Comments for Nimble execution: learn cheaply and adapt quickly

The article “From Creativity to Innovation: The Social Network Drivers of the Four Phases of the Idea Journey” explores the complex relationship between social networks and the stages involved in the creative and innovative process. Written by Perry-Smith and Mannucci, the paper presents a framework that divides the journey of an idea into four distinct phases: generation, elaboration, championing, and implementation. Each phase is influenced by specific needs and network characteristics that determine its success.
The first phase, idea generation, is driven by the need for cognitive flexibility. Broad and diverse networks are crucial during this stage as they expose individuals to a variety of perspectives, which fosters creativity and the emergence of new ideas. Once an idea is conceived, the next step is elaboration, where emotional and constructive support becomes essential. Trust-based relationships play a significant role during this phase, enabling the refinement and clarification of ideas through collaborative efforts.
The third phase, championing, requires influence and legitimacy to persuade decision-makers to support the idea. This phase often benefits from the presence of structural holes within networks and the creator’s strong reputation, which are critical for gaining the necessary resources and approval to move the idea forward. Finally, the implementation phase focuses on achieving a shared vision among team members. Cohesive and aligned networks ensure proper coordination and execution, leading to the successful realization of the idea.
From a managerial perspective, the findings suggest several practical approaches to optimize the innovation process. Managers should actively promote diverse networks by organizing cross-functional brainstorming sessions, encouraging participation in industry conferences, and fostering digital communities. Additionally, strengthening trust-based collaborations is essential. This can be achieved through team-building activities, mentorship programs, and the creation of long-term project teams to enhance cohesion. Furthermore, adapting network strategies to different stages of innovation is recommended. Open networks are more effective during the ideation phase, while focused and cohesive networks are better suited for execution. Tools such as social network analysis can help managers evaluate and restructure team dynamics as needed.
Despite the broad applicability of these recommendations, the study acknowledges several limitations. Large-scale organizations often face challenges in dynamically managing networks due to resource constraints. Cultural barriers in hierarchical societies can hinder informal networking, reducing the impact of social interactions on innovation. Additionally, industries with strict regulatory environments, such as pharmaceuticals or finance, may find it difficult to implement innovative ideas despite having strong networks.
The study’s insights are complemented by further references, including “Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem” by Uzzi and Spiro, which examines how small-world networks enhance creativity. Burt’s work, “Structural Holes and Good Ideas,” highlights the role of brokers in fostering innovation by connecting disparate networks. Lastly, Steven Johnson’s TED Talk, “Where Good Ideas Come From,” provides a visual and engaging explanation of how diverse perspectives contribute to the development of innovative ideas.

