US weekly magazine BusinessWeek
teamed up with The Boston Consulting Group to produce
the second annual ranking of the world's 100 most
innovative companies. More than 1,000 senior managers
responded to the global survey, making it the deepest
management survey to date on this critical issue.
The new ranking has companies involved in all types of
innovation; technology innovators, such as BlackBerry
maker and newcomer Research In Motion Ltd., which makes
its debut on the list at No. 24; business model
innovators, such as No. 11 Virgin Group Ltd., which
applies its hip lifestyle brand to ho-hum operations
such as airlines, financial services, and even health
insurance and, process innovators such as Southwest
Airlines Co. at No. 25.
Apple Computer Inc. heads the
rankings.
BusinessWeek
reports innovation consultant Larry Keeley of Doblin
Inc., as saying that Apple used no fewer than seven
types of innovation. They included networking (a novel
agreement among music companies to sell their songs
online), business model (songs sold for a 99 cents each
online), and branding (how cool are those white ear buds
and wires?).
Consumers
love the ease and feel of the iPod, but it is the
simplicity of the iTunes software platform that turned a
great MP3 player into a revenue-gushing phenomenon.
 |
Ireland's Ryanair gets a
12th place rank from European respondents and 33rd
ranking overall.
The BusinessWeek-BCG survey also focuses on the
major obstacles to innovation that executives face
today. While 72% of the senior executives in the survey
named innovation as one of their top three priorities,
almost half said they were dissatisfied with the returns
on their investments in that area.
BusinessWeek
reports that the No. 1 obstacle, according to the survey
takers, is slow development times. Fast-changing
consumer demands, global outsourcing, and open-source
software make speed to market paramount today. Yet
companies often can't organize themselves to move
faster, says George Stalk Jr., a senior vice-president
with BCG who has studied time-based competition for 25
years. Fast cycle times require taking bets even when
huge payoffs aren't a certainty. "Some organizations are
nearly immobilized by the notion that [they] can't do
anything unless it moves the needle," says Stalk. In
addition, he says, speed requires coordination from the
hub: "Fast innovators organize the corporate center to
drive growth. They don't wait for [it] to come up
through the business units."
A lack of coordination is the second-biggest barrier to
innovation, according to the survey's findings. But
collaboration requires much more than paying lip service
to breaking down silos. The best innovators reroute
reporting lines and create physical spaces for
collaboration. They team up people from across the org
chart and link rewards to innovation. Innovative
companies build innovation cultures. "You have to be
willing to get down into the plumbing of the
organization and align the nervous system of the
company," says James P. Andrew, who heads the innovation
practice at BCG.
BusinessWeek
says that
Procter & Gamble Co. PG (No. 7) has done
just that in transforming its traditional in-house
research and development process into an open-source
innovation strategy it calls "connect and develop." The
new method? Embrace the collective brains of the world.
Make it a goal that 50% of the company's new products
come from outside P&G's labs. Tap networks of inventors,
scientists, and suppliers for new products that can be
developed in-house.
The magazine says that the radically different approach
couldn't be shoehorned into managers' existing
responsibilities. Rather, P&G had to tear apart and
restitch much of its research organization. It created
new job classifications, such as 70 worldwide
"technology entrepreneurs," or TEs, who act as scouts,
looking for the latest breakthroughs from places such as
university labs. TEs also develop "technology game
boards" that map out where technology opportunities lie
and help P&Gers get inside the minds of its competitors.
BusinessWeek says that
India and China are growing sources of
innovation for companies, too. The BusinessWeek-BCG
survey shows that they are nearly as popular as Europe
among innovation-focused executives. When asked where
their company planned to increase R&D spending, 44%
