I løbet af få år vil millioner af forbrugere været udstyret med en SmartPhone eller iPhone, som ved hjælp af det indbyggede kamera, kan bruges til at scanne de stregkoder, som sidder på alle de produkter, vi som forbrugere indkøber dagligt.

Men hvor de fleste stregkoder i dag – i hvert fald set med forbrugerens øjne - blot indeholder information om varens pris, så vil den næste generation af stregkoder – de såkaldte QR koder – kunne tilbyde forbrugerne nye muligheder, som direkte link til en hjemmeside, en video, eller andet indhold. Det betyder uanede muligheder for detailhandlen og det giver forbrugerne adgang til en masse inspiration, produkt- og pris sammenligninger, opskrifter, små instruktions film m.m. Alt sammen blot ved at tage et billede af QR-koden på det produkt, som du er interesseret i.

Forestil dig, at du ser en annonce i toget på en spændende ny vin, en lækker bil eller en spændende ny bog og du godt kan tænke dig at deltage i en smagning, få en prøvetur i bilen eller et signeret eksemplar af bogen. Du holder din mobiltelefon op foran annoncen, lader telefonen scanne QR koden og umiddelbart efter, er din kalender opdateret med datoen for begivenheden.
 
Også detailhandlen vil få stor nytte af den nye QR kode. Bare overvej de muligheder, det vil give, når de kendte loyalitetskort erstattes af QR koden og butikkerne kan fange forbrugernes interesse for produktet inden købet foretages og ikke som i dag, når købet er foretaget. Indkøbssedlen bliver elektronisk og ligger på telefonen og QR koder indscannes fra tilbudsaviser og plakater i busser og tog, annoncer, plakatsøjler i det offentlige rum eller fra hyldekanter i butikken. 

QR koden leverer masser af værdifuld information tilbage til detailkæden, som kan indsamle oplysninger om en forbruger, såsom hvor og hvornår hun scannede koden, hvor mange koder hun scannede, om hun købte produktet og om den inspiration hun fik via QR koden ledte til salg i andre kategorier. Information som er guld værd for detailkæden, når det skal besluttes, hvor markedsføringskronerne skal placeres.

Brugen af QR koder handler ikke blot om at sende tilbud af sted, men om at være i dialog med sine kunder og opbygge og vedligeholde relationer, som gavner både detailkæden og forbrugeren på lang sigt.

QR koderne er på vej med hastige skridt, så detailkæderne bør arbejde intenst på at få lagt en stærk strategi om hvordan, de kan indføre QR koder så hurtigt som muligt.

Teknologien er tilgængelig i dag - lige nu – og programmerne til at indscanne QR-kodes, kan hentes gratis på telefonproducenternes hjemmesider eller via private udbydere af programmer til de mobile enheder.

Mon ikke vi snart kommer til at se de første detailkæder brande deres egne scanningsprogrammer til de smarte mobile enheder?

Links til mere information om QR koder:

Retail Customer Experience

2d code

The Social Workspace

Fremtidens convenience food og service

GEMBA har i 2010 afsluttet en analyse af udviklingstendenserne indenfor convenience food og convenience service for HAKL og Uddannelsesnævnet.

Analysen viser, at alle butikstyper forventer en tocifret vækst i salget af convenience fødevarer inden for de kommende tre år. Især forventer supermarkederne vækst, i visse tilfælde op mod 50 pct. af det nuværende salg. Analysen er gennemført i et aktivt samarbejde med Dansk Erhverv, DI og Undervisningsministeriet og med deltagelse af udvalgte supermarkedskæder under Coop og Dansk Supermarked, Super Best, Q8, 7-Eleven og Joe & The Juice.

