3M Business Analysis

1. How the 3 M innovation process evolved from the time the company was found?

Answer:

• The innovation process at 3M has typically been a focus area for the upper management. The company had taken a get–out–of–the–way attitude towards the product developers who in turn have worked accordingly towards innovation. Along with technicians each team had a process engineer to ensure that the product was efficiently made. The entire team did not face any risk if the product failed.

• The product developers used to visit the factories and workplaces to talk to the workers to get ideas for products.

• The developers were not given the share of product royalties as the company believed that innovation was driven by sheer love of it. But the developers were encouraged by various means like rewards for innovation and grants for innovative projects.

• There was also a dual ladder approach that provided the senior technical persons with great career opportunities to advance without switching over to management.

• In the 1990s as the innovation was stagnating, most of the innovations were extension of existing product lines, management came up with a protocol that 30% of 3M's revenue should come from innovative products that did not exist four years ago.

• To meet the challenge the company's work force had to change its approach towards work. Some of the people in the Medical product's department switched over to a process called "Lead user research". After the process brought success to this division it was applied to other divisions successfully.

2. How does the ‘Lead User' research process differ from and complement other traditional market research methods?

Answer:

The ‘Lead User...

... middle of paper ...

...aving around $100 mn of annual sales.

The alternatives presented after the lead user research have been qualified by us mainly on the basis of which provided a breakthrough innovation and weren't just line extensions of the existing product and technology itself. Hence we rejected the first three alternatives, they being mere line extensions and could have been produced with the existing 3M technology. They can never be considered a breakthrough innovation, despite being commercially viable and 3M getting access to $2 bn market in the third alternative. We need a radical innovation which can only be provided through the fourth alternative, where we need a change in strategy by "crossing boundaries". This alternative gives us that elusive breakthrough product that the business unit has been looking for one last decade.