Fostering entrepreneurial behavior, methods and approaches within an organization, demands a culture for intrapreneurs. How do we really form a systematic approach to corporate entrepreneurship?

A possibility for large organizations is to engage in true Corporate Venturing. Within these programs internal projects can be separated and externally driven projects can be integrated. Developing a strategy with balanced risk and efforts, network, competence and a working structure for this is vital for any organization engaging in venturing.G_Posters-08

We find that organizations toggle around the issue of managing Disruptive Innovation as a value creator. Since resources are scarce and  short-term results are high in demand, the disruptiveness often gets rounded off, so that it fits into the process of continuous improvements, rather than creating new values. This leads us to an inability to extract competitive changes and new revenues from our creative ingenuity. There are ways around this though.

In an approach of innovation portfolio management, it can be visualized how corporate venturing and corporate entrepreneurship fits our strategy. We need to find ways to govern, lead and allocate resources, while attempting to follow a supporting process. Now, the cultural factors behind this is of utmost importance. From choosing functional incentives to fostering an openness to “new”.

When digging into this, we also find ways to structure and organize for radical innovation and radical collaborations.

I am facilitating a workshop about corporate entrepreneurship at this years Innovation In Action. If you feel this or any of the other topics suit your taste, you should consider joining. There are 9 other magnificent workshops to choose from when forming your personal 2 days, 4 workshops agenda.



In todays inspiring conversation with Mikkel Bondesen of Ufuse, I found myself again discussing the need to tear down the Taylorian models of constructing hierarchies. Actually, not only tear down, we need to remodel how we work within our organizations. We are slowly destroying the ability to create new business. As we say, there is no business, like No Business.

A few years ago I spoke quite a bit about the commonalities of Innovation hurdles in the organizations I had had the opportunity to work with. I explained this as the effects of a stroke. The damage of the stroke itself, being usually one of the hurdles, makes little difference in itself. However the swelling around this damage will likely for ever destruct the power and ability of the brain. It is the same factors that come into play with an organizations abilities after the first damage of size has been done. The fault in itself might be of insignificant value, but the long term effects will slowly rotten the business of doing business.

Central challenges of Innovation, Dariush Ghatan, Googol
Central challenges of Innovation, Dariush Ghatan, Googol

A non performing culture can be recognized as an organization only thinking big, demanding big, expecting big and therefore betting big. There is nothing proving that this strategy of betting big forms a working portfolio in itself. Betting often, fast and confident can be better.

Projects also need to iterate in a creative process and must be allowed to establish its form over time, as value is added from different stake-holder insights.

Another item Mikkel and I clearly agreed on was the way hierarchies form uncertainties though the reporting and decision making. By not allowing people to see the full picture, yes- we create a organization that will ship at high efficiency, but it will not deliver new initiatives nor drive new revenue.

Taylor meant that workers were not intelligent enough to understand the work they were involved in. Well, it’s the 21 century now. Things might have changed. And actually, they probably did understand, but didn’t know how to express it.

Mikkel said that he finds organizations where

the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing

And he is right. That is exactly what todays organizations often suffer from. The answers are there, the process to find the answers are not. This is were the need of facilitated Innovation, a little help from externals, will help.

I told Mikkel that I find it gruesome to see that many organizations don’t even have more than a left hand (or a right). I do remain   in my strong suggestion that organizations should have both a left and a right hand and that, as you know, should be ambidextrous. I say;

Many talk about sustaining their business. That’s not enough. There is no business, like No Business. We need to continiously redevelop ourselves and dare to be- and seek the disruptive.

Dariush-quote-06 (sustaining vs disrupting)

At Googol we are no working to develop further models for organizing the tasks and work force in streams of solutions. This we have found, will enable organizations to be more agile and anticipate their clients needs and respond to these in good time. We will during the symposium Innovation In Action 2013 in workshops such as Ambidextrous Organizations, held with Prof Bengt Järrehult of SCA and  me, as well as within workshops such as Big Data and Portfolio Management touch on the Why, the What and the How of this. Together this is how you form what I call a Zero-Time Company. More about this shortly.