[Sigia-l] Not All Innovations Are Equal?

[Pradyot Rai]

On 12/7/05, Listera <listera at rcn.com> wrote:

> Incidentally, how exactly do you feel about the title of (ready for this?)
> Chief Innovation Officer:
>
> <http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_570_11571,00.html>

Wow, I am impressed. This is good one.

Actually, AMD/Intel topic is favourite in strategy books. Intel by
their strategy have errected such as high entry barrier for AMD that
they were playing catch up game all through. Intel is an innovator to
engage them in catup game. It is surprising that AMD realized it so
late that they have to have innovation instutionalized. But it is not
too late. All AMD needs is to change the game, and stop following
Intel, and that needs innovation.

> Can/should this be formalized/institutionalized at that level?

Why not? We have seen Strategy successfully instutionalize?

I am not sure when AMD introduced this first time, but that surely
reflects problems with "innovate as a last resort" theory, although, I
am not sure if they ever deliberately tried that.

Look at Billy Edwards's resume. He was Strategy Chief earlier. AMD has
probably realized the problem with strategy. This is my theory --
strategy can guide you vaugly towards a direction, especially in the
industry run by Moore's law. At many instances, such as this one,
strategy is nothing but seeking innovation. Cost based leadership,
differentiation, organization fit (all those buzzwords) nothing worked
for them. Here they can take leadership position by innovation only.
If you serve the existing market, then you are playing in somebody
elses hand (in this case Intel).

In fact, I would say all those big American firms which relied heavily
on marketing for global dominance should embrace innovation as the
first step. The recent example being GM (vs. Toyota/Honda) or
Delta/United (Vs. Southwest). These are some of the example which
compels you to think about innovation, even to survive.

My 2 cents,
Prady