Du kan downloade analyse og resumé her:

Download Resumé

Download Fuld rapport

Danskerne satser på sund convenience

DI vurderer at der sælges for ca. 500 mio. kr. sunde convenience produkter i Danmark, se: http://di.dk/Opinion/Sundhed/Pages/Danskernesatserpaasundefaerdigretter.aspx

Coop satser på convenience

Coop har planer om at åbne specialiserede convenience butikker i Danmark, se: http://www.food-supply.dk/article/view.html?id=44743

ICA satser på convenience

Svenske ICA forventer at åbne to forsøgsbutikker i 2010 udelukkende med fokus på convenience, se: http://www.food-supply.dk/portal-b2b/article/view.html?id=45614

Sundhed

En frisk analyse blandt amerikanske forbrugere viser tydeligt trenden mod en mere sund livsstil. 86 pct. af forbrugerne peger på at de pt. øger forbruget af grøntsager i madlavningen. Se: http://www.supermarketguru.com/index.cfm/go/sg.viewArticle/articleId/1131

De unge

De unge genererer mere end 30 pct.  af convenience salget i Canada. Se præsentationen her: http://www.slideshare.net/Environics/maximizing-profits-through-shopper-insights-in-convenience-csfa-presentation

Købsoplevelse

Pris, tilgængelighed og markedsføring har stor betydning for succesfuldt detailsalg. Men købsoplevelsen slår alle andre faktorer – er købsoplevelsen unik, så vil folk acceptere mindre udvalg, køre længere og  endda betale mere. Læs mere hos Retail Customer Experience, hvor du kan downloade et white paper: http://www.retailcustomerexperience.com/whitepapers/1626/Designing-the-Shopping-Experience-Five-crucial-steps

Vækst i convenience i UK

Trods nedgang i antallet af butikker og økonomisk krise, så stiger omsætningen i det engelske convenience marked, se: http://www.igd.com/index.asp?id=1&fid=1&sid=7&tid=26&folid=0&cid=91#3

Carbon foot print

Vi ser, især i UK, en stigende interesse for at inkludere sociale forhold og carbon footprint i mærkningen af bl.a. fødevareprodukter. Tesco har mærket en del af sine varer med Carbon Footprint mærket, som opgør CO2-udledningen i et givent produkt. Næste skridt er måske at udbrede det, herunder nedbringe Carbon Footprint for hele værdikæden fra jord-til-bord, herunder især food miles (transport af fødevaren). Se: http://www.carbonfootprint.com/ og http://www.tesco.com/climatechange/speech.asp

Analyse af dansk detailhandel

Økonomi- og Erhvervsministeriet har i 2009 lavet en omfattende analyse af den danske detailhandel, se: http://www.oem.dk/sw26628.asp

Fødevareinnovation frem mod 2015

 
GEMBA Innovation har sammen med DTU Management udarbejdet en rapport om fremtidige muligheder for erhvervsudvikling inden for regional fødevareproduktion.
 
Fødevareproduktion fylder en betydelig del af mange især landdistrikters erhvervsgrundlag, både målt i arbejdspladser og værdiskabelse. Afhængigheden i flere udkantområder af fødevareproduktion er betydelig.  Samtidig står fødevaresektoren overfor betydelige udfordringer, der – alt andet lige – vil betyde færre arbejdspladser for den fødevareproduktion som vi kender i dag. Landbrugets strukturudvikling, kapacitetstilpasninger og krav om produktivitetsstigninger er nogen af de væsentligste drivers. Nye arbejdspladser og værditilvækst kan på lang sigt sikres gennem innovation i såvel landbrug som fødevareforarbejdning.
 
Spørgsmålet er hvordan erhvervsfremme kan medvirke til at skabe rammebetingelser, der fremmer innovation i fødevaresektoren fremover?
 
Det spørgsmål er blevet undersøgt i projektet feat 2015, som GEMBA Innovation har deltaget i sammen med DTU Management og Aalborg Universitet.