The difference between management control and the five points of strategic control are in 2
sub differences. First, the difference between management control and the first point of
strategic control so the control of the strategic implementation is just about the focus. Indeed,
they have the same purpose who is to implement the strategy as a plan and the same process,
to set the standard of desired performance, track the actual performance and use the deviations
to take corrective action. But strategic control focuses on some key success factors and
management control takes care of all the aspects. After it the 4 others points of strategic
control are totally different from the 2 previous points. The 4 other points are validating
strategic assumptions, strategic issues management, interactive control and periodic strategy
review. So they have another purpose, they change the strategy content to invalid the planning
and to put light on the opportunities. The process is also different because they collect and
interpret data’s in the previous objective to identify opportunities. And they focus on planning
assumptions and opportunities.
Managers should always be aware of the changing environment so they should try to
implement both systems of strategic control and management control. One that is monitoring
the implementation of strategy and one that is monitoring the environmental changes. The
second managerial implication is that in companies it’s very important to always involve staff
and people all around the company, not just the top managers. That’s because you keep in
touch with what is really happening. You can do that by informing the staff about strategies
and changes. Involve them, especially line managers that are linked to both top managers and
employees, in the decision-making process, to monitor changes and react to them. To do so
top managers could have once a week, a meeting with line managers to monitor constantly the
situation. Line managers also should collect the opinion of the staff. If there are changes in the
environment, they can add more weekly meetings. The last implication is that managers
should be prepared to understand when they need to stop their commitment to pre-planned
strategy. Because as we said there are changes in the environment and your strategy might be
invalid at a certain moment. You must adapt and it’s very important to understand when to
stop and when to push with a specific innovation or strategy.
For the limitations, we focused on the limitations of one particular managerial implication,
involving the staff in the decision process but it’s not always a good idea. First, for security,
indeed if the decision to be made contains sensitive information it’s best not to involve too
many people so that the information doesn’t get leaked. For example, if it concerns the
acquisition of a company, it’s important that it stays secret.
The second limitation is that it can create problems with authority. If you involve the
employees in the decision-making process, it might weaken the hierarchy in place, a manager
should be careful and make sure his authority will not be threatened before involving the
staff.
The last limitation is that employees might miss the big picture, be too focused on their own
department so it might be best not to involve all the staff and keep the decisions concerning
the global strategy of the company on the management level.
About the further references, we decided to take a ted talk of Bernhard Schroeder, a previous
Director of Programs at San Diego State University, who worked with brands like Apple and
Mercedes-Benz. Today, he mentors startups with differing levels of support.
He takes an example of a startup he helped when they designed their business plan. During
their first year they raised 200, 000 dollars but they moved off their business plan due to
afterwards feedback from customers and the investors weren’t happy about it. The key point
is that you must start with a clear and stable business plan. You need an idea, a model, a basic
prototype which can easily be modified and direct feedback from more than 50 potential
customers, before you launch your business. It will allow you to learn, get feedback and you
will create your business with less surprises. His advice is to follow all these steps, to build a
concreate idea and to find 200 real customers in 8 weeks.
To conclude, Mr. Schroeder said: “Test, fail and learn to become a good entrepreneur!”
The second reference we choose is an article called “The influence of strategic control and
operational control on new venture performance”. We thought it could be interesting to
analyse what is the impact of the type of control in a very different political landscape. This
article analyses the Chinese market. The most interesting points are “strategic control has a
significantly negative relationship with new venture performance; operational control has a
significantly positive relationship with new venture performance; industry relatedness
between the corporate investor and the new venture and the new venture’s political ties
moderate the relationships between the two types of control and new venture performance.
The results are robust to alternative measurements of new venture performance.”

The main objective of the article is to propose different types of innovation processes depending on the type of project and other organisational parameters such as the size of the company, the sector of activity, the age and the creation or not of an R&D department. The study was made of more than 132 innovation projects in 72 different companies, mainly from Brazil, one from France and two from Holland. The study was based on the multiple case study approach which consists of the analysis and comparison between different projects based on their main activities. The eight processes have been studied by taking into consideration the following criteria : Significant differences in scope between the projects studied; Differences between the processes in terms of their level of formality ; Different ways of dealing with uncertainties in innovation processes ; There are different processes in terms of structure and content. The eight processes are classified following 4 axes : Traditional process, Customer Oriented, Stoppage and Parallel activities. During the presentation we compared briefly each processes between each other.
The first implication was related to overcoming uncertainties. We recommended to be more customer oriented by offering more personalized products. You can do that by creating open platforms where clients give their preferences about products (like Lays and C’est qui le Patron). You also have to be more Company Oriented by implementing controls systems on the production process (like the products proposed by Odoo), or on the behaviour -by collective “reward system”-. But three limitations come across: it’s not possible to create a specifical product for each demand; product customization doesn’t work for all sectors; and it’s not always possible to forecast with certainty the allocated budget for product development in complex and unstable environments.
The second implication, is that you have to be aware about stoppage processes. To do so, you have to 1) Wait for the market to be mature enough to adopt your innovation (like 5G infrastructires); 2) Wait for the advance of technology, 3) Wait for both. But what if the market never come? The firm must nurture the market (like Tesla that disclosed its patents). The second limitation is that we cannot create technologies that doesn’t exist.
The third implication is linked to the parallel activities. We advised to always consider the product as a sample because innovation is a never ending process. You have to consider your product as a beta version of it that you have to update constantly. You can do that by adopting the agile process for your projects. But there are some times where the beta version is not good enough for the demand (like Google Glass). In that case it brings bad image that can be fatal for the firm. The second limitation is that products have an innovation lute. There’s a moment when additional improvement doesn’t add more value to the customer’s eyes (like Matrass with 10 different layers). It can also spoil the initial purpose of the product (if you have a Couteau Suisse with 20 different tools for example)
For the further references we chose two articles from Zizlavsky, O. « The Use of Financial and Nonfinancial Measures within Innovation Management Control: Experience and Research » (2016). Journal of Innovation management. That explains how and why it is important to measure the performance of our innovations. And from Richard F. Vancil. « What Kind of Management Control Do You Need? » (March 1973). Harvard Business Review. That advices major tools that can be used to have a better management control.
During this session, the teacher advised us to be careful about which type of profiles the sample of companies was taken into account in the studies. Indeed, knowing the size and the activity of the company could help to understand better when the eight processes are applied.

