Innovations in Organizational Advancement: A Comprehensive Overview

1. HQ AETC / A9AInnovation Advancement Division Brian Marchitello C. Darren Wyatt AETC/A9A September 2019

2. Overview • AETC Innovation OTE CONOPS • Individual Innovation Competencies & Assessment • Competencies Training Sources • Organizational Maturity Matrix & Assessment • Take the assessment • Q & A

3. Identify Capabilities & Gaps Needs Assessment Organizational Assessment (CPI & Innov) Organizational History Site Visits (Relationship Building) Individual Assessment Capability Gaps (iGaps)

4. So we understand where their gaps are, now what? We have to make sure we’re capable of helping them close those gaps!

5. Close the Gaps Traditional Academia Traditional Academia

6. Close the Gaps Top 20 “Most Disruptive Innovations” $46B in Venture Capital raised* $266B Market Valuation* *Pitchbook data iTools & iResources MOOCs Coursera • Received $30M seed money from Harvard & MIT • Partnership w/ other Univ creates a funding stream • edX keeps $50K produced from each class • $250K each course they produce for parnters • $50K for each that is repeated Traditional Academia Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) Massive Open Online Courses Non-profit Raised $53M to develop its platform Donor lumped by amount of money: $10M and above = 9 $5M – $9.9M = 5 $1M -$4.9M = 19

7. Supplemental Innovation Training Opportunities

8. So now that we’ve equipped ourselves and our wings with proper iResources & iTools, what happens next? We must sustain performance

9. Sustain Performance Organizational Program Validation KPIs Inspections GembaVisits

10. Programming Decisions POM’d Resources Data Analysis

11. Individual Innovation Competencies

12. The Five Individual Innovation Competencies • 2017 International study w/ EU Knowledge Alliance project (8 Universities, 7 Industries) • Factor analysis on 316 Students & 194 Workers • FINCODA* (Framework for Innovation Competencies and Assessment) • FIB Tool (FINCODA Innovation Barometer) • 34 indicators divided into 5 dimensions • Suggest development “tips” for each dimension * url: Fincoda.dc.turkuamk.fi

13. Creativity • The use of the imagination or original ideason existing methods to improve the practice, solve problems or create a product, process, service or a completely new solution. www.insisoc.org/CIO2013/papers/EN-07 E/How to Assess the Innovation Competency of Higher Education Students.pdf

14. Teamwork • Builds cohesive teams within and acrossunits • Shareswins and successes such that each team member feels valued and approved* www.insisoc.org/CIO2013/papers/EN-07 E/How to Assess the Innovation Competency of Higher Education Students.pdf *(AETC Foundational Competencies)

15. Initiative • The preference for taking action • Doing more than is required or expected • Doing things no one has requested that improvesorenhances job results and avoids problems • Finding and creating new opportunities* www.insisoc.org/CIO2013/papers/EN-07 E/How to Assess the Innovation Competency of Higher Education Students.pdf *(AETC Foundational Competencies)

16. Networking • Actions or process of interacting with others to exchange information and develop professional or social contacts • Maintains and taps into a network of proven decision makers to improve understanding and analysis* www.insisoc.org/CIO2013/papers/EN-07 E/How to Assess the Innovation Competency of Higher Education Students.pdf *(AETC Foundational Competencies)

17. Critical Thinking • Identifiesproblems • Evaluatesalternative perspectives & solutions • IdentifiesCOAs* • Makestimely & effective decisions and/or recommendations* www.insisoc.org/CIO2013/papers/EN-07 E/How to Assess the Innovation Competency of Higher Education Students.pdf *(AETC Foundational Competencies)

18. Individual Assessment AETC Built Report FINCODA Report

19. So what? • Screen for innovation skills vs randomly assigning team members • Especially if used like 360 degree assessment • Gauge organizational iCapability • Individual deficiencies can be taught • For example….

22. Organizational Maturity Matrix and Assessment

23. Competent Organizations

24. Organizational iMaturity Matrix • Based off industry standard Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) “A process model that provides a clear definition of what an organization should do to promote behaviors that lead to improved organizational performance.” • Organizational Maturity Matrix Model (OM3) • Narrative adapted to Air Force structure • 4 core areas: Strategy, People, Processes, Tools • 5 levels of maturity

25. Strategy • Embedded innovation culture across all value streams • Well-defined processes, innovative teamsand formalized tools • Well-balanced program w/ incremental (CPI) & breakthroughinnovations • Project outcomesand executions are tied to organizational strategy

26. People • Organizational structure properly manned with innovative, collaborative people who manage the innovation portfolio • Support from senior leadership and supervisors who know that innovation is how the organization will adapt to become more lethal and ready