Denne rapport indeholder en rapportering af baggrundsstudier og workshops i forbindelse med projektet. Baggrundsstudierne omfatter tilgange til regional regionaludvikling, strategi og innovation, erfaringer fra danske dialogprojekter samt review af danske regionale strategier. Workshops er gennemført perioden 2007 til 2009 i samarbejde med:

• Jordbrugsklyngen under Bornholms Vækstforum: ’Innovationsworkshop om jordbrugsog fødevaresektorens fremtidige udviklingsmuligheder på Bornholm’
• Fødevareplatformen i Region Sjælland: ’Identitet for jordbrugs- og fødevareprodukter frem mod 2015’
• Det regionale fødevarenetværk under Danske Regioner: ’Regionernes fremtidige råderum og handlemuligheder’

For hvert delelement er læringspunkter beskrevet på opsummerende form. Disse bidrager sammen med projektets øvrige resultater til udvikling af en strategimodel rettet mod erhvervsudvikling på regionalt niveau gennem innovation i jordbrugs- og fødevaresektoren. Projektet er finansieret af Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri.
 
Du kan finde rapporten ved at klikke her: RAPPORT

Du kan læse mere om feat2015 ved at klikke på: feat2015

Du er også velkommen til at kontakte Tomas Vedsmand (tv@gemba.dk), hvis du er interesseret i at vide mere om projektet eller om fødevarer, innovation og erhvervsudvikling.

Innovation’s purpose is to prepare for the future.  That’s common wisdom.  But what if current conditions are so profound that they jeopardize an organization’s future, as is too often the case today?  In that case, it’s time to shift perspectives and begin applying innovative techniques to survival in the present.  The key difference between conventional innovation (for the future) and innovation for survival is the speed with which innovative solutions must be developed and implemented.   Also, innovation cannot be loosely applied; even adhering to a strategic plan may project the inflection point too far into the future to have value.  By then, the organization may be in extreme pain, unable to make essential changes – if it hasn’t already expired!

The first step in surviving is to survey the damage that the organization has already sustained, the damage that it is currently sustaining, and the damage that it may sustain in the foreseeable future.  In other words, the organization’s survival champion must quickly acquire acute situation awareness relying on information networks that exist within the organization, mechanical and human.  Anticipating today’s crisis, an article in the November 2001 issue of the Harvard Business Review, “Moving Upward in a Downturn,” by Darrell Rigby (Product No. R0106F, available for purchase here), describes a “storm warning” system that can be implemented to identify and plan for oncoming economic, industrial, and market disturbances.  Rigby then proposes a number of strategic and tactical responses – “strengthen your core business,” “bargain-shop for acquisitions,” etc. – all of which anticipate relatively quick recovery, blue skies “after the storm.”

Writing during a relatively mild recession, Rigby can be forgiven if his prescription for action seems inadequate given today’s extremely negative conditions.  Recovery is nowhere in sight and experts refuse to speculate when it might arrive.  As the economic crisis spirals downward, is there still a way that innovation can contribute to an organization’s survival?

A November 2, 2008, item in the New York Times Unboxed series, “It’s No Time to Forget About Innovation,” by Janet Rae-Dupree, takes a longer-term POV.  Surveying the field, Rae-Dupree finds that innovation is essential to organizational survival regardless of the duration of the crisis.  Historically, seizing immediate opportunities to innovate for short-term cost savings (the bottom-line) and increases in revenue (the top-line) often results in radical innovations that stand the organization in good stead when recovery occurs – but often, even sooner.  Rae-Dupree quotes Chris Shipley, DEMO Conference executive producer:

Hard times can be the source of innovative inspiration. “Some of the best products and services come out of some of the worst times,” [Shipley] says. In the early 1990s, tens of millions of dollars had gone down the drain in a futile effort to develop “pen computing” — an early phase of mobile computing — and a recession was shriveling the economic outlook.

Yet the tiny Palm Computing managed to revitalize the entire industry in a matter of months by transforming itself overnight from a software maker into a hardware company.

“Our biggest challenge right now is fear.  The worst thing that a company can do right now is go into hibernation, into duck-and-cover. If you just sit on your backside and wait for things to get better, they’re not going to. They’re going to get better for somebody, but not necessarily for you.”

