Innovation and success of teams Essay

The extent to which team or group success meets the definition of Innovation: Innovation Is the application of creativity to give rise to a new product, service or process delivering something new or better to the world’ The academics argue that creativity Is pre-requisite for innovation to take place. Indianapolis and Dawson (2011) provide that organizational creativity Is generation of novel and useful ideas and innovation is the process of realization of those ideas.

According Peasant and Tied (2007) innovation is application of creativity to produce ewe products, service or process which provide competitive advantage for firms, organizations and teams. Indianapolis summarize that Innovation Is process of translating Ideas Into useful, demanded products, services. In this essence for team to be successful their organization design and management should be matching to business environment needs. Burns and Stalker (1961).

Indianapolis provide that there are main three level of innovation: radical, modular and incremental Innovation. The radical Innovation Is the new product which has consonantal Impact o industry and market, pad could serve as example. Modular innovation is significant improvements on the existing product or services such as phone newer models over previous ones. The furniture case provides example of radical and modular Innovation application whereas the flavored beer production had elements of modular and incremental innovation.

The Endeavourer team demonstrated not only example of creativity when illuminating idea about “Fold” chair but also exemplified innovation by implementing the idea into product which was successfully accepted by market. The team showed flexibility by adapting to market research and feedback from key players In London furniture market for flat-pack furniture. One of success factors for Endeavourer team was project management style deployed by Jordan, being analytical person he stayed open for dynamics of team and did not exercise autocratic style.

Rather he started with brainstorming and allowed for Ideas to flow when discussing task on design of furniture. He acted as wise manager supporting Ale’s brilliant idea on “fold’ chair as this idea could be vanished by someone’s egoistic push for different idea. Another factor for success with team was selection of subtexts when Alex was assigned to production team to fully implement creative Idea on how the chair should be produced. In opposite the Evolve team failed to think thoroughly about their idea of multifunctional “cube” and also was not flexible to market feedback and current trends.

The project management by Natalie was disaster when actually he was influenced by other “creative” members of the team and one her fatal errors was putting Franchises, originator of “cube” Idea Into market research team rather than into design and production team. The beer production task was example of modular innovation when teams were asked to invent new flavored beer which should be received well by customers. As the task included part of sales to public the teams had to be flexible In terms of marketing and sales and Introduce Incremental Innovation Into their techniques.

Nell Slough’s subtest did well in beer exhibition by selling the product at high price and when they understood 1 OFF out the inventory of bottles they had. They further made incremental innovation by dropping prices and using selling skills of team members. There was also destructive member of teams such as Jason in the beer task when he was giving too low prices over already agreed ones and Zee in furniture task failing to adapt sales methods to the customers he was facing.

The success of team highly depends on level of creativity and innovation happening in the team when project and task is being performed. Zen and Buckler propose that structured relationship between marketing and technical functions of the team enables generation of true innovative products and services. The Endeavourer team showed that proper utilization of trench of team members and downplaying impact of destructive team members provides basis for innovation to happen.

Kurt was not particularly good project manager when putting Zee who does not drink beer into production subtest, however Ale’s creativity helped to overcome this wrong decision. In contrast Jordan on furniture task minimized impact of Zee by putting him into sales team to shops rather than team which talked to major retailers like John Lewis. While the example of Apprentice episodes are short tasks and mostly from video we see main and interesting elements our analysis of first 3 episodes provided good ground for analysis of team dynamics and development of relationship with the team.

In terms of innovation application it was obvious that the team which was flexible to adopt their creativity and innovation to the changing condition of environment was successful. The Endeavourer team which extracted most value from each member of team either in form of creative idea, management, marketing or staying aside such as Zee was successful. In opposite the Evolve team mostly construed from women struggled to form a properly functioning team and failed to extract crucial value from embers and instead allowed the destructive power of Coma to have huge impact to bottom line of team.

In conclusion it is fair to state that for innovation to happen the only creative idea is not sufficient, the organization, resources and team member should match for task or project being undertaken. Those organizations and team which recognize such paradigm succeed and those which ignore fail. The history in business shows how one company could be successful in application of creative ideas of others and how the company with brilliant ideas fails to innovate and exploit the know-how.