The first key insight of this article is that there are five organizational inhibitors that
prevent established companies from planning, developing and marketing radical innovation.
The first inhibitor is limited organizational research as firms devote too many resources to
R&D and existing networks. Next, there is the insufficient organizational capacity to plan and
evaluate radical innovation. The rigidity of routines is also an element that makes radical
innovation difficult. The fourth inhibitor is an incorrect staffing, compensation and reward
system to retain creative employees. Finally, there is the reluctance to experiment in unknown
territory. The second key insight highlights the four different capabilities that may encourage
the introduction and implementation of radical innovation. These are respectively the openness
capability, the integration capability, the autonomy capability and the experimentation
capability.

The first implication of this paper concerns technological innovation. For the moment,
large companies tend to over-invest in in-house R&D. Managers should try to put aside their
fear of the unknown and start investing in external sources and emerging networks. We would
therefore be in a process of improving the capacity for openness. To do so, they could get in
touch with start-ups. Usually, start-ups have innovative ideas but they do not have the financial
means to develop them. The second implication relates to social innovation, which is the other
dimension of innovation. In order to better manage innovation, managers need to instill the
culture of innovation in employees. One way to do this is to integrate continuous change within
the company. In addition, for many people, cultural change is linked to large-scale behavioral
patterns. However, it is not the organization that changes, but rather its individuals. Any
cultural change visible on a team, departmental or organizational level is made up of many
small and individual actions.

Regarding the limitations of this article, we will mention three of them. Firstly, the paper
presents the concept of experimentation capability in a very theoretical way. A tool that is not
discussed but which seems perfectly adapted to this concept would be the MVP. By quickly
introducing MVPs into the innovation process, the company will be able to better assess its
customers’ resistance to change and adapt its product to meet market needs. Radical innovation,
which is often seen by large firms as uncertain, could thus gain more credibility and
significantly reduce this uncertainty. Another limitation is about the fact that organizational
autonomy capability is positively correlated to radical innovation performance. However, too
much autonomy can lead to a situation where employees go in all directions without consulting
each other. It is important to have a clear and precise framework so that the company does not
become dispersed. Lastly, this paper emphasizes the importance of openness capability but it
does not propose any concrete solution of external connection such as the acquisition of startups. Managers should not only look for external sources of creative ideas, but also think about
how to assimilate and integrate them into the company.

Further references

Hietschold, N., Reinhardt, R., & Gurtner, S. (2020). Who put the “NO” in Innovation?
Innovation resistance leaders’ behaviors and self-identities. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 158(C).

Grewatsch, S., & Kleindienst, I. (2018). How organizational cognitive frames affect
organizational capabilities: The context of corporate sustainability. Long Range
Planning, 51(4), 607-624.