By far and away the most commonly recommended solution to survive hard times and thrive in the eventual recovery, whether it takes months or years, is to embed in the organization a culture of innovation that is constantly evolving new ideas, concepts, and products and services.  An Italian-French study published in December 2007, Product Innovation and Survival in a High-Tech Industry, by Lionel Nesta and Roberto Fontana, discovered that remaining on the frontier of technology insulates a high-tech firm from dire prospects by making it attractive as an acquisition in the worst case and as a preferred vendor and investment vehicle in the best cases:

We find that location near the technological frontier is an important determinant of firm survival. Firms located near the frontier are also more likely to be acquired than to exit by failure if they cannot survive. This suggests that product location in the technology space acts as a signal of firm quality. Possessing a substantial stock of intangible capital, on the other hand, determines neither exit via failure nor exit via acquisition, although it increases the probability of surviving.

As in so many instances, the contribution that innovation makes to organizational success – in this case, to organizational survival – is inexactly known.  But two things are clear.  First, not to innovate is to risk everything.  Firms that merely pull in their horns to wait out a crisis disproportionately succumb before the recovery arrives. Second, great successes occur during crises when competitors are unable to respond or conditions are already so risky that radical strategies can be applied without fear that they’ll make things worse.  Sometimes, these risky strategies have positive outcomes.  To paraphrase an axiom of gaming, “If you innovate, you might lose – but if you don’t innovate, you definitely will not win.”

Shawn Callahan, one of the founders of Anecdote, an Australian consulting firm specializing in corporate narrative – storytelling that encourages team alignment and collaboration – tells an effective tale on the Anecdote website/blog, “Past experiences holding back collaboration.”   Shawn begins,

"Last Friday I ran a workshop for a client on collaboration. I emphasised collaborative practices and behaviours and at one point I introduced the idea of gaining agreement from their team to "call me on it." As I was describing this idea I noticed a woman sitting up the back shaking her head, her face flushed with annoyance. So I stopped and asked if she would like to make a comment.

There is no way in the world I could ever call my boss on anything, let alone his behaviour," she said. "Can you tell me exactly how you would do that?"

Before I could answer she continued by saying, "I once told my manager he was behaving badly and in the end I had to resign."

At the end of the workshop I was thinking about what this woman said and how one memorable experience created a belief so strong that it precluded a set of strategies for better collaboration. She was describing what Umberto Eco calls our background books: the stories we tell ourselves that enable and disable us.

This article is preceded by another useful article, “Getting started with Collaboration tools,” by Anecdote consultant Chandni Kapur.   She covers every popular collaboration technology.  Her critical review is thorough.

Here is a link to Anecdote's website with a lot of great useful infomation: LINK

The earlier that innovation occurs, the greater its value in terms of product or service development and lifecycle management.  This is because innovations that happen later in the development process (a) have slighter impact on the outcome and (b) require greater investment to implement.  Early innovation is therefore called “front-end innovation.”

Carrying out front-end innovation is a risky proposition.  Front-end innovations often do not survive the vetting process that organizations use to eliminate innovations that do not serve their strategic goals or that are too costly to develop.  Also, facilitating front-end innovation is more an art than a science, since how we invent is still a mystery.  Some experts claim that innovation is an intellectual behavior that can be cultivated, even taught; others maintain that innovation is highly intuitive, best conducted by adepts who whose talent is uniquely their own.  This difference matters, as resources properly should be deployed differently – for training or for support – depending on which position is correct.  Of course, most organizations mimic sectoral leaders, creating self-fulfilling prophecies.  The result is a case of The Emperor’s New Clothes:  for two decades, training for innovation has trumped support for innovators, although the pendulum seems to be swinging back in favor of supporting innovators with inherent invention skills.

The LinkedIn Front-End of Innovation newsgroup hosts several forums in which this and similar controversies are debated, civilly but not without passion.  Current topics include:

• Do you believe in real win-win relations/scenarios?
• In what companies does marketing research spending correlate with levels of innovativeness and company performance?
• WEB2.0 Connection tools for fostering innovation
• Hear an FEI Conference Keynote speaker! Dr. Peter Koen presents "Top Quartile Practices in the Front End"

The Front-End of Innovation is affiliated with the annual Front-End of Innovation conference of the same name to be held in 2009 in Monaco from January 26-29; and in Boston, Massachusetts, from May 18-20.  The conference is hosted by the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) and by the Institute for International Research (IIR).  The IIR hosts several innovation-related conferences each year.  There is also a blog associated with the conference.

