MKT520 Innovation Audit Report - Assignment Solution

Executive Summary 

Google Inc. has been providing more than 30 services to its users all across the globe. The company is a multinational corporate leader that has been facing innovation threats lately. However, with the development of an innovation framework based on the firm’s performance and capabilities, the innovative practices at the Google Inc. can be assessed. 

Google Inc. 

Google Inc. was established in 1998, merely as a search engine. Upon its inception, Google answered up to 10,000 queries everyday. Since then, it has grown into a multinational corporation leading the technology industry, responding to up to 200 million queries on a daily basis. Google is not only a search engine anymore, but is also providing its users with over 30 services. Google combines information from various services. This is done through the logging information and other Google cookies. As a result, records of users’ personal information is created by the company (Delichatsios & Sonuyi, 2005). 

Introduction to Innovation 

Changes in the economy can be observed through incremental innovations whereas the radical innovations bring about remarkable changes in the world (SCHUMPETER, 1934). Everybody knows the significance of innovation as a business phenomenon (MIDLER, BEAUME, & MANIAK R., 2012). Innovation not only triggers competition in the industry, but is also helpful in terms of motivating the employees to put up a better performance at work with every passing moment. By being innovative, companies get to meet the expectations of their customers, and also expand its workforce by creating skilled jobs. Economic growth can be understood through various socioeconomic approaches that are reconciled through innovation (LE MASSON, WEIL, & HATCHUEL, 2006). It is widely believed that the western industry could be saved through innovation (MIDLER, BEAUME, & MANIAK R., 2012). The concept of innovation evolved 30 years ago and has been defined, characterized and monitored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) through its Oslo Manual (OECD, 1992; OECD, 1997; OECD, 2005) 

The process technological innovation and the product innovation were mainly focused by the first two editions of the Oslo Manual, published in 1992 and 1997. Innovation can not only be triggered by technology. This concept of non-technological innovation was introduced in 1997. The third edition of the Oslo Manual published in 1995 classified the concept of innovation into four categories. These categories pertain to market, organizational, process and product innovation. Product innovation is not confined to technological support, but extends far beyond that dimension. 

A product may be a good or a service. There are a lot of products in the world that exists as services and have no technological structure. These could be the services related to training, information, goods, or people (HOWELLS, TETHER, & GALLOUJ, 2004). Innovation in services poses a lot of benefits to the society, hence, it is increasingly important. It must be noted that innovation does not depend entirely upon the technological developments. The existing technologies may also enable a company to innovate. This could be done through the development of new applications using the existing technologies. It could result in radical innovation. The Need-Seeker strategy is considered to be amongst the most effective innovation strategies (JARUZELSKI, STAACK, & GOEHLE, 2014; PÉLADEAU, ROMAC, & ROZEN, 2013). Agencies monitoring innovation all across the globe accentuate that the Need-Seeker strategy is rather effective for it anticipates the future needs and wants. Radical innovations are likely to be triggered through this strategy that focus on the uses of the products, and also on their functional attributes and qualities. Queries pertaining to innovation management have arisen through these developments. 

The earlier innovation models have showcased their limitations (FOREST, 2014). These were the models that encouraged the government and the firms to invest in research and development to bring about innovation. Despite the limitations of the earlier models of innovation, Europe has attached considerable importance to them. This could be explained by the Lisbon ranking or the calculation of the European Innovation Scoreboard (EUROPEAN UNION, 2016). Countries and organizations that have adequate sums to invest are favored; however, they may not be capable of producing effective results (EDQUIST & ZABALA-ITURRIAGAGOITIA, 2015). Deflationary innovation is a concept that is associated with the monetary value of innovation (NOAILLES-SIMÉON, 2016). Economic models and frameworks can be developed within the digital sector with no marginal costs as such, creating value for the society. However, the owner of technology is not able to enjoy substantial benefits from these frameworks (NOAILLES-SIMÉON, 2016; NOAILLES-SIMÉON & CHAMBAUD, L’innovation – Valeur, économie, gestion, 2008). Consequently, the companies in the present world are left in a situation in which they are unable to support themselves by relying on technological or the monetary economic approach to innovation. As a result, they rethink their innovation strategy. This involves the appointment of the optimal number of employees in innovation management.