27. Processes • Dynamic processes that are adaptable to changes in the environment • Fully automated and standardized processes in a state of continuous improvement • Metrics focused on resource capacity, project impact and scaling costs • Non-feasible projectsare killed early and often during program reviews

28. Tools • IT system automates admin processes accessible by everyone along the value stream • System is integratedw/ other enterprise applications (i.e. MS Project, IdeaScale) • Ideas and voice of the customer are collected via purpose-built system • Customizable reports are available for all via standardized IT system

29. So….. Strategy Processes People Tools

30. Let’s Take The Assessment • Pre-assessment ROE: 360 degree method • Questions 3 – 37 are assessing the individual • Brou Gautier • Questions 38 – 59 are assessing the organization • SAF/MGB • https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/L26P63X

32. Assessment Results Good Good

33. Help! • Requesting your feedback • What improvements need to be made to the organization assessment tool • Missing questions? • Are you or units using the tool & how • Have you made any modifications to the tool? What & Why? • Are the results driving resourcing decisions and performance behaviors • Share… • Data (good, bad and ugly) • Education & Training sources with best ROI • Funding streams outside of normal O&M, SIF, SBIR or CC withhold • Subordinate unit’s value added tools • Bottom line: leverage our OTE responsibilities to the greatest extent possible so our units have the resources needed to succeed!

34. Comments / Questions

35. Backup Slides

36. References • Berdrow I, Evers FT (2010) Bases of competence: an instrument for self and institutional as-sessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35: 419-434. • Bessant J, Caffyn S, Gallagher M (2001) An evolutionary model of continuous improvement be-haviour. Technovation 21: 67-77. • Cerinšek G, Dolinsek S (2009) Identifying employees' innovation competency in organisations. International Journal of Innovation and Learning 6: 164-177. • Diamantopoulos A, Riefler P, Roth KP (2008) Advancing formative measurement models. Jour-nal of Business Research 61: 1203-1218. • Drejer A (2001) How can we define and understand competencies and their development? Tech-novation 21: 135-146. • Goffin K, Mitchell R (2010) Innovation management. Palgrave-MacMillan, New York • Hamzah MSG, Abdullah SK (2009) Generic skills needed to produce human capital with "first class mentality". European Journal of Social Sciences 10: 102-110. • Schumpeter J (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cam-bridge, MA • Vaccaro IG, Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2012) Management Innovation and Leadership: The Moderating Role of Organizational Size. Journal of Management Studies 49: 28-51. • Villa Sánchez A, Poblete M (2007) Aprendizaje basado en competencias. Una propuesta para la evaluación de las competencias genéricas. Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao • Watts F, Marin-Garcia JA, Garcia-Carbonell A, Aznar-Mas LE (2012) Validation of a rubric to assess innovation competence. Working Papers on Operations Management 3: 61-70.

37. References • Jarvis C-B, MacKenzie S-B, Podsakoff P-M (2003) A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 30: 199-218. • Lehto A, Kairisto-Mertanene L, Penttilä T (2011) Towards innovation pedagogy. A new ap-proach to teaching and learning for universities of applied sciences. Turku University of Apl-lied Sciences, Turku • Marin-Garcia JA, Aznar-Mas LE, González-Ladrón-de-Gevara F (2011) Innovation types and talent managment for innovation. Working Papers on Operations Management 2: 25-31. • Marin-Garcia JA, Marin-Garcia T, Perello-Marin MR, Garcia-Sabater JJ (2010) Selección de plataformas para el trabajocolaborativoengruposdeslocalizados: formulación del problema. Working Papers on Operations Management 1: 41-45. • Marin-Garcia T, Martín Andrés JJ, Villar Pérez R (2011) Emergenciascolectivas. Mapa de vínculos de actividadesartísticas (autogestionadas) en la ComunidadValenciana (2001-2011). Archivo de Arte Valenciano XCII: 505-524. • Mulder M, Lans T, Verstegen J, Biemans H, Meijer Y (2007) Competence development of en-trepreneurs in innovative horticulture. Journal of Workplace Learning 19: 32-44. • Penttilä T,.Kairisto-Mertanene L (2012) Innovation competence barometer ICB - a tool for as-sessing students' innovation competences as learning outcomes in higher education. In INTED2012 Conference. 5th-7th March 2012., Valencia, Spain. • Petter S, Straub D, Rai A (2007) Specifying formative constructs in information systems re-search. Mis Quarterly 31: 623-656. • Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A (2005) SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). available at http://www.smartpls.de. SmartPLS. Hamburg, Germany. • Waychal P, Mohanty RP, Verma A (2011) Determinants of innovation as a competence: An em-pirical study. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research 5: 192-211.