The article focuses on the emergence of a new methodology, called “Lean Start-Up”. Lean start-ups are above all looking for a business model favoring experimentation and customer feedback. By placing crucial importance on the customer feedback, continuous testing, revising and readapting the products, the failure percentage decreases drastically. Perceived as beneficial in the success of new businesses, several indicators, listed in the article, show that this model is only at the beginning of its expansion.
The first key insight is the key principles of the lean management. Lean startups establish a list of hypotheses that they check and then reject or not. These hypotheses are summarized into a business model canvas which is a diagram of how the company will create value for itself and its customers. Secondly, they put in place a customer development approach to test the hypotheses to adapt and readjust. This allows more flexibility and speed in product development. Finally, lean start-ups practice “agile development” which optimizes time and resources because it is based on iterative and progressive product design. The second key insight of the article stated that the lean management is for every company. External threats are increasingly numerous and affect all companies, lean management is therefore a model that advocates continuous learning and encourages companies to rethink their entrepreneurial spirit, and helps businesses to innovate rapidly and transform business as we know it.
The implications of the lean startup methodology are divided into 3 steps. The first step is to accept using untested hypotheses which can be gathered in a business model canvas, you will hypothesize your target customer, communication plan, stakeholders and supply chain. The second step is to go out of “stealth mode” and focus on customers instead. Listening to their needs and taking their feedback into accounts allows you to adjust or pivot your offer. The last step consists of releasing a Minimum Viable Product and to test it. The idea is to leave room for potential additional features and reduce the risk of investing too much in the wrong product. The first objective is to see if there is a viable market and know if people like the offer and what are the ways of improvement according to their feedback. The idea is to adopt an “agile development” strategy through all of those steps to develop the product by making iterations.
The first limitation is the size of the sample which makes it likely to not fully reflect the willingness of the target segment because it is random and each individual feel, perceives and interprets things differently. Consequently, a sample size that is too small could have negative consequences in decisions to improve the product. The second limitation is the fact that the brand’s image could be permanently impacted as a result of testing an unfinished product (MVP) that could disappoint people, even if the product is improved afterwards because people will associate the brand with disappointment. Finally, the last limit is the time needed to arrive at the finished product that meets all the customer’s needs. Even if this approach is said to be fast, the process to arrive at the finished product can be very long as products will be improved and then re-tested and so on. Such a long process can have a negative impact on the competitivity of the firm because of long lead times.
Further references:
Bocken, N., Snihur, Y, (2020). Lean Startup and the business model: Experimenting for novelty and impact. Long Range Planning, Volume 53, Issue 4, August 2020, 101953. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024630119303887
Felin, T., Gambardella, A., Stern, S., & Zenger, T. (in press). Lean startup and the business model: experimentation revisited. Forthcoming in Long Range Planning (Open Access). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3427084
Ghezzi, A. (2019). Digital startups and the adoption and implementation of Lean Startup Approaches: Effectuation, Bricolage and Opportunity Creation in practice. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 146, September 2019, Pages 945-960. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004016251731778X
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. Viking Press, 320 p.

In this paper, the regular way to make strategic planning is criticized. It stipulates that forcing the strategic planning into an annual cycle could be a problem to executives who must make many important decisions during the year.
There is two problems explained in the article : The time problem and the timing problem.
The time problem is the fact that the company who follows a annual strategic planning process devote 8-9 weeks per year to strategy development. It could be too short to all the strategic development process and many issues cannot be resolved in a short time like this.
Timing problem is due to the fact that the managers have to take strategic decisions continuously during the year and their decisions are often motivated by an immediate need for action or reaction. Forcing the annual strategic plan will not stick with this need.

The first key insight presented in the article is that a company must take decisions out of the traditional planning process and create a different, parallel process for the development of strategies that will help executives to identify the decisions they have to make in order to create more shareholder value over time. This process will end with a set of concrete decisions that management can codify into future business plans through the existing planning process, which remains in place.

The second insight is the continuous strategy development. In this part the article develops the fact that, rather than force strategy reviews into a two-or three-month windows, it must be spread during the the year. In this way, executives will be able to focus on one issue at a time until they find a decision. In addition to that, issues as market and competitive conditions change, could be added to the agenda easily without needing an ad-hoc process.

The last key insight is the strategy reviews to produce real decisions.
Indeed, it is stated in the article that the major obstacles to decision making are disagreements among executives over past decisions, current alternatives, and even the facts presented to support strategic plans. That’s why companies must structure their strategy review sessions.

The key managerial advice that we can remember from this article is to produce a decision-focused strategic planning. In order to do so it is imperative to stop focusing too much on timing and business units.
The first step on this path is to consider plan making and decision making as two separate processes. Decisions must be taken outside of the planning frame. Indeed, executive must watch the market and ask the question “What must we do in order to increase shareholder and stakeholders’ value”. Once these questions can be answered, they are translated into executive decisions that can be integrated in a business plan. This is the case for Boeing, the BCA unit possess a ten years business plan, reviewed and updated on weekly basis. With this system they can gains great insights on their current financial state. However, it has proven itself to be inefficient for the decision-making process. That’s why a they have hired a team of strategy experts who assess the new challenges on daily basis. That way they are able to react to the market and propose new alternatives. This method has proven to greatly increase the firm efficiency and reactivity.
Another major advice is to focus on a few major key themes. Instead of spreading to much of your attention, you should concentrate your forces on large scale questions taking multiples business units in account. The problem of firms relying too much on the business-unit approach, is that the business managers will tend to fight for their own unit’s interest. The company might end up stuck in complex negotiations between the units over who deserves the most allocations. It is important to take a step back and focus more on the big picture. Instead of asking, “what can I do about this particular unit”, ask yourself how you can coordinate your different units in order to solve a problem and reach a certain goal.
Finally, you also might want to change the timing of your strategy reviews and the way conduct them. Nowadays, most business conduct their strategy reviews at the end of the second semester. We noticed that better performing firms tend to spread their reviews through the entire year. For example, the company Textron carries the reviews of 2 or 3 business units every trimester. By doing so they let times to managers to focus on way key issues at the time. Moreover this way of operating gives more flexibility to the firm to adapt to the constant changes in the market. Finally with this rolling method, different business units have more time coordinate their strategy, increasing the cooperation inside the venture. Moreover, they created a more codified way of doing these strategic reviews. Instead of losing endless time in debate about past mistakes or the validity of the data as it usually the case, they implement a methodology separated in 3 steps. The first one is presenting the date and the current state of the market. The second session will consist exploration of alternative and finally voting and decisions take place in the last session.
At the moment managers want to apply this concept must be aware of certain limitations that can occur during the implementation of the process. Lack of capabilities, change of routines and lose the focus can be dangerous for the company.

The article said with this new method companies start solving 8 problems per year instead of 2,5 on average. So, as a manager, it is necessary to have the ability to manage more information going and, therefore, being constant in the review of things that are happening in the environment. The main question is: Do I have the aptitude and discipline needed to be constant in the execution and planning? Actually, this question is not only for the manager but for the team also, Is my team good enough to manage more information and make more decisions?

Besides, the article is based on a study made to big companies. Leaving the small companies and startup out of the conclusions. The main thing is about the change of routines: while the startup is creating their routines, the big company needs to modify their own. Change the routines in a big company requires that old people or the “experts” in their field change the way to manage and if they are not able to do it -they don’t have the ability to change – this method doesn’t work.

Finally, if the manager loses the focus on innovating can be dangerous for the company. With this method, the manager solve problems that are already existing and is not looking for new ones to get out of the comfort zone. This means that the manager is focused on the short-medium term and not in the long term and it can be dangerous because maybe at some point the manager will be overwhelmed for not anticipate problems, and in the moment of action will be too late. For example, when a new building in China is available the manager will start to worry about whether to expand or not, instead of first thinking in expand and start looking for a bigger scope of opportunities not only in China but maybe in other countries.

Further References :

(Ebook) Harvard Business Review, Kahneman, D. Charan, R. (2013). “HBR’s 10 Must Reads on Making Smart Decisions”. Harvard Business Review, avalaible on https://store.hbr.org/product/hbr-s-10-must-reads-on-making-smart-decisions-with-featured-article-before-you-make-that-big-decision-by-daniel-kahneman-dan-lovallo-and-olivier-sibony/11367?sku=11367-PBK-ENG&referral=02560

(Digital Article) Graham, K. (2018). “6 Steps to Make Your Strategic Plan Really Strategic”. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/08/6-steps-to-make-your-strategic-plan-really-strategic

(Digital Article) Graham, K. (2018). “Your Strategic Plans Probably Aren’t Strategic, or Even Plans”. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/04/your-strategic-plans-probably-arent-strategic-or-even-plans

This paper explores how managers might build knowledge management into the strategy process in their firms. Much has already been written about the philosophy and concepts of knowledge and intellectual capital. Less attention has been focused on how to combine a knowledge perspective with established strategy tools, or how to develop unique knowledge-based sources of sustainable competitive advantage.