answered India, 44% said China, and 48% said Western
Europe. Managers tended to look to the U.S. and Canada
for idea generation, while a lower percentage looked to
Europe for the same tasks. India and China, though, are
still seen as centers for product development.
THE WORLD'S
MOST INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
|
2006 Rank |
Company |
Margin Growth
1995-2005
% |
Stock Returns
1995-2005
% |
| 1 |
Apple |
7.1 |
24.6
|
|
2 |
Google |
NA** |
NA**
|
|
3 |
3M |
3.4 |
11.2
|
|
4 |
Toyota |
10.7 |
11.8
|
|
5 |
Microsoft |
2.0 |
18.5
|
|
6 |
General Electric |
5.7 |
13.4
|
|
7 |
Procter & Gamble |
4.4 |
12.6
|
|
8 |
Nokia |
0.0 |
34.6
|
|
9 |
Starbucks |
2.2 |
27.6
|
|
10 |
IBM |
-0.7 |
14.4
|
|
11 |
Virgin |
NA** |
NA**
|
|
12 |
Samsung |
-4.5*** |
22.7
|
|
13 |
Sony |
-11.0 |
5.1
|
|
14 |
Dell |
2.0 |
39.4
|
|
15 |
IDEO |
NA** |
NA**
|
|
16 |
BMW |
9.1 |
14.2
|
|
17 |
Intel |
-0.3 |
13.8
|
|
18 |
eBay |
13.0*** |
NA**
|
|
19 |
IKEA |
NA** |
NA**
|
|
20 |
Wal-Mart |
1.9 |
16.2
|
|
21 |
Amazon |
25.0*** |
NA**
|
|
22 |
Target |
7.4 |
25.2
|
|
23 |
Honda |
8.0 |
12.9
|
|
24 |
Research In Motion |
57.0*** |
NA**
|
|
25 |
Southwest |
-0.1 |
13.9
|
|
26 |
Porsche |
NA** |
33.1
|
|
27 |
Genentech |
5.7 |
29.3
|
|
28 |
Cisco |
-2.2 |
15.2
|
|
29 |
Nike |
0.0 |
10.7
|
|
30 |
Motorola |
0.7 |
3.8
|
|
31 |
DaimlerChrysler |
4.8*** |
-1.8
|
|
32 |
Infosys |
3.0*** |
73.6
|
|
33 |
Ryanair |
2.7 |
28.4
|
|
34 |
Pixar |
24.2 |
13.8
|
|
35 |
SonyEricsson |
NA** |
NA**
|
|
36 |
Whole Foods |
4.1 |
36.6
|
|
37 |
Capital One |
-2.1 |
27.4
|
|
38 |
Tesco |
-0.3 |
16.2
|
|
39 |
Danone |
4.7 |
13.3
|
|
40 |
BP |
-0.2 |
12.3
|
|
41 |
PepsiCo |
4.9 |
10.2
|
|
42 |
Hewlett Packard |
-6.6 |
7.1
|
|
43 |
Disney |
-3.7 |
2.9
|
|
44 |
jetBlue |
NA** |
0.9
|
|
45 |
W.L. Gore & Associates |
NA** |
NA**
|
|
46 |
Skype Technologies |
NA** |
NA**
|
|
47 |
FedEx |
4.3 |
18.9
|
|
48 |
Bang & Olufsen |
2.4 |
16.3
|
|
49 |
Renault |
23.7 |
14.8
|
|
50 |
L'Oreal |
2.3 |
14.2
|
|
51 |
ExxonMobil |
5.8 |
13.6
|
|
52 |
Siemens |
2.0*** |
12.6
|
|
53 |
Johnson & Johnson |
3.6 |
12.6
|
|
54 |
Shell |
2.4 |
11.0
|
|
55 |
Pfizer |
1.8 |
9.9
|
|
56 |
Singapore Airlines |
-5.8 |
7.7
|
|
57 |
Nissan |
30.2 |
5.4
|
|
58 |
DuPont |
-1.8 |
4.9
|
|
59 |
Zara |
NA** |
NA**
|
|
60 |
TiVo |
NA** |
-24.6
|
|
61 |
Yahoo! |
NA** |
42.9
|
|
62 |
Macquarie Bank |
NA** |
35.0
|
|
63 |
Audi |
9.2 |
30.1
|
|
64 |
Harley Davidson |
7.1 |
22.3
|
|
65 |
Progressive Insur |
1.1 |
22.0
|
|
66 |
Volvo |
-2.7 |
17.1
|
|
67 |
Philips Electronics |
3*** |
16.2
|
|
68 |
ING
Bank |
3.0 |
15.7
|
|
69 |
Nestle |
1.2*** |
13.9
|
|
70 |
Boeing |
0.1 |
7.6
|
|
71 |
Matsushita Electric Industrial |
-1.4 |
3.9
|
|
72 |
easyJet |
0.0*** |
3.7
|
|
73 |
UPS |
3.4 |
3.6
|
|
74 |
Coca-Cola |
1.3 |
2.4
|
|
75 |
Cirque du Soleil (tied) |
NA** |
NA**
|
|
75 |
McKinsey (tied) |
NA** |
NA**
|
|
75 |
Woolworths (tied) |
5.6*** |
NA**
|
|
78 |
Hutchison Telecommunications |
NA** |
88.1
|
|
79 |
Salesforce.com |
NA** |
58.4
|
|
80 |
ACS |
NA** |
35.1
|
|
81 |
ITC |
NA** |
25.4
|
|
82 |
Time Warner |
8.1 |
22.3
|
|
83 |
Danaher |
2.7 |
21.7
|
|
84 |
Costco Wholesale |
1.7 |
20.7
|
|
85 |
LG
Electronics |
NA** |
19.1
|
|
86 |
bankinter |
NA** |
18.3
|
|
87 |
Amgen |
-0.3 |
18.2
|
|
88 |
Caterpillar |
0.3 |
17.5
|
|
89 |
Accenture |
NA** |
16.3
|
|
90 |
SAP |
1.3 |
15.7
|
|
91 |
SK
Telecom |
1.5 |
15.7
|
|
92 |
Home Depot |
4.3 |
14.9
|
|
93 |
LVMH |
-2.6*** |
12.3
|
|
94 |
Gap |
-1.7 |
11.6
|
|
95 |
Unilever |
5.0*** |
11.2
|
|
96 |
Goldman Sachs |
-4.9*** |
10.9
|
|
97 |
John Deere & Co. |
-1.1 |
8.9
|
|
98 |
Whirlpool |
2.0 |
7.2
|
|
99 |
Entel |
NA** |
6.2
|
|
100 |
McDonald's |
-2.4 |
5.2 |
Source: BusinessWeek April 24,
2006 Issue
*
Insufficient data
**
Based on fewer than 10 years of data
2006
RANK: In the 2006 rankings, ties were broken by
comparing 10-year annualized total shareholder
returns between 1995 and 2005. In ties between a
public and a private company, the public company was
favored.
MARGIN GROWTH: Annualized based on 1995-2005 fiscal
year earnings before interest and taxes as percent
of revenues.
STOCK
RETURNS: Annualized, Dec. 29, 1995 to Dec. 30, 2005,
price appreciation and dividends.
DATA:
Analysis and data provided in collaboration with the
innovation practice of The Boston Consulting Group.
Also, Standard & Poor’s Compustat® data and company
reports.