Another resource for professional training in front-end innovation management is the APQC, the American Productivity and Quality Center, a nonprofit membership organization that helps with benchmarking business processes, and identifying and teaching best practices.  It annually offers courses in innovation management – including front-end innovation – and relevant cognate practices.

Whirlpool has created a corporate innovation culture that results each year in thousands of proposed innovations, a kind of self-sustaining front-end innovation process.  In response, Whirlpool was forced to initiate an rigorous evaluation and gating system to keep its innovation portfolio from exploding out of control.  The whole story is recounted in chief innovation officer Nancy Tenant Snyder and consultant Deborah L. Duarte’s business bestseller, Unleashing Innovation:  How Whirlpool Transformed an Industry, published in hardcover by Jossey-Bass in October 2008 (also as an e-book).  The story is told in summary fashion in Business Week, March 6, 2006, “How Whirlpool Defines Innovation.”

GEMBA Innovation facilitates front-end innovation for its clients, including the dozen service companies who have volunteered to participate in the ongoing. longitudinal DESINOVA project sponsored by the Danish Chamber of Commerce and the Danish Development Agency, and project managed by GEMBA.  While it’s too soon to draw definitive conclusions, it appears that the capacity to innovate is indeed inherent – but also, that innovation can be systematically managed and supported for maximum effectiveness.  Contact Tomas Vedsmand for further information.

Once upon a time, not so long ago (in the 1950s), innovation – cloaked as advertising, product development, or brand management – was all about being creative.   Innovation depended, so it was believed, on having a sufficient number on staff of bona fide “creatives” (art directors, copywriters, industrial designers, media producers, and above the fray, godlike creative directors allegedly endowed with semi-mystical powers to deduce consumers’ wants and needs). 

With the coming of the Space Race and the elevation of Science as a priesthood, artistic sense and intuition became suspect.  In the 1960s and especially the 1970s, market research, embodying many social science methodologies, became the dominant force driving this customer-centered innovation.  In the 1990s, proponents of human-centric innovation rediscovered anthropology and ethnography, awarding them the innovation-leading role formerly the property of conventional market research. 

Recently, the trend has come full circle, with creatives – intuitives, described in the work of sociologist Richard Florida as the “creative class”– once again the stars of innovation.

How does all this play out in the field?  If you were charged with managing your organization’s innovation process, where would you locate its center of gravity on the innovation continuum between research-determined and creativity-determined?

The business literature isn’t clear on the relationship between creativity and research.  More often than not, observers use innovation and creativity synonymously (though we who work in the field can vouch that they are not the same thing) and research is often described as a means to an end, the end being creativity-inspired innovation that is “human-centered,” “trend-directed,” and strategic.   This is quite a hedge.  It covers all the bases, making no meaningful distinctions.  Similar oft-repeated generalities provide little guidance to innovation managers who must deploy limited resources to maximum effect and produce innovations that concretely benefit the organization. 

One factor that contributes to this indecision is a lack of adequate metrics for valuing innovations per se and as they are translated into products and services in the field.  In August 2008, the Boston Consulting Group published Measuring Innovation 2008: Squandered Opportunities, a scathing critique of corporations’ inadequate methods for measuring the value of innovations as reported by the executives themselves.  If the effectiveness of various innovations cannot be measured, it cannot be correlated with innovations’ respective mixes of research and creativity.  We are at a loss to pronounce general rules for spending or specific rules for spending under special circumstances. 

(An accompanying BCG report, Innovation 2008:  Is the Tide Turning? surveyed the same executives and discovered deep discontent with ROI on innovation expenditures.)

When it comes to the quality of innovations, the jury’s out on the value of spending for research versus spending for creativity – or is it, spending for research and creativity?  The experts remain divided on the issue, often depending (it seems) on their own capabilities or commitment to one intellectual ideology or another.  This is an area that GEMBA is following.  As we discover answers for ourselves, we’ll be sure to share them with you, too.