps in NPD of Abena in the first stages of commercialization, and its main gender is to help the firm fix this errors so as to have proper strategies. This part of analysis uses IDD to map in a graphical format the performance of the firm currently against the four index measures (Rese Baier, 2011). Market index this is a measure of how the firm is keen on customers needs and how the innovation offers customers need of money Innovation index this is to study how the process of the new service is done and the intellectual management of the firm(Wooten and Ulrich, 2017) Resource index this is the measure of the firms human, technological, financial and management resources Strategy index- this is the study of the strategic planning of the firm according to the commercialization process. Discussion on findings and analyses The lack of proper business model, insufficient funds, lack of enough market testing, inadequate management of intellectual properties, lack of appropriate business model and poor strategic marketing plans are common problem associated with commercialization (Bain and Kleinknecht, 2016). When successful firms are checked, they develop a flow-oriented innovation management process and they are proactive at chasing marketing opportunity and they dont take environment as being static. The external know-how and the expertise are used by this firms and they manage external relationships. The firms always understands the needs and wants of their audience and create a good rapport between the departments within the firm and functional departments And for the company to be successful, customer orientation and the possibility of running internal variation must be managed. The stuffs must also be trained and educated about the new innovation for the firm to be successful (Eling, et al, 2015). Conclusion The main aim of many investors is to win the potential users and to adopt their innovation and to face market dynamic involved in market power of suppliers and customers. Other challenges may be as a result of the activities of potential competitors who may threaten to erode any competitive advantage enjoyed by the firm by either submit ion of imitation innovation. Any new innovation delivering an erosion of effecting anticipated rent and competitive advantage is likely to feel the impact of this market forces. Evaluation of the generic prosperity is required in assessing the power of customers so as to adopt innovation within the targeted market sector. In case a small prosperity is adopted then the volume of rent is likely to be reduced (Ravi and Sing, 2013). References Bain, D., Kleinknecht, A. (Eds.). (2016). New concepts in innovation output measurement. Springer. Beckers, F., Chiara, N., Flesch, A., Maly, J., Silva, E., Stegemann, U. (2013). A risk-management approach to a successful infrastructure project (No. 52, p. 146). McKinsey Working Papers on Risk. Beeckman, D., Van Damme, N., Schoonhoven, L., Van Lancker, A., Kottner, J., Beele, H., Van Hecke, A. (2016). Interventions for preventing and treating incontinence?associated dermatitis in adults. The Cochrane Library. Christensen, C. M., Bohmer, R., Kenagy, J. (2000). Will disruptive innovations cure health care?. Harvard business review, 78(5), 102-112. Cooper, R. G., Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2011). New products: The key factors in success. Marketing Classics Press. Do, T. H., Volery, T., Mazzarol, T., Reboud, S. (2011). Determinants of the Innovation Rent. Eling, K., Langerak, F., Griffin, A. (2015). The Performance effects of combining rationality and intuition in making early new product idea evaluation decisions. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(3), 464-477. Fleuren, M., Wiefferink, K., Paulussen, T. (2004). Determinants of innovation within health care organizations. International journal for quality in health care, 16(2), 107-123. Hall, R., Agarwal, R., Green, R. (2013). The future of management education in Australia: challenges and innovations. Education+ training, 55(4/5), 348-369. Hull, J. (2012). Risk management and financial institutions, + Web Site (Vol. 733). John Wiley Sons. Hwang, J., Christensen, C. M. (2008). Disruptive innovation in health care delivery: a framework for business-model innovation. Health Affairs, 27(5), 1329-1335. Lee, T. H. (2014). The strategy that will fix health care. Li, J., Chen, J., Wang, S. (2011). Introduction. In Risk Management of Supply and Cash Flows in Supply Chains (pp. 1-48). Springer New York. Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of product innovation management, 23(1), 19-25. Petit, Y. (2012). Project portfolios in dynamic environments: Organizing for uncertainty. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 539-553. Porter, M. E., Teisberg, E. O. (2004). Redefining competition in health care. Harvard business review, 64-77. Quintane, E., Mitch Casselman, R., Sebastian Reiche, B., Nylund, P. A. (2011). Innovation as a knowledge-based outcome. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 928-947. Ravi, K., Singh, S. (2013). Risk Prediction for Production of an Enterprise. International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research, 2(3), 237-244. Rese, A., Baier, D. (2011). Success factors for innovation management in networks of small and medium enterprises. RD Management, 41(2), 138-155. Wooten, J. O., Ulrich, K. T. (2017). Idea generation and the role of feedback: Evidence from field experiments with innovation tournaments. Production and Operations Management, 26(1), 80-99.