The first key insight is that knowledge is a driver for important national industry cluster. There are some sectors which are well known to be tech oriented. Electronics sectors, computer, telecommunication are example. Those sectors are based on knowledge, that is crucial to stay cutting edge. Knowledge seems to be the solution for the government to create value. The second key insight refers to knowledge management can redress the excesses of previous approaches such as BRP and downsizing. In fact, the priority of the knowledge management seems to be good for humans condition. The priority is to make sure to better use the human potential rather than downsize it. The last key insight is that all the knowledge of a company can be classed in four categories which allow us to better understand and manage our knowledge. These are : What we know we know, what we know we don’t know, what we don’t know we know and what we don’t know we don’t know.

A managerial involvement that could be put in place for the first key insight could be to diffuse knowledge via an intranet or knowledge network, which is a technique that has been widely used to communicate and solve problems when rapid knowledge transfer, teamwork over large distances and cultural change are key objectives. The second managerial implication focus on creating a knowledge based strategy. There exists many different tools for strategy such as: mission statements, stakeholder mapping, swot analysis, value chain,… Managers are encouraged to be creative in adapting these tools to their own purposes. For the third key insight, all these forms of knowledge could be considered part of a portfolio, and just as with a business portfolio, firms should consider managing and exploiting each knowledge type in different ways.

The limit for the first key insight comes mainly from the financing. In general these projects are elitist projects that cost a lot of money to set up. While the government believes that economic growth comes from these kinds of big projects, there is a huge need for financing and the funds are not unlimited. Regarding the second point, the key insight is valid if we have some results. In fact companies and government invest a lot in knowledge they want a payback. It produces a pressure to have some results. This pressure is on the shoulders of the managers. Finally, the limitation for the 4 categories of knowledge is that the appropriate organizational context for processing Type 4 knowledge may include tensions and types of culture and controls that are inappropriate for Type 1 knowledge management.

Further references:
(article) Gunjal, B. (2019). Knowledge management: Why do we need it for corporates. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science (ISSN: 1394-6234).

(article) Haji-Azizi, N., Dokht-Esmati, M., & Moradi, S. (2010). Organizational Blockout: A novel Approach in knowledge management. Iranian Journal of Information processing and Management, 25(2), 317-330.

(article) Sharifzade, F., Narimani, M., & Koushki, A. (2012). Information Technology and Successful Knowledge Management Initiatives. Iranian Journal of Information processing and Management, 27(1), 171-188.

Key insights: This article insists on the necessity of contemporary firms to adapt quickly and as fast as their competitors otherwise, there are risks to collapse. This ability has become a strategic competitive advantage in many sectors. However, even if innovation is crucial for a company, the pace at which it occurs is even more crucial. In the article, two models have been developed to help firms to accelerate the development process of new products:
A.Compression model: This model is mainly based on the assumption that the development is composed by a predictable series of compressed steps happening in certain, predictable and well-understood environments. In this model, the organization must take time to schedule and plan the development of the product for several reasons. First, it enables to remove unnecessary steps and sequence well the activities. Secondly, it allows to delegate tasks to the best-qualified people what can considerably reduce processing time and bring another point of view on the product development. Also, by using the Computer-Aided Design tool, it allows developers to reach a final design more quickly through the automation of predictable computational procedures. Moreover, wait between steps or overlapping them can significantly reduce development length. Furthermore, adding some deadlines and giving rewards to workers when they respect the deadlines can be a motivation to process quicker.
B.Experiential model: This model occurs in flexible, adaptive and organic organizations when the situation, the technologies and the market are uncertain. In this environment, the company must rely on real-time information, be flexible, have a solid structure and be confident what lets a wide space for improvisation. To develop the product, the firm has to make several iterations that can be simultaneous, alternative designs, designs that are iterations of previous ones or a combination between 2. It will help to accelerate the understanding of the product, improve the confidence of developers and help to detect strengths and weaknesses earlier.

