Innovation has many definitions, and a key feature of the new ISO 56001 Innovation Management System is that it provides a consistent language and terminology that can be understood by all within the organisation.
Innovation Management System based on best practice
Using the definition that innovation is a “new or changed entity, realizing or redistributing value” the Innovation Management System (IMS) has been defined as a “set of interrelated or interacting elements of an organisation to establish policies and objectives as well as processes to achieve those objectives.”
Consistency in language and definitions, and harmonization with existing standards, were hailed by practitioners as core benefits of the new British Standards Institute (BSI) ISO 56001 Innovation Management System (IMS), which was launched in October 2024 at an event at BSI in London.
Speaker, Andrew Stanton, ISO/TC 279 WG 1 Convenor, stressed that having a structured system enabled positive change, and the value obtained is multi-dimensional, not just financial.
He explained that the IMS was based on best practice and provided a high-level introduction that could be contextualized by organisations according to their industry. However, he accepted that this was going to make certification challenging and bodies tasked with this would need training. There were also concerns that some commercial organisations were offering certification before the standards and requirements had been ratified.
A further dimension is that the IMS had been designed to integrate and build upon existing standards, such as quality or cyber security, to provide a holistic approach. This means that there is additionality rather than duplication. Therefore, auditors providing certification should be familiar with all the standards.
Will creativity be the casualty of standards?
There have been concerns that by adopting an IMS organisations would stifle creativity. An alternative perspective was that by having ‘guiderails’ innovation is directed at achieving intent and producing outcomes more aligned with business objectives and suitable for the target market.
Some of the delegates at the launch who work in highly regulated industries, such as railway and aviation, also stressed the importance of having an audit trail for innovation. So it was possible to review the development process.
In addition, they said that having ISO status gives credibility to Innovation Managers when presenting propositions to senior management, as “it is a language they understand”.
Link between intent and value creation
For many years, the innovation has been characterized by ideation, creating concepts and validation. The IMS offers an added focus: looking at the opportunity to see what will generate most value, and creating the processes and mechanisms to deliver that value.
Crucially it is not a stage-gate approach, with a defined order. It is accepted by the BSI that innovation operates in an environment of uncertainty and there is a need to evolve.
Andrew gave the example of a company developing a concept in clothing for the security industry. They were just at the point of bringing a new product to market when the government announced new regulations. They needed to regroup and adapt to ensure their product met the new requirements before they launched it.
This type of scenario is common and there is a need to be iterative.
Next steps
The IMS is designed to facilitate a change within the mindset of an organisation to create a culture of innovation. It is intended to be a learning system – not a box ticking exercise.
A feedback mechanism will bring in intelligence gained from adoption of the standard in the marketplace, and this will be used to improve the standard when it comes to be updated.
The guidance (ISO 56002) was created ahead of the standard and this is due for revision by ISO. There are two approaches to consider when updating guidance:
1. Does the guidance aim to help organisations meet the requirements of the standard?
2. Or, does the guidance aim to support an organisation implement an effective IMS?
The ISO working group will be considering these options.
Discussion
How is ‘value created’ measured?
There followed a discussion of how value is determined, and how different stakeholders have different requirements, with one delegate observing that “one man’s value is another’s waste”.
Another delegate asked how value was to be measured and if econometrics had been considered.
Support for scale-up
While a complete Innovation Management System may not be appropriate for a newly formed company, the consensus from those advising early-stage companies was that working to the principles of the IMS created a strong foundation for scale-up.
The discipline of articulating the intent, process, and value created demonstrated to potential investors the scale-up’ strategic alignment with the market opportunity.
Victoria Milne, Head of Delegation to ISO TC 279, described how one start-up she had been advising – and that was now short-listed for the Earth Shot Prize – had found that adopting the principles of ISO 56002 had given them answers that were needed to secure funding and attract investors.
It was agreed that while it was beneficial for scale-up, delegates were concerned that early-stage organisations would struggle with the bandwidth needed to implement the standard.
Victoria responded that while she would argue that while formal certification may be a stretch for a start up, “the standard will go a long way to advise and support the structures an early stage business may put in place. This would assist the organisation to remain innovative and more resilient. Organisations can of course self certify too.”
The role of designers and design thinking
The IMS is not prescriptive and Ben Watson, Operations Lead for Global R&D at Technology Innovation 3M and Chair of IMS/1 Innovation Management National Committee, commented that the IMS framework creates “space for design” – starting at the front end where scouting is important and creating time for opportunities to bubble up and drive innovation. Design skills are needed to capture the complexity and map out where to start.
The strengths of designers to handle intangibles and make sense of fuzzy problems was discussed. This expanded to explore the need to have these skills in the team and the shortage of people with these skills. The prospect of AI providing support here as a means of capturing scarce knowledge was touched upon.
The social licence to innovate
Culture and the impact on innovation was discussed, and the challenges of commercial entities and public sector working on different timelines and restrictions.
For some sectors the concept of minimal viable product (MVP) was acceptable, with the understanding that the end-users and early adopters would co-develop the product and ensure it was fit for purpose.
In other industries this was a concern – on the railways, for example, there are safety considerations with a MVP, if the assumptions were not clearly articulated. For example, if the prototype had not considered that some service users would have mobility issues.
For the public sector, the cost of implementing a prototype were immense and involved multiple groups of stakeholders, so any innovation needed to have a high level of confidence before it could be piloted.
The discussion moved back to the need for alignment between early-stage innovation and market needs, and how the clarification of intent and articulation of the business concept and opportunity would improve communication between established enterprises and innovators.
Case-studies
Three practitioners at different stages of adoption discussed their journeys in a panel session chaired by Victoria Milne, CEO of Verity Merit and Head of the ISO delegation for the UK.
- Jennet Holmes, Head of Innovation at Velindre University NHS Trust, had used a systems approach in her previous role and found the ISO 56000 by accident. She saw the potential to implement an Innovation Management System to enable innovation to promulgate through the organisation.
- Steve Armitage, Head of Technology Design & Innovation at Heathrow, said that prior to the pandemic the organisation had ambitious plans for its innovation strategy, but through necessity this had become one team focused on short-term needs.
- Jon Rains, Director of Innovation Management at Mott McDonald, explained that his motivation for adopting the ISO 56001 Innovation Management System (IMS) was to enable the organisation to deliver impact at scale.
In conclusion
Martin McGurk, Deputy Director of Business Growth at Innovate UK, summed up the workshop with a number of bullet points:
- The challenge – are we innovating for the right reasons? – start with the intent
- The Innovation Management System is not a ‘how to innovate’ guide – it is designed to give the time, space and structure to innovate
- It provides permission to fail – innovation should involve risk
- It is a learning process – we are at the start and all learning together
- There is no perfect solution – waiting for an optimal solution can create paralysis, so an iterative approach is often better
- We need to think about what we can do differently
- People innovate – not standards!
BSI Innovation Day 2024
The BSI Innovation Day 2024 is taking place on the 14th of November, at the Design Museum in London. It will include a line-up of over 30 industry leaders speaking, and will explore the eight principles of the Innovation Management System standards in more detail and the professionalisation of innovation management and competencies required. Find out more at https://pages.bsigroup.com/l/35972/2024-07-09/3t7zkjn.