Implications: As a manager, the most important thing to do is to do the right choice concerning the innovation model to adopt. Indeed, both models are not adapted to every company and depending on the environment, they would have to choose one or another model. To make sure they have made the right choice, they could put in place a follow-up.
Then, firms have to develop relationships with their partners to create desire for projects and learn from them. By developing collaborative design, firms would “design with” rather than “design for”.
Finally, firms should establish innovation boundaries even if it can be perceived negatively. It will help to quickly filter the ideas to focus on the most promising opportunities aligned with the strategy. One way is to focus on the mission of the company and on the ultimate value it aims to deliver rather than on the product itself.

Limitations: One of the biggest limitation is the difference that can exist between theory and practice. Indeed, the hypothesis that the two models helps to reduce time is not always true. Researchers have shown results that were opposite to the theory. Concerning the compression model, there is only one condition (cross-functional teams) on six that was leading to faster product development.
Another limitation is about the timing. Too fast product development and too fast market entry can be a trap because of a bad market targeting. It is sometimes better to invest in an experiment and R&D to have the guarantee of the success.

Further references:
• Bytheway, C. W. (2007). FAST creativity and innovation: Rapidly improving processes, product development and solving complex problems. J. Ross Publishing.
• Cankurtaran, P., Langerak, F., & Griffin, A. (2013). Consequences of new product development speed: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(3), 465-486.
Fast Innovation, Pau Garcia Mila, published by TedX talks, 26 june 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPuXLEqK_uU

This article is inspired by the book “The lean startup” which proposes a methodology for startups to develop a product in a way that shortens the development cycles. The objective here is to explain a bit further the concept of accelerated learning through experimentation designed to validate the potential of an innovation against some pertinent metrics.
In this review, the author seems to think that startups should not spend too much time defining a strategy, developing products, … But rather that, they should focus on quickly getting on the market place to test their idea. The reason for this belief is that, often, startups tend to develop a full product based on the assumption that their product will be embraced. The problem is that developing a full product before testing a concept is risky due to the extreme uncertainty associated with startup operations. Hence, startups need to operate in a way that will provide them with the opportunity to learn while validating their vision.

Out of this article, we were able to highlight three different implications for managers : first, such a manager can use the concept of minimum viable product. To do so, he has to create an incomplete version of a product that could be valued by customers. The next step is to conduct experiments with that MVP and gather feedbacks on its attractiveness. The final phase consists on analyzing and using the collected data to improve the MVP, and start the process all over again. Second, a start-up has to be managed in a way that accelerates this cycle, also called feedback loop, to make the learning procedure faster. Finally, an efficient tool to accelerate this feedback loop is the engine of growth, divided in three parts: the sticky, the viral and the paid engines of growth. They each measure a different aspect of success. The sticky one is related to the retention of clients. The second one concerns the word of mouth. The last one relates to the classic advertisement strategy. Most small companies only focus on one of them but it is yet common for a company to use two or three of them.

However, some limitations are important to point out. The first limitation for companies using MVP is the risk that other companies will overtake them by launching a similar product that better meets consumer needs. A second limitation concerns the consumer’s appreciation of the MVP. If the customer is disappointed, chances are that he will no longer want to consume the product even if it is later improved. Indeed, the first impression is often the most important. Then, another limitation is that MVPs cannot be used in all sectors. As a matter of fact, in some industries, companies need to have an optimal product when it is launched on the market, such as the pharmaceutical or car industry. Finally, the metric that will be used to assess the impact of a MVP has to be well-thought-out. If it just focuses on newly acquired customers, it could bias the assessment because of the disengaged customers that will also be included. It may comes out that, to measure the success of an MVP, clear expectations about the product need to be set up. Ways to implement that could be to measure engagement of customers via apps or a system of signs up. Crowdfunding is also an effective way to measure the demand and the interest of investors in our project.
To go further, we propose the article: “MPV explained: a systematic mapping study on the definition of MVP”. This article can help to keep a critical view on what MVP truly is by comparing different definitions of it. Moreover, the article “Impact of Agile Methodology on Software Development Process” could be interesting in the way that the agile method is closely linked